Thread: Women's Ordination and "Equivalence of Opportunities" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028614
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on
:
I am not claiming that one must believe that if God has prevented women from ever having a certain role in society and/or the Church, He must have provided them with a role of equal dignity and worth that men, in turn, cannot fill. However, it would make the teaching that the Church has no authority to ordain women (or other phrasings of the prohibition of the OoW used in other denominations that prohibit it) easier to explain if we could write a list of all the opportunities that only men can have and those only women could have and see that one list was not longer than the other. Even in many large denominations that do not allow the OoW (Ordination of Women), these lists of roles exclusive to men and those exclusive to women would, I would hope, not be very long. Note that these lists are only of limitations in roles of the sexes that the list-maker (someone trying to explain the prohibition of the OoW) was saying were set by Church teaching. Let me provide sample lists:
Roles only for men: father, husband (other family relations could be named), religious brother (including monks), ordained minister
Roles only for women: mother, wife (other family relations, etc., etc.), religious sister (including nuns)
(I will not differentiate between bishops, priests, and deacons here although I know that in some denominations people say that women may never ever be ordained a priest or bishop but do not have as definitive an answer (yet) as to the absolute possibility/impossibility of the ordination of female deacons (or whether deaconesses were in fact ordained deacons).)
I think that, no matter how many different lists of sex-specific roles you could make, if you are explaining that women cannot be ordained the list of roles only for men would be longer than that for women. A critic would be inclined to ask why this is, especially in those Christian traditions that allow ordained ministers (such as bishops or the Pope) to have the final word on disputes concerning both the doctrine (which is not decided by humans but revealed by God, but humans still have to determine what it is that God has revealed) and discipline of the Church. Possible explanations that the explainer of the prohibition of the OoW could give are:
-Some roles only for women (like motherhood) are so expansive and important that they make up from women's exclusion from being ordained. (This would, I think, entail arguing that human motherhood is somehow more expansive or important than human fatherhood. I do not know how to make this argument.)
-The Blessed Virgin Mary, who was not ordained, had unique role in the Church during her life spent on Earth and although no other human can have all the unique attributes of the BVM, women can be more like her than men (I do not know how to make that argument either. This argument, for obvious reasons, would not work in certain denominations.)
People can point out that lists of sex-specific roles do not give definitive proof of any flaw in the argument that women cannot be ordained. Some proponents of women's ordination deny that there are any roles that God has designated as only for men or only for women. As flawed as this discussion topic is, I would like to hear people's thoughts about it.
I will end this post with an admission that I am Roman Catholic and I have read that RC's cannot even discuss women's ordination as a possibility without putting themselves out of full communion with the Church. Please let the discussion of whether I am sinning in conducting a discussion of the topic in this forum be between me and a confessor. Thank you.
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
If i was gonna sin, I'd want something more naughty - more enjoyable !
But I came on to say, what about / don't forget
male sea-horses ?
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I am fascinated that the Vatican is so terrified of the OOW that it has declared it sinful even to discuss it.
Then again, as an Anglican, I don;'t tend to discuss the issue any more because I have worked alongside women priests for 20 years or more.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
Were you living/working abroad before 1994 then?
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am fascinated that the Vatican is so terrified of the OOW that it has declared it sinful even to discuss it.
Define sin. The late pope just said, that that was enough talking about it in public, because nothing was going to change. But many still talk about it, Just not in public.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Were you living/working abroad before 1994 then?
What? 20 years ago was 1991 when we had our first woman vicar.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I am fascinated that the Vatican is so terrified of the OOW that it has declared it sinful even to discuss it.
Define sin. The late pope just said, that that was enough talking about it in public, because nothing was going to change. But many still talk about it, Just not in public.
The RCC seems to want to define 'sin'.
Things have changed in mainstream churches other than the RCC, who seems to want to be a fossil.
The idea that you cannot/must not discuss something in public seems like the Soviet Union in days of yore.
For all that I have been tempted to go over to Rome, this sort of issue reminds me why my freedom in Christ is of more value than joining the politburo.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Were you living/working abroad before 1994 then?
What? 20 years ago was 1991 when we had our first woman vicar.
How did that work then? Legislation allowing women to be priested wasn't passed until 1992 and it was 1994 before the first women were ordained as priests.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Our woman incumbent (goes with the job of senior university chaplain) was a deacon then and was ordained priest in the first batch in 94.
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
So she wasn't a priest 20+ years ago then
Posted by crynwrcymraeg (# 13018) on
:
Fwiw :--
Florence Li Tim Oi was Ordained Priest during world war 2, in the diocese of Hong Kong and Macao.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Spike:
Were you living/working abroad before 1994 then?
What? 20 years ago was 1991 when we had our first woman vicar.
How did that work then? Legislation allowing women to be priested wasn't passed until 1992 and it was 1994 before the first women were ordained as priests.
I was in Houston, Texas lying on a hotel bed in 1990 or 1991 when the news came ofg the radio that George Carey was to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. And I remember saying out loud to myself something like "So we are going to have women priests then". Because it then seemed entirely inevitable. (And a good thing too as far as I was concerned)
Posted by Mockingbird (# 5818) on
:
This might be on point. It certainly is funny.
Reasons why men shouldn't be ordained.
Here are some excerpts:
10. A man's place is in the army.
5. Some men are handsome; they will distract women worshippers.
3. Men are more prone to violence than women. No really manly man wants to settle disputes by any means other than by fighting about it. This would make them poor role models, as well as unstable leaders.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
The most straightforward explanation is that God believes in hierarchical gender relations and that modern trends towards legal gender equality (women's suffrage, woman office holders, etc.) is contrary to the lives lived by the bronze age pastoralists in the Bible that God thinks we should emulate.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The most straightforward explanation is that God believes in hierarchical gender relations and that modern trends towards legal gender equality (women's suffrage, woman office holders, etc.) is contrary to the lives lived by the bronze age pastoralists in the Bible that God thinks we should emulate.
That's pretty much the explanation my "conservative" friends speak - Christian or non. In the extreme (to me) the claim is woman is a subordinate being, less competent in every way than a man.
Some Christians are not convinced women are less competent, but believe God "ordained" that women should take a subordinate role. Theories range from "Eve was made to be a helper for Adam" to "Eve was deceived and caused all this mess which proves women are not to be trusted" to "Jesus chose only male, Jewish, Aramaic speaking, early adult, physically healthy people to be apostles, the only significant feature was their maleness, so that proves only males can be in high spiritual positions" to "Jesus was a male, that proves males are superior to females." (If you figure God likes to use "the least of these," it's an argument that males are inferior, but we won't go there, tee hee.)
i.e. those who believe in male-only roles do NOT believe there is, should be, or can be an equally long list of roles for women.
To me that makes the claim that women (although limited just because they are female) are just as much respected and valued as men sound bogus.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
That's pretty much the explanation my "conservative" friends speak - Christian or non. In the extreme (to me) the claim is woman is a subordinate being, less competent in every way than a man.
Some Christians are not convinced women are less competent, but believe God "ordained" that women should take a subordinate role. Theories range from "Eve was made to be a helper for Adam" to "Eve was deceived and caused all this mess which proves women are not to be trusted" to "Jesus chose only male, Jewish, Aramaic speaking, early adult, physically healthy people to be apostles, the only significant feature was their maleness, so that proves only males can be in high spiritual positions" to "Jesus was a male, that proves males are superior to females." (If you figure God likes to use "the least of these," it's an argument that males are inferior, but we won't go there, tee hee.)
i.e. those who believe in male-only roles do NOT believe there is, should be, or can be an equally long list of roles for women.
To me that makes the claim that women (although limited just because they are female) are just as much respected and valued as men sound bogus.
He he of course there are also the passages to be quoted as back-up where Paul says that women should ask their husbands to explain it all to them at home, and not speak at all in church, and the one where Peter's mother-in-law could return to her job of administering to the men once she had been healed.......
Seriously though, it's deeper than all this, isn't it? It's not about lists of jobs one can or cannot do. It's about whether the administration of the sacraments 'works' or not.
What priests can do, and nobody else can, is administer the sacraments within which God, by grace, bestows blessings. Those who sincerely believe that God would not call a woman into priesthood think that they will not receive God's blessings. Surely people know whether or not they have received God's blessings: if those with female priests were not receiving them, wouldn't they be saying so? If a male priest were in post who had not been called by God into priesthood, the situation would be the same.
I'm not sure about the whole concept of people trying to manipulate and predict when and in what circumstances God will bestow blessings. Everyone may invite them, and it's for God to give them as and when he (or she) pleases.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely people know whether or not they have received God's blessings: if those with female priests were not receiving them, wouldn't they be saying so?
No - this is just it. I was taught that a Sacrament was an outward sign of an inward grace. The outward sign (the physical elements) you can see. But the inward Grace, you cannot see.
So you could be receiving what you think is Holy Communion for years, but it could be that it is not administered according to the Faith once received, and be ineffectual. How would you know?
[ 19. May 2012, 17:20: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely people know whether or not they have received God's blessings: if those with female priests were not receiving them, wouldn't they be saying so?
No - this is just it. I was taught that a Sacrament was an outward sign of an inward grace. The outward sign (the physical elements) you can see. But the inward Grace, you cannot see.
So you could be receiving what you think is Holy Communion for years, but it could be that it is not administered according to the Faith once received, and be ineffectual. How would you know?
What difference would that make? Serious question.
Would it make a difference to your salvation? Are you 'less saved' than one who has been receiving valid sacraments?
Would it make a difference to your happiness? Would you be less at peace with yourself and with God?
Would it make a difference to your state of grace?
Does God give less grace to those who have communicated invalidly than to those who have communicated validly? If so, how is such 'less grace' manifested?
So I throw the question back to you: if the sacrament is ineffectual, how would you know?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely people know whether or not they have received God's blessings: if those with female priests were not receiving them, wouldn't they be saying so?
No - this is just it. I was taught that a Sacrament was an outward sign of an inward grace. The outward sign (the physical elements) you can see. But the inward Grace, you cannot see.
So you could be receiving what you think is Holy Communion for years, but it could be that it is not administered according to the Faith once received, and be ineffectual. How would you know?
Because the 39 articles state that the effectiveness of the communion is independent of the administrator.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
No - this is just it. I was taught that a Sacrament was an outward sign of an inward grace. The outward sign (the physical elements) you can see. But the inward Grace, you cannot see.
So you could be receiving what you think is Holy Communion for years, but it could be that it is not administered according to the Faith once received, and be ineffectual. How would you know?
You surely know whether or not you are blessed, as you will be growing in faith until you are mature and producing the fruit of the spirit.
Of course, this requires our reception, response and co-operation, and God's grace which should never be considered predictable as that might imply that we could control and harness God's power.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
What difference would that make? Serious question.
Would it make a difference to your salvation? Are you 'less saved' than one who has been receiving valid sacraments?
None of us are "saved" (past tense) while we are still in this transitory life - the correct term is "being saved" - and yes, it does make a difference if we are not receiving the body and blood of Christ.
quote:
Would it make a difference to your happiness?
I don't know.
quote:
Would you be less at peace with yourself and with God?
If these are nothing more than feelings, then it makes no difference.
quote:
Would it make a difference to your state of grace?
Yes
quote:
Does God give less grace to those who have communicated invalidly than to those who have communicated validly? If so, how is such 'less grace' manifested?
Honestly, we don't know - but there is a risk if you are disobedient
quote:
So I throw the question back to you: if the sacrament is ineffectual, how would you know?
If you are just counting on experience as your measuring stick, then the answer is simple - you don't!
But a far better measuring stick than "experience" would be if we could see the person we are becoming. Growing in Grace = becoming more Christ-like.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because the 39 articles state that the effectiveness of the communion is independent of the administrator.
Aha - this is the first time I've ever asked this question, but... what Authority do the 39 articles have?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
You surely know whether or not you are blessed, as you will be growing in faith until you are mature and producing the fruit of the spirit.
Of course, this requires our reception, response and co-operation, and God's grace which should never be considered predictable as that might imply that we could control and harness God's power.
I can agree with all this - the problem is that we are good at deceiving ourselves, so may not see our spiritual state as it really is.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
...Of course, this requires our reception, response and co-operation, and God's grace which should never be considered predictable as that might imply that we could control and harness God's power.
As an aside, you should tell that to Benny Hinn and Co!
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
You surely know whether or not you are blessed, as you will be growing in faith until you are mature and producing the fruit of the spirit.
Of course, this requires our reception, response and co-operation, and God's grace which should never be considered predictable as that might imply that we could control and harness God's power.
I can agree with all this - the problem is that we are good at deceiving ourselves, so may not see our spiritual state as it really is.
Agreed, which is why we must rely on each other in community and be honest with those who are called into spiritual direction, so that we may overcome any obstacles.
If it were the case that nobody was growing in faith when a female presided over the sacraments, this would have become apparent by now.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Surely people know whether or not they have received God's blessings: if those with female priests were not receiving them, wouldn't they be saying so?
No - this is just it. I was taught that a Sacrament was an outward sign of an inward grace. The outward sign (the physical elements) you can see. But the inward Grace, you cannot see.
So you could be receiving what you think is Holy Communion for years, but it could be that it is not administered according to the Faith once received, and be ineffectual. How would you know?
Because the 39 articles state that the effectiveness of the communion is independent of the administrator.
That is a serious misquotation. For a start, it says nothing about an 'administrator'. It talks of a 'minister'.
It does not use the word 'independent'.
As for the later question about who takes the articles seriously, I do. I have sworn a canonical oath along with all other ministers.
Doesn't mean I agree with them. Simply states that I acknowledge their existence as 'historic formularies.' Rather like i acknowledge that Aunt Maude is part of my family tree, even though i didn't like her.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because the 39 articles state that the effectiveness of the communion is independent of the administrator.
That is a serious misquotation. For a start, it says nothing about an 'administrator'. It talks of a 'minister'.
It does not use the word 'independent'.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Well excuse me for not quoting Article 26 in its full Elizabethan glory. The unworthiness of the minister does not hinder the effect of the Sacrament - which is exactly what I said.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Because the 39 articles state that the effectiveness of the communion is independent of the administrator.
That is a serious misquotation. For a start, it says nothing about an 'administrator'. It talks of a 'minister'.
It does not use the word 'independent'.
Well excuse me for not quoting Article 26 in its full Elizabethan glory. The unworthiness of the minister does not hinder the effect of the Sacrament - which is exactly what I said.
No it isn't. You said: quote:
Because the 39 articles state that the effectiveness of the communion is independent of the administrator.
That is Sydney-speak and quite un Anglican.
[ 19. May 2012, 20:26: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Agreed, which is why we must rely on each other in community and be honest with those who are called into spiritual direction, so that we may overcome any obstacles.
You mean, like, "sharing our burdens?..." now we are getting somewhere! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
If it were the case that nobody was growing in faith when a female presided over the sacraments, this would have become apparent by now.
Well, we're talking about two different things here. I don't think there is a reliable "scientific" test which could prove it one way or the other. In any case, I prefer talking about the fundamentals of christianity - although we have to deal with more uncomfortable questions (like OOW) at some point...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That is Sydney-speak and quite un Anglican.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
I've been through the BCP, Rite A, ASB and Common Worship. The word 'minister' is interchangeable for a lot of other words in the CofE. As are various words used to describe 'Holy Communion'.
By insisting on one form of wording, you are being un Anglican. But enough of this tangent. I've answered Mark's question.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
...As for the later question about who takes the articles seriously, I do. I have sworn a canonical oath along with all other ministers.
Doesn't mean I agree with them. Simply states that I acknowledge their existence as 'historic formularies.' Rather like i acknowledge that Aunt Maude is part of my family tree, even though i didn't like her.
I'm not sure who asked about taking the articles seriously, but I asked what Authority they have - and I mean in the sense of Holy Tradition.
I used to take the Articles seriously (which is more than can be said for some!) but since converting I feel I can (and should) ask that question. Maybe they are at least partially based on "historic formularies", but they are not the real thing - they are a "reformed" version.
I liked your "Aunt Maude" analogy - come on though, I'm sure she wasn't that bad!
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If it were the case that nobody was growing in faith when a female presided over the sacraments, this would have become apparent by now.
Well, we're talking about two different things here. I don't think there is a reliable "scientific" test which could prove it one way or the other. In any case, I prefer talking about the fundamentals of christianity - although we have to deal with more uncomfortable questions (like OOW) at some point...
We surely don't need a scientific test to observe whether or not people are becoming more Christ-like and more loving, patient, kind, gentle, self-controlled, etc.
This issue is inextricably linked with women's ordination. If, as some believe, the sacraments are invalid when a woman presides over them, those they minister to will not grow in faith.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Agreed, which is why we must rely on each other in community and be honest with those who are called into spiritual direction, so that we may overcome any obstacles.
If it were the case that nobody was growing in faith when a female presided over the sacraments, this would have become apparent by now. [/QB]
So, if a woman is "called into spiritual direction", we have to be honest and say:
"Sorry, honey, you just don't understand"
"But women don't have the right parts to have spiritual sense"
"You're making me uncomfortable because I am going to have to think about something you said"
Just how honest are you going to be, and how much fun will the rest of the congregation have as you are told more precisely where to go?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So, if a woman is "called into spiritual direction", we have to be honest and say:
"Sorry, honey, you just don't understand"
"But women don't have the right parts to have spiritual sense"
"You're making me uncomfortable because I am going to have to think about something you said"
Just how honest are you going to be, and how much fun will the rest of the congregation have as you are told more precisely where to go?
Funny but not so funny. Honesty is of paramount importance, there's no point otherwise. And if a spiritual director were patronising and unkind, he or she would be demonstrating a lack of calling to it.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If, as some believe, the sacraments are invalid when a woman presides over them, those they minister to will not grow in faith.
Just one final point for tonight (it's quite important):
What you said above isn't quite right. Some (including me) believe the sacraments may not be valid (not "will not") when a woman presides, thus there is a risk that they may not benefit from the same. Even then, it still doesn't mean they will not grow in Grace in other ways.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Just one final point for tonight (it's quite important):
What you said above isn't quite right. Some (including me) believe the sacraments may not be valid (not "will not") when a woman presides, thus there is a risk that they may not benefit from the same. Even then, it still doesn't mean they will not grow in Grace in other ways.
If there is a possibility that God's grace will be given if a woman presides, and there is no certainty that it will be given when a man presides, this is surely not sufficient grounds for turning away from priesthood a woman who has been called to it.
The risk that God's grace will not be received must be ever present.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
So, if a woman is "called into spiritual direction", we have to be honest and say:
"Sorry, honey, you just don't understand"
"But women don't have the right parts to have spiritual sense"
"You're making me uncomfortable because I am going to have to think about something you said"
Just how honest are you going to be, and how much fun will the rest of the congregation have as you are told more precisely where to go?
You can have your women priests (and bishops) if you want them - it's your choice and your risk. I just don't think people of your persuasion should impose them on others who don't feel the same way.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Just one final point for tonight (it's quite important):
What you said above isn't quite right. Some (including me) believe the sacraments may not be valid (not "will not") when a woman presides, thus there is a risk that they may not benefit from the same. Even then, it still doesn't mean they will not grow in Grace in other ways.
If there is a possibility that God's grace will be given if a woman presides, and there is no certainty that it will be given when a man presides, this is surely not sufficient grounds for turning away from priesthood a woman who has been called to it.
The risk that God's grace will not be received must be ever present.
But more so if you willfully ignore/disobey/change the Faith once delivered to the Saints.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
MB: But there are quite a lot of people whose viewpoints on Chritianity have changed since the last Ecumenical Council (AD 850 or so).
Said Ecumenical Council made some shanges in the way Orthodoxy was done, so they have also changed from the times of the Saints and the Fathers.
One might also question the use of Russian during service, since that is clearly an innovation.
The RC church has had quite significant changes since 850, without going into the whole Protestant Reformation. Is there any particular reason we who are not Orthodox must act in the spirit of 850? And is there any particular reason that no changes can ever happen?
Given cheap energy and the consequent loss of slavery, not to mention telecommunication as a means of making us quite aware that there are different ways of doing things among various human groups, it would be rather odd if that one part of humanity dealing with how churches see things didn't change in some way.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But more so if you willfully ignore/disobey/change the Faith once delivered to the Saints.
I don't understand why you think that our Lord told the apostles that women couldn't be called by God to be priests? You do know that Peter and Paul didn't agree on everything, particularly in relation to matters concerning the instruction of the new followers of Christ. Does this mean that they didn't share the same faith, or that one was trying to change it?
The Holy Spirit guides us now, and while this must be strictly discerned and should not transgress the spirit of the law and teaching of Christ, nobody should stand in the way of what someone is called to do in the service of God on the grounds of 'it isn't what we've always done'. Jesus very clearly threw this out.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
You can have your women priests (and bishops) if you want them - it's your choice and your risk.
Risk of what? I'm serious.
I'm really bothered by the claim the "sacraments" are ever so important, because that means the important is not available to those most in need -- soldiers on a battlefield, prisoners in prison camp, explorers lost in the wilderness, the sick, old, depressed, disabled, bedridden, isolated, those with phobia about leaving the house, those allergic to both modern wheat and alcohol.
Only the pretty people - young and healthy and city dwellers - get this ever so important help from God. God isn't really everywhere, only in the few places where there's a "priest."
If some specific aspect of God is critically important, God surely would make it easily accessible by all. Just a prayer away.
Funny thing about claims there are effects no one EVER can see, taste, try out, experience, point to, but must solely rely on an abstract theory handed down -- Jesus wasn't like that! He was real, practical. "Taste and see that the Lord is good" has been turned into "don't expect to taste anything or see anything."
By their fruits you shall know them. I suppose some are saying the fruits are things only God can see, but then why are WE told to know people by their fruits? What fruit are the (sorry to raise the topic again but isn't it an obvious example?) small percentage of career priests abusing children showing? How did it matter that they were receiving Eucharist daily? Are they better off spiritually than a single Mom who works 3 jobs and never can get to a mass because masses aren't offered the hours she's off work?!
Risk of WHAT! I'm not seeing that Eucharist or no Eucharist makes any difference in people's lives, so thinking it does might be going about the whole thing backwards somehow, depending on a "priest" to do God to you, instead of learning to see God in and through ALL people.
Posted by Masha (# 10098) on
:
quote:
Belle Ringer: I'm really bothered by the claim the "sacraments" are ever so important, because that means the important is not available to those most in need -- soldiers on a battlefield, prisoners in prison camp, explorers lost in the wilderness, the sick, old, depressed, disabled, bedridden, isolated, those with phobia about leaving the house, those allergic to both modern wheat and alcohol.
Armed Forces have a Padre. Prisoners in prison have a chaplain or two, every sacramental church I've ever come across takes Communion to anyone sick, old, depressed, bedridden, disabled, isolated and agoraphobic. We have gluten free wafers and non-alcoholic wine available.
If you get lost in the jungle or imprisoned and denied access to what's important to your faith then I believe God can and will meet you anyway.
But I'm at the Eucharist as often as I can be.
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Masha:
quote:
Belle Ringer: I'm really bothered by the claim the "sacraments" are ever so important, because that means the important is not available to those most in need -- soldiers on a battlefield, prisoners in prison camp, explorers lost in the wilderness, the sick, old, depressed, disabled, bedridden, isolated, those with phobia about leaving the house, those allergic to both modern wheat and alcohol.
Armed Forces have a Padre. Prisoners in prison have a chaplain or two, every sacramental church I've ever come across takes Communion to anyone sick, old, depressed, bedridden, disabled, isolated and agoraphobic. We have gluten free wafers and non-alcoholic wine available.
And we periodically have threads about our elderly NOT being contacted once they become too old to get themselves to the church building, or move away to a place where they have no history with the local church.
I once lived in a town that had no church of any kind! There are plenty of those around the world.
SOME sick, elderly, prisoners, soldiers, get visited, most don't.
Posted by Masha (# 10098) on
:
I get that but that's OUR problem to sort out. It doesn't mean there's anything 'wrong' with the sacraments, or with the idea of priesthood, it just means we need to work it out better.
I missed the edit window but wanted to add this:
I think God would be delighted with that single mom working hard for her children.
Last I checked, despite what some may imply, God was not an unreasonable bastard.
I hope God is pleased with every effort to please him and every person's wandering in his direction. For some the sacraments are not possible every week, or for much of the time. I don't think God takes marks away like some kind of obnoxious schoolteacher. I think they are his offering in love to us rather than an exam we have to sit every week.
At least that's how the Eucharist feels to me.
[ 20. May 2012, 19:31: Message edited by: Masha ]
Posted by Masha (# 10098) on
:
In fact, come to think of it, that should be the spur to MAKE us think about those who can't get there.
We should ensure that 'the church' visits and takes Communion out to them. Not because it's a 'nice' thing to do, but because it IS important.
We. Us. The church. If this is God's gift to us all then we need to be proactive in offering it.
Again, that's down to people organisation rather than an issue with sacraments themselves.
Though this may not be much of an argument in non-sacramental traditions!
[ 20. May 2012, 19:37: Message edited by: Masha ]
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Of course, as well as Holy Communion, there is also the sacrament of holy baptism. Might this not 'work' if the 'wrong' person presides - or marriage, etc seen as sacraments too by some..... ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
ISTM that as soon as we start to try to control God, we're in trouble!
Posted by Masha (# 10098) on
:
I'd agree with that Raptor Eye!
As soon as we start to try to control God we should just laugh at ourselves and slap ourselves hard.
Within my tradition it's the priest's role, and I agree with that. That's why I'm Anglican.
I don't actually believe that non-conformist baptisms are invalid and I don't know anyone who does.
Sorry, just realised this is a total tangent. Apologies if I've continued something I should have left alone in BR's post. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 20. May 2012, 20:12: Message edited by: Masha ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Masha:
I'd agree with that Raptor Eye!
As soon as we start to try to control God we should just laugh at ourselves and slap ourselves hard.
Within my tradition it's the priest's role, and I agree with that. That's why I'm Anglican.
I don't actually believe that non-conformist baptisms are invalid and I don't know anyone who does.
Sorry, just realised this is a total tangent. Apologies if I've continued something I should have left alone in BR's post.
Thanks Masha - I was starting to think you must be Orthodox! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But, hey, we're talking doctrines and principles here, and I can't disagree with anything you've said.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
...to continue off on a tangent, neither do I believe non-conformist baptisms are invalid PROVIDED they are of a trinitarian nature. That doesn't mean these "churches" have a right understanding of the sacrament (some don't even believe baptism is a sacrament at all) - but they are still effective, including baptisms administered by women (eg nurses).
It is the other main sacrament, the Eucharist, where all the problems are, and this is at the heart of the controversy surrounding women priests and bishops.
OK, some will say it isn't my problem (it isn't) but it is causing huge problems in serious ecomenical dialogue. Maybe Ecumenism is a problem in itself for some (don't I know it!) but Jesus' wish was for the Church to be one, so talking to each other can't be wrong.
...besides, there may be opportunities to proselytise! (joke! )
[ 20. May 2012, 21:54: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Just for further tangenting, I presume that the Salvation Army is not really a church, then, given their attitude to sacraments.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just for further tangenting, I presume that the Salvation Army is not really a church, then, given their attitude to sacraments.
You presume right - it isn't. It is a community of protestant christians.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
Sorry - missed edit window - anyway, I was going to add:
Does the Salvation Army call itself a "Church" or "The Church?"
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But more so if you willfully ignore/disobey/change the Faith once delivered to the Saints.
You mean the Saints who made things such as ecumenical councils, wilfully changing the Faith from previous versions? Why should the Saints chaing the Faith once delivered to the Apostles?
And there's a simple answer. If Christianity is worth a damn then this is because it is alive. What was best for people over a thousand years ago might not be the best for them now. The bible itself explicitely condones slavery. We worked out how to do things better and we changed what was seen as right. Making the lame walk was a miracle. Not any more. Jesus's comment that "the poor shall always be with you" was effectively a truism in its time. It now appears to completely lack ambition and is expressed by some as an ideal and reason we shouldn't help our fellow man.
Human society has progressed in the past thousand years. If the Church hasn't then it should be left to rot in peace for it is no longer relevant.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
You mean the Saints who made things such as ecumenical councils, wilfully changing the Faith from previous versions? Why should the Saints change the Faith once delivered to the Apostles?
In typical liberal fashion, you ask many questions without elaborating or waiting for answers. You assume all your arguments are done deals, and quickly move on.
Well, not so fast...
What things are you talking about which the Ecumenical Councils "wilfully changed"? It ought to bother me as I'm Orthodox.
...or is this just liberal rhetoric (which I suspect)?
[ 20. May 2012, 23:06: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Just to edit and repeat my earlier questions, since you haven't been dismissive of them yet:
The RC church has had quite significant changes since 850, without going into the whole Protestant Reformation.
Is there any particular reason we who are not Orthodox must act in the spirit of 850?
And is there any particular reason that no changes can ever happen, beyond the vague feeling that "I/we" don't like them?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just to edit and repeat my earlier questions, since you haven't been dismissive of them yet:
The RC church has had quite significant changes since 850, without going into the whole Protestant Reformation.
Is there any particular reason we who are not Orthodox must act in the spirit of 850?
And is there any particular reason that no changes can ever happen, beyond the vague feeling that "I/we" don't like them?
The reason which first springs to my mind is:
Just take a look at the western church since the great schism (1054 ish)
Look at all the splits, disunity, and since the protestant reformation, all the different protestant "denominations", all believing they are right and all the others wrong. With respect, I know you are quite well-read, but you are still a part of all this.
Is this what Jesus wanted for His church?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Look at all the splits, disunity, and since the protestant reformation, all the different protestant "denominations", all believing they are right and all the others wrong... Is this what Jesus wanted for His church?
I imagine most people would agree that this is emphatically not what Jesus wanted / wants for His church. But I wonder if you're implying that Jesus does want a hierarchical institution which rigidly enforces 'unity' and correct belief (as with the Jehovah's Witnesses for example). I don't think Jesus wants either of these.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
[
Look at all the splits, disunity, and since the protestant reformation, all the different protestant "denominations", all believing they are right and all the others wrong. With respect, I know you are quite well-read, but you are still a part of all this.
Is this what Jesus wanted for His church?
Just look at the splits and disunity and craven sucking-up to government and violence and persecution and tyranny and torture that has been done by the Russian church over the past five hundred years.
Is this what Jesus wanted for His church?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
In typical liberal fashion, you ask many questions without elaborating or waiting for answers. You assume all your arguments are done deals, and quickly move on.
Well, not so fast...
What things are you talking about which the Ecumenical Councils "wilfully changed"? It ought to bother me as I'm Orthodox.
...or is this just liberal rhetoric (which I suspect)?
What ought to bother you is the absolute opposite. A lack of change to meet a changing world.
But the fundamental change in the Orthodox church that should bother you the most was the first Ecumenical Council. The fundamental principle that the Emperor could call the bishops together under his authority to decide on matters of the Christian faith is a precedent that should never have been established. None of the specific theological changes at any of the Ecumenical Councils were as grave as the changes wrought into the church by Constantine being granted the ability to call one.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Look at all the splits, disunity, and since the protestant reformation, all the different protestant "denominations", all believing they are right and all the others wrong. With respect, I know you are quite well-read, but you are still a part of all this.
Is this what Jesus wanted for His church?
Just look at the splits and disunity and craven sucking-up to government and violence and persecution and tyranny and torture that has been done by the Russian church over the past five hundred years.
Is this what Jesus wanted for His church?
Well if we really must go there, you seem to forget "the splits and disunity and craven sucking-up to government and violence and persecution and tyranny and torture that has been done" to the russian church. Anyway, the troubles before communism were a long time ago, after the 1917 revolution the church was persecuted and compromised from without, then towards the end of communist rule it has started to become what it is supposed to become. Five years ago communion was restored between the ROC and ROCOR - so at least it's moving in the right direction - which is more than can be said for the western "churches"!
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
In typical liberal fashion, you ask many questions without elaborating or waiting for answers. You assume all your arguments are done deals, and quickly move on.
Well, not so fast...
What things are you talking about which the Ecumenical Councils "wilfully changed"? It ought to bother me as I'm Orthodox.
...or is this just liberal rhetoric (which I suspect)?
What ought to bother you is the absolute opposite. A lack of change to meet a changing world.
But the fundamental change in the Orthodox church that should bother you the most was the first Ecumenical Council. The fundamental principle that the Emperor could call the bishops together under his authority to decide on matters of the Christian faith is a precedent that should never have been established. None of the specific theological changes at any of the Ecumenical Councils were as grave as the changes wrought into the church by Constantine being granted the ability to call one.
He called the bishops together to decide on unifying doctrines. He didn't make any decisions himself.
Changes? What changes?
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
He called the bishops together to decide on unifying doctrines. He didn't make any decisions himself.
Changes? What changes?
That the Church sucks up to secular power and that when the secular power says jump, it jumps. Even on theological matters.
Constantine got precisely what he wanted out of the First Council of Nicea. The Church obeying him and giving him a place in religious history.
Secular powers don't care about the filioque. or the Creed of Nicea. What they care about is the relationship of the Church to their power base. And that changed utterly with Constantine.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Look at all the splits, disunity, and since the protestant reformation, all the different protestant "denominations", all believing they are right and all the others wrong. With respect, I know you are quite well-read, but you are still a part of all this.
Is this what Jesus wanted for His church?
Just look at the splits and disunity and craven sucking-up to government and violence and persecution and tyranny and torture that has been done by the Russian church over the past five hundred years.
Is this what Jesus wanted for His church?
Well if we really must go there, you seem to forget "the splits and disunity and craven sucking-up to government and violence and persecution and tyranny and torture that has been done" to the russian church. Anyway, the troubles before communism were a long time ago, after the 1917 revolution the church was persecuted and compromised from without, then towards the end of communist rule it has started to become what it is supposed to become. Five years ago communion was restored between the ROC and ROCOR - so at least it's moving in the right direction - which is more than can be said for the western "churches"!
If this were Hell, I'd say that you really were a pompous arrogant arse. But it isn't and so of course I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing.
In what sense is the healing of the ROC/ROCOR split (for the origins of which read: should we be servile Erastians to the Communists, or should we continue our servile Erastian obedience to the heirs of the Tsarist autocracy?) different from other moves to unity in the west- e.g. the various Uniting/ United Churches, or the Porvoo agreements?
I'm no fan of church divisions, and I am very aware that they often arise for the very worst of reasons. I am also aware that there are Western church traditions (or 'church' traditions, as you would put it), that make the Judean Peoples' Front and the Popular Front of Judea look like models of monolithic unity. But still, which is better: Protestants (and Catholics) arguing and, regerettably, splitting, but at least doing so because they care passionately about trying to get to what they see as the truth, or our bearded chums east of Brest-Litovsk sticking their heads in the sand and pretending that everything was wonderful in 1053 and that's how it should stay, and if anyone starts asking questions we'll wheel out the wonderworking icon of St Boris the Hereticslayer again to settle their hash? A close call, perhaps...
[ 21. May 2012, 11:28: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Look at all the splits, disunity, and since the protestant reformation, all the different protestant "denominations", all believing they are right and all the others wrong. With respect, I know you are quite well-read, but you are still a part of all this.
Is this what Jesus wanted for His church?
Just look at the splits and disunity and craven sucking-up to government and violence and persecution and tyranny and torture that has been done by the Russian church over the past five hundred years.
Is this what Jesus wanted for His church?
Well if we really must go there, you seem to forget "the splits and disunity and craven sucking-up to government and violence and persecution and tyranny and torture that has been done" to the russian church. Anyway, the troubles before communism were a long time ago, after the 1917 revolution the church was persecuted and compromised from without, then towards the end of communist rule it has started to become what it is supposed to become. Five years ago communion was restored between the ROC and ROCOR - so at least it's moving in the right direction - which is more than can be said for the western "churches"!
If this were Hell, I'd say that you really were a pompous arrogant arse. But it isn't and so of course I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing.
In what sense is the healing of the ROC/ROCOR split (for the origins of which read: should we be servile Erastians to the Communists, or should we continue our servile Erastian obedience to the heirs of the Tsarist autocracy?) different from other moves to unity in the west- e.g. the various Uniting/ United Churches, or the Porvoo agreements?
I'm no fan of church divisions, and I am very aware that they often arise for the very worst of reasons. I am also aware that there are Western church traditions (or 'church' traditions, as you would put it), that make the Judean Peoples' Front and the Popular Front of Judea look like models of monolithic unity. But still, which is better: Protestants (and Catholics) arguing and, regerettably, splitting, but at least doing so because they care passionately about trying to get to what they see as the truth, or our bearded chums east of Brest-Litovsk sticking their heads in the sand and pretending that everything was wonderful in 1053 and that's how it should stay, and if anyone starts asking questions we'll wheel out the wonderworking icon of St Boris the Hereticslayer again to settle their hash? A close call, perhaps...
Thanks! Nice rhetoric, but as usual it's a lot of words saying very little.
"...different from other moves to unity in the west - e.g. the various Uniting/United Churches, or the Porvoo agreements?"
We're joking, aren't we?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Anyway, the troubles before communism were a long time ago,
Seems a bit rich from someone who's been banging about rows in the ninth century.
quote:
Five years ago communion was restored between the ROC and ROCOR
Tell that to the Old Believers
quote:
- so at least it's moving in the right direction
- which is more than can be said for the western "churches"!
Says who? Church reunions are two a penny these days. (And us Anglicans and the Lutherans were never out of communion with each other anyway, just organised differently in different countries)
And, you were wrong when you said
quote:
... all the different protestant "denominations", all believing they are right and all the others wrong.
Most Protestants do NOT believe that they are the only ones who are right and everyone else is wrong. Unlike your denomination we mostly do not claim to tbe the One True Church and pretend that everyone else is cast into the outer darkness. Some do of course. There are loonies everywhere.
[ 21. May 2012, 11:50: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
He called the bishops together to decide on unifying doctrines. He didn't make any decisions himself.
Changes? What changes?
That the Church sucks up to secular power and that when the secular power says jump, it jumps. Even on theological matters.
Constantine got precisely what he wanted out of the First Council of Nicea. The Church obeying him and giving him a place in religious history.
Secular powers don't care about the filioque. or the Creed of Nicea. What they care about is the relationship of the Church to their power base. And that changed utterly with Constantine.
I'll repeat:
Changes? What changes? Well?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...Thanks! Nice rhetoric, but as usual it's a lot of words saying very little.
"...different from other moves to unity in the west - e.g. the various Uniting/United Churches, or the Porvoo agreements?"
We're joking, aren't we?
Looking out for St Boris the Hereticslayer to put in an appearance any moment now!
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
He called the bishops together to decide on unifying doctrines. He didn't make any decisions himself.
Changes? What changes?
You are implying that Christianity sucked up to power before Constantine? It doesn't seem to me that it did. And that change in attitude would by itself constitute "what changed". And an immediate result of Constantine throwing himself behind Christianity is that the Trinitarians won out over the Arians when Constantine got involved and exiled the Arian bishops. Previously, emperors messing with Christian bishops was "persecution". Now it became a tool of establishing orthodox theology.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
He called the bishops together to decide on unifying doctrines. He didn't make any decisions himself.
Changes? What changes?
You are implying that Christianity sucked up to power before Constantine? It doesn't seem to me that it did. And that change in attitude would by itself constitute "what changed". And an immediate result of Constantine throwing himself behind Christianity is that the Trinitarians won out over the Arians when Constantine got involved and exiled the Arian bishops. Previously, emperors messing with Christian bishops was "persecution". Now it became a tool of establishing orthodox theology.
Well I was talking about changes in Belief. You almost seem to be saying that the Church was largely Arian before Constantine, but we both know that isn't true (at least I hope we both know that).
So examples of changes made as a result of Constantine? 0 so far...
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well I was talking about changes in Belief.
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
You are implying that Christianity sucked up to power before Constantine? It doesn't seem to me that it did. And that change in attitude would by itself constitute "what changed".
The change in belief is from the view that the state authorities are to be treated with caution to the view that they are to be courted and flattered. I agree with Lyda*Rose; I think that's a huge change in belief.
The Christians basically got into bed with the Roman empire, receiving its protection but thereby being forced to follow (to a significant extent) the emperor's wishes.
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Well I was talking about changes in Belief. You almost seem to be saying that the Church was largely Arian before Constantine, but we both know that isn't true (at least I hope we both know that).
So examples of changes made as a result of Constantine? 0 so far...
If you don't see (a) mandating unified doctrines and (b) allowing the Emperor to dictate that you have mandated unified doctrines to be changes, I can't help you.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
If this were Hell, I'd say that you really were a pompous arrogant arse. But it isn't and so of course I wouldn't dream of doing such a thing.
hostly warning
Albertus,
Please don't insult the intelligence of the hosts, that's a blatant C3 and C4 violation. Post anything like it again and the matter will be passed to the admins.
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Louise
Admonition accepted. My intention was not to insult your intelligence, although I can see see how it could be read in that way, and I apologise for it.
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
hosting
For everyone else - whoaaaa! Stop! This is a thread on Women's Ordination and roles in the church - not an inquisition on the nature of the Russian Orthodox church.
If you want to argue about the nature of Orthodoxy and the role of authority in it, then kindly start a thread in Purgatory about it. If you feel the problem is really one poster's personal approach to it, then start a Hell thread, but please stop the derail on this thread.
If the thread does not return to the topic of the OP then it will be closed.
thanks,
Louise
Dead horses Host
hosting off
[cross post - thanks Albertus!]
[ 21. May 2012, 13:44: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
Furthermore, womens' ordination does not concern the Orthodox Church - in reality it doesn't even concern Roman Catholics, it is purely a Protestant problem, and one of their own making.
(Ouch! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Coming back to the original topic, then, and to the rules of courtesy and charity enjoined on us by the Hosts and by the Ship's commandments, where do Orthodox deaconesses fit in? Are they ordained and seen as essentially deacons or are they seen (as the CofE's deaconesses were) as perhaps perfoming a diaconal role without being ordained deacons?
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Coming back to the original topic, then, and to the rules of courtesy and charity enjoined on us by the Hosts and by the Ship's commandments, where do Orthodox deaconesses fit in? Are they ordained and seen as essentially deacons or are they seen (as the CofE's deaconesses were) as perhaps perfoming a diaconal role without being ordained deacons?
This is really an historical question. With the exception of rumours of one or two deaconesses having been ordained in the 20th century in some female monasteries, the order of deaconess is a thing of history, and, speaking as somebody whose experience is in parish rather than monastic life, I don't think that there's any real need to revive it. (Those with monastic experience may have different and enlightening insights).
Historically speaking, the order of deaconess in the Orthodox Church seems not to have been the same as the order of deacon. There was no progression through the orders, the ordination rite and ordination prayers were different, the form of vesture was different, and the practical functions, insofar as there is any extant documentation, were also different. There is some treatment of this subject in Women and the Priesthood, edited by Fr Thomas Hopko. I did a little examination of the ordination rite for deaconesses and compared it to that of a deacon, which, if interested, you can read here.
My understanding has developed a little since I wrote what I did in the comments section 2 1/2 years ago. It seems that the service of the deacon has always been primarily a liturgical service of the Mysteries under his bishop, with merciful service to the community stemming from that and flowing back into it. In ancient times, he would have been assisted in this latter work by the consecrated order of widows, and others, such as deaconesses.
The specific sacramental ministry of the deaconess was in the baptism of women. When it was still the custom to baptise people naked, it was considered necessary for the protection of modesty and propriety for a woman to be the one who actually lowered the candidate into the font while the bishop stood outside the baptistry, saying the words of baptism. This sacramental role of deaconesses began to decline when the Church in various parts of the world began to become established. After years of evangelism and mission, a city was no longer in the process of being converted to Christianity, with many adult baptisms necessitating what I describe above. Instead, when cities had a mostly Christian populus, and the vast majority of baptisms performed were those of infants born into already Christian families, there were no longer the same concerns about protecting women's modesty.
What we are left with of the non-sacramental role of deaconesses is the diakonia of the wider church is something in which we are all called to take part. Within a parish model, and from experience in my own parish and others, I can certainly see particular men and women who clearly have a calling to a distinctive ministry of this merciful service. These are the ones who run the system of donations to the local homeless project, who wecome people when they come through the door, who identify the people who are down and look after them, and who remember their problems and seek them out a week or two later, giving them particular care or gifts pertinent to their situation. Most importantly, these are the people who bring those names and situations to the clergy for prayer during the liturgical offering. This is diakonia, and while traditional gender roles would suggest that women are stereotypically better suited for this, I'm not sure that we need a specific ordained ministry for it.
I know that some female monasteries have a lay sisterhood attached, which has a practical ministerial extension of the prayer life of the monastery, and there may be an argument to be made that these sisters ought to be deaconesses. Certainly, St Elisabeth the New-Martyr thought so. I am told that the Holy Synod of Greece in recent years has given its blessing for the formation of a formal role for women set apart for this sort of merciful service, and that they do call them deaconesses but that it hasn't actually taken off in any substantial way, probably because it is realised that what we have in the parishes seems to work as it is.
[ 21. May 2012, 17:01: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Thank you for this very full answer.
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Thank you for this very full answer.
You're welcome, Albertus.
My inability to summarise was the source of frustration for many a teacher the cause of many a missed deadline when I was at school. It is one of my main weaknesses.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Thank you for this very full answer.
I'll second that!
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
...but, I think the main purpose of the topic is womens' ordination concerning the Eucharist - though others would say it concerns preaching (I know!)
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Thank you for this very full answer.
You're welcome, Albertus.
My inability to summarise was the source of frustration for many a teacher the cause of many a missed deadline when I was at school. It is one of my main weaknesses.
But, if I may say so, your ability to explain clearly is one of your strengths.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...but, I think the main purpose of the topic is womens' ordination concerning the Eucharist - though others would say it concerns preaching (I know!)
Just out of curiosity, which part of the Eucharist is performed with the penis? It seems to be a critical requirement, but I've never had anyone explain why.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
...but, I think the main purpose of the topic is womens' ordination concerning the Eucharist - though others would say it concerns preaching (I know!)
Just out of curiosity, which part of the Eucharist is performed with the penis? It seems to be a critical requirement, but I've never had anyone explain why.
Stop talking such.. oh, I can't say it - I'm going to bed! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
It's to counteract the obvious gynocentricism of the sanctuary layout. If you don't know what that means, I'm not going to be the one that tells you.
[ 21. May 2012, 21:30: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Kelly:
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
It's to counteract the obvious gynocentricism of the sanctuary layout. If you don't know what that means, I'm not going to be the one that tells you.
If you mean the Holy Doors, you know that's intentional, don't you? That's part of why the doors are opened and closed at the times they are, and why they bear the icon of the Annunciation. It's also part of why the icon of Our Lady of the Sign (with her womb "more spacious than the heavens") is often depicted on the east wall/ceiling.
I'm just saying that, in potentially making a joke, you may have in fact pointed out an unremarkable part of the symbolism. Squeamish we are not.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I was making a joke and being incredibly clever. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Actually, I wasn't sure how deliberate the womb imagery was in the sanctuary layout; the people who described the notion to me had , um, agendas that made me wonder how seriously to take it. Thanks for edifying me.
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I was making a joke and being incredibly clever.
Actually, I wasn't sure how deliberate the womb imagery was in the sanctuary layout; the people who described the notion to me had , um, agendas that made me wonder how seriously to take it. Thanks for edifying me.
If I may beg hostly indulgence for a minor ecclesiantical tangent...
It may be worth pointing out that any womb imagery is only secondary. The altar is the Holy of Holies, and signifies the Kingdom of heaven, while the nave is the earthly realm. Within the altar, the Holy Table is the throne of God, which is why both the Gospel Book and the tabernacle rest on it. The Holy Doors signify the gateway between heaven and earth, and their being opened and closed at various points in the service, at least in part, reflects this. This is why the four Evangelists are usually depicted on the Doors, as the authors of the Gospels that reveal the Kingdom, and why, during the Liturgy, the Gospel is usually proclaimed from the Holy Doors.
However, the parallels to the Mother of God here are not lost, and they are woven into the symbolism as well. She is the gate through which the Christ passed from heaven to earth, so the Annunciation is also depicted on the Holy Doors. As she bore in her womb Him Whom the heavens could not contain, the icon of the Sign is often placed centrally in the altar, showing Christ reigning from the heavens within her womb. Her place as the Ark of the New Covenant within the Holy of Holies likely needs no explanation. Finally, on all feasts of the Mother of God, there are three Old Testament readings. Two of them vary but this one remains constant. It draws a direct parallel between the doors and the womb of the Ever-Virgin, and is why passing through the Holy Doors is reserved to those bearing means of the presence of Christ or who are performing some particular liturgical role that is identified with Christ.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
It may be worth pointing out that any womb imagery is only secondary. The altar is the Holy of Holies, and signifies the Kingdom of heaven, while the nave is the earthly realm. Within the altar, the Holy Table is the throne of God, which is why both the Gospel Book and the tabernacle rest on it. The Holy Doors signify the gateway between heaven and earth, and their being opened and closed at various points in the service, at least in part, reflects this. This is why the four Evangelists are usually depicted on the Doors, as the authors of the Gospels that reveal the Kingdom, and why, during the Liturgy, the Gospel is usually proclaimed from the Holy Doors.
However, the parallels to the Mother of God here are not lost, and they are woven into the symbolism as well. She is the gate through which the Christ passed from heaven to earth, so the Annunciation is also depicted on the Holy Doors. As she bore in her womb Him Whom the heavens could not contain, the icon of the Sign is often placed centrally in the altar, showing Christ reigning from the heavens within her womb. Her place as the Ark of the New Covenant within the Holy of Holies likely needs no explanation. Finally, on all feasts of the Mother of God, there are three Old Testament readings. Two of them vary but this one remains constant. It draws a direct parallel between the doors and the womb of the Ever-Virgin, and is why passing through the Holy Doors is reserved to those bearing means of the presence of Christ or who are performing some particular liturgical role that is identified with Christ.
Seriously, who would have expected a joke to reveal so much!
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
What difference would that make? Serious question.
Would it make a difference to your salvation? Are you 'less saved' than one who has been receiving valid sacraments?
None of us are "saved" (past tense) while we are still in this transitory life - the correct term is "being saved" - and yes, it does make a difference if we are not receiving the body and blood of Christ.
Please don't patronise me. I am quite aware of the eschatological 'now-and-not-yet' dimensions of salvation. Saved and being saved. Both.
But that aside, to summarise what you say, you are in fact in your own view 'more saved' than I am.
Wow.
quote:
quote:
Would it make a difference to your state of grace?
Yes
I am astounded that you dare to presume to take it upon yourself to pronounce upon the state of grace of another.
quote:
quote:
Does God give less grace to those who have communicated invalidly than to those who have communicated validly? If so, how is such 'less grace' manifested?
Honestly, we don't know - but there is a risk if you are disobedient.
quote:
So I throw the question back to you: if the sacrament is ineffectual, how would you know?
If you are just counting on experience as your measuring stick, then the answer is simple - you don't!
But a far better measuring stick than "experience" would be if we could see the person we are becoming. Growing in Grace = becoming more Christ-like.
How exactly does “seeing the person we are becoming” differ from “experience”?
Again, I am astounded that you can judge those who receive communion from a woman as “less Christ-like” than Orthodox Christians. With rather beautiful irony, the lack of grace manifested by that judgement contradicts your implied claim, that you are more Christ-like than those.
The problem here is the conflation you make here between “invalid” and “ineffectual” sacraments. The “invalid” judgement is actually fair enough. That is your church's judgement. My church disagrees with yours, but then again, we also have our own understanding as to what makes a sacrament valid or invalid.
But “ineffectual” is another matter altogether. Here you take it upon yourself to pronounce upon God's perspective. As if God cannot make effective even that which is 'invalid'! Given how God's grace must always make up our deficiencies even in the purest of Orthodox sacraments, to pronounce so definitively on the ineffectiveness of any human service offered to God is sheer hubris.
You do not have God's perspective. You do not speak for God.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
What difference would that make? Serious question.
Would it make a difference to your salvation? Are you 'less saved' than one who has been receiving valid sacraments?
None of us are "saved" (past tense) while we are still in this transitory life - the correct term is "being saved" - and yes, it does make a difference if we are not receiving the body and blood of Christ.
Please don't patronise me. I am quite aware of the eschatological 'now-and-not-yet' dimensions of salvation. Saved and being saved. Both.
But that aside, to summarise what you say, you are in fact in your own view 'more saved' than I am.
Wow.
quote:
quote:
Would it make a difference to your state of grace?
Yes
I am astounded that you dare to presume to take it upon yourself to pronounce upon the state of grace of another.
quote:
quote:
Does God give less grace to those who have communicated invalidly than to those who have communicated validly? If so, how is such 'less grace' manifested?
Honestly, we don't know - but there is a risk if you are disobedient.
quote:
So I throw the question back to you: if the sacrament is ineffectual, how would you know?
If you are just counting on experience as your measuring stick, then the answer is simple - you don't!
But a far better measuring stick than "experience" would be if we could see the person we are becoming. Growing in Grace = becoming more Christ-like.
How exactly does “seeing the person we are becoming” differ from “experience”?
Again, I am astounded that you can judge those who receive communion from a woman as “less Christ-like” than Orthodox Christians. With rather beautiful irony, the lack of grace manifested by that judgement contradicts your implied claim, that you are more Christ-like than those.
The problem here is the conflation you make here between “invalid” and “ineffectual” sacraments. The “invalid” judgement is actually fair enough. That is your church's judgement. My church disagrees with yours, but then again, we also have our own understanding as to what makes a sacrament valid or invalid.
But “ineffectual” is another matter altogether. Here you take it upon yourself to pronounce upon God's perspective. As if God cannot make effective even that which is 'invalid'! Given how God's grace must always make up our deficiencies even in the purest of Orthodox sacraments, to pronounce so definitively on the ineffectiveness of any human service offered to God is sheer hubris.
You do not have God's perspective. You do not speak for God.
I have to say that I am very astounded indeed to discover all the things which you claim I have said, which I in fact never said.
It would take me ages to list all your (wrong) presumptions, and even then I don't think you'd bother to check them properly, because you didn't the first time around. All I ask is that you please check more carefully what you accuse people of, before casting aspursions like this in future.
Thankyou.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
Just to summarise, I can only claim that sometimes there is a risk that sacraments may not be valid. But ultimately, I have no say in what is acceptable to God and what isn't.
I would definitley NEVER try to judge the quantity of God's grace imparted to others, nor imply that I might be receiving more.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Just to summarise, I can only claim that sometimes there is a risk that sacraments may not be valid.
Why do you claim this, and what are you basing it on? I'm still not clear on why "having testicles/lacking ovaries" is the determining factor in whether sacraments are valid.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But ultimately, I have no say in what is acceptable to God and what isn't.
Don't be so modest! You've said a lot about that, in this thread and others.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Just to summarise, I can only claim that sometimes there is a risk that sacraments may not be valid.
Why do you claim this, and what are you basing it on? I'm still not clear on why "having testicles/lacking ovaries" is the determining factor in whether sacraments are valid.
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But ultimately, I have no say in what is acceptable to God and what isn't.
Don't be so modest! You've said a lot about that, in this thread and others.
Considering you are an atheist, I would be curious to know why any of this matters to you. I am not implying that you are not welcome here, but why the interest?
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on
:
To get back to the original question now that we've had robust arguments about whether a woman can preside over a valid Eucharist -- if there is this ever so important spiritually role only males can play, what is the ever so important spiritually role only females can play?
Or are males more important than females in God's viewpoint?
If an all-male community *can* be fully healthy spiritually, but an all-female community *cannot* be fully healthy spiritually (the women need to import a male to hear confessions and do the Eucharist thing), isn't the church knowingly and intentionally teaching that men are inherently spiritually superior to women? That women are lesser beings in God's eyes? That the list of things men can do yes it's longer than the list of things women can do!
In which case how about the church stop pussy footing around the issue by saying "only men can do Eucharist but only women can do motherhood" and just come right out and say what they are in fact structurally teaching -- "The church believes males are more important and more valuable than females."
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Considering you are an atheist, I would be curious to know why any of this matters to you. I am not implying that you are not welcome here, but why the interest?
Because religious teachings about the inferiority of women never stay confined within the walls of the Church/Synagogue/Mosque.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
[
quote:
Would it make a difference to your state of grace?
Yes
quote:
Does God give less grace to those who have communicated invalidly than to those who have communicated validly? If so, how is such 'less grace' manifested?
Honestly, we don't know - but there is a risk if you are disobedient
This is very near the religion of fear. You are saying to the people "you must have valid sacraments or else!" but the only way you give them of knowing that a sacrament is valid is if they happen to come across one of the minority of bishops that you recognise as real, valid bishops, as if to scare them into obedience to the bosses of your church. Its also circular - you know the sacraments are valid because the bishops says so, but you only you know the bishop is valid because the bishop says so.
Of what use is that to a new Christian who happens to come across the "wrong" church? or to someopne genuinely looking for a church to join? They have no basis for deciding which is the "right" set of bishops. but you are telling them that if they happen to choose the wrong one they risk damnation.
Its not so much theology as social control. A way of hanging onto your people and frightening them away from any other church.
Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
To get back to the original question now that we've had robust arguments about whether a woman can preside over a valid Eucharist -- if there is this ever so important spiritually role only males can play, what is the ever so important spiritually role only females can play?
Or are males more important than females in God's viewpoint?
If an all-male community *can* be fully healthy spiritually, but an all-female community *cannot* be fully healthy spiritually (the women need to import a male to hear confessions and do the Eucharist thing), isn't the church knowingly and intentionally teaching that men are inherently spiritually superior to women? That women are lesser beings in God's eyes? That the list of things men can do yes it's longer than the list of things women can do!
I can certainly see how this is how things can appear from a particular viewpoint, and I agree that it doesn't look appealing. However, I think that much of this is about the way that we perceive the life of the Church, our place within the Church for the sake of our salvation, and the role of the sacraments within that framework.
As I see it, Baptism and Chrismation are the only sacraments to which are unwaveringly open to all for those are the means of entering the Church. Even in those cases, we receive them with the awe and gratitude to God for granting us something for which we are so unworthy. It is still the custom to observe a fast before receiving them, for that very reason. None of us has a right to any of the sacraments, and not all of them are beneficial to all of us all the time.
The sacrament of marriage is not something that is open to me. The monastic tonsure is something that I am not likely to pursue, but if I were to pursue it, there is every possibility that I would be told no. There are times when it is not proper for me to approach the chalice at Communion.
I don't feel, in those circumstances, that I am hard done by, less of a Christian, less valued in the eyes of God or my brothers and sisters in Christ, or anything like that, because I don't see myself as being denied something to which I am entitled, and I don't see my salvation or my sense of being valued within the Church as being dependent on having received all of the sacraments that exist. I just don't see the sacraments in that way. (Goodness! The funereal rites are only performed over dead people. By that token, we would all be lesser Christians for having this "denied" us while we are still alive.)
Are there times that I look at married people, and their love, and their mutual support and encouragement, and the social and church framework that has a place for them, (yes, I know it isn't all sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows) and wonder what it would be like to have something like that in my own life? I would be lying were I to say no but I just don't feel that I am being excluded from anything that I am owed.
Rather, I look at the nature of the sacraments, and what they are for within the life of the Church, and I see that different ones are for different purposes, for the spiritual benefit of different people at different times.
I used to be Anglican, and it may horrify some to learn that I was a card-carrying, paid up member of Affirming Catholicism but I don't really care - that's part of my history that formed me into who I am. I first started looking at Orthodoxy not because of any disagreement with the Church of England about female clergy but because of ecclesiology. If pushed for an answer, I don't think I would say that is why I am Orthodox today but it is certainly what started me looking.
Anyway...
The point of my saying that is to show that I really don't have an axe to grind about the ordination of women. It doesn't happen in my Church and it simply isn't a point of debate. When I left the Church of England, for the first time I found myself in an environment where it just wasn't an issue, where it wasn't a hot topic towards which people had strong feelings, leading to arguments, schisms, and such like, and on which everybody was expected to have a definitely worked-out viewpoint and take a side, or else be branded an unthinking sheep. And for the first time there was stillness and quiet, and while my own personal view had veered towards supporting the ordination of women, I was now free. I was finally able to simply be obedient to the Church, while working through my own personal understanding, studying and reading at my own pace, and having time to think about and digest things without external pressure to have answers.
My understanding as it stands today isn't relevant to this thread or to this post, the point of which is that our various contexts and situations are likely to strongly colour how we perceive things. You only need go to an Orthodox women's monastery and ask them how they feel about being "denied" a priest from among their own number, and being made to import a male priest to see what I mean.
Posted by Cottontail (# 12234) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I have to say that I am very astounded indeed to discover all the things which you claim I have said, which I in fact never said.
It would take me ages to list all your (wrong) presumptions, and even then I don't think you'd bother to check them properly, because you didn't the first time around. All I ask is that you please check more carefully what you accuse people of, before casting aspursions like this in future.
Thankyou.
Go on - try me. Tell me what I missed. I will be glad to hear that:
quote:
Would it make a difference to your state of grace?
Yes.
does not mean what it says.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cottontail:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I have to say that I am very astounded indeed to discover all the things which you claim I have said, which I in fact never said.
It would take me ages to list all your (wrong) presumptions, and even then I don't think you'd bother to check them properly, because you didn't the first time around. All I ask is that you please check more carefully what you accuse people of, before casting aspursions like this in future.
Thankyou.
Go on - try me. Tell me what I missed. I will be glad to hear that:
quote:
Would it make a difference to your state of grace?
Yes.
does not mean what it says.
Thanks very much for your selective quoting. If you read above the line you quoted, you will see that I said it makes a difference IF we are not receiving the body and blood of Christ. Further down I have also explained that we cannot know if our sacraments are acceptable to God, but we are taking a risk if we are disobedient.
But I think it is pointless discussing this with you any further, because I know full well that you only see the things you want to see.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
[
quote:
Would it make a difference to your state of grace?
Yes
quote:
Does God give less grace to those who have communicated invalidly than to those who have communicated validly? If so, how is such 'less grace' manifested?
Honestly, we don't know - but there is a risk if you are disobedient
This is very near the religion of fear. You are saying to the people "you must have valid sacraments or else!" but the only way you give them of knowing that a sacrament is valid is if they happen to come across one of the minority of bishops that you recognise as real, valid bishops, as if to scare them into obedience to the bosses of your church. Its also circular - you know the sacraments are valid because the bishops says so, but you only you know the bishop is valid because the bishop says so.
Of what use is that to a new Christian who happens to come across the "wrong" church? or to someopne genuinely looking for a church to join? They have no basis for deciding which is the "right" set of bishops. but you are telling them that if they happen to choose the wrong one they risk damnation.
Its not so much theology as social control. A way of hanging onto your people and frightening them away from any other church.
But Ken, people don't come to my church through fear! Neither did I say that people who choose the wrong church risk damnation - just that they risk not benefiting from the sacrament.
Michael Astley's post further up explains things far better (and far more gracefully) than I ever can!
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But I think it is pointless discussing this with you any further, because I know full well that you only see the things you want to see.
hosting
This exchange has become too personal and this comment verges on personal attack.
Please stay within the rules of the board
quote:
3. Attack the issue, not the person
Name-calling and personal insults are only allowed in Hell. Attacks outside of Hell are grounds for suspension or banning.
4. If you must get personal, take it to Hell
If you get into a personality conflict with other shipmates, you have two simple choices: end the argument or take it to Hell.
Can I remind posters that at the point where an argument becomes about the other poster and not the issue in hand, that it must be stopped here, and then either stopped altogether or taken to the Hell board?
Thanks,
Louise
Dead Horses Host
hosting off
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
To get back to the original question now that we've had robust arguments about whether a woman can preside over a valid Eucharist -- if there is this ever so important spiritually role only males can play, what is the ever so important spiritually role only females can play?
Or are males more important than females in God's viewpoint?
If an all-male community *can* be fully healthy spiritually, but an all-female community *cannot* be fully healthy spiritually (the women need to import a male to hear confessions and do the Eucharist thing), isn't the church knowingly and intentionally teaching that men are inherently spiritually superior to women? That women are lesser beings in God's eyes? That the list of things men can do yes it's longer than the list of things women can do!
In which case how about the church stop pussy footing around the issue by saying "only men can do Eucharist but only women can do motherhood" and just come right out and say what they are in fact structurally teaching -- "The church believes males are more important and more valuable than females."
Where does the assumption that functions must be spread equally between men and women come from?
And where does the assumption that priesthood = importance and value come from?
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Where does the assumption that functions must be spread equally between men and women come from?
That's a modern thing. Probably a by-product of democracy with its equality among citizens and such. There's no logical reason to suppose God would necessarily consider women equally able to function as men, and a lot of scriptural and traditional evidence to suggest He doesn't.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
And where does the assumption that priesthood = importance and value come from?
Most religions consider things dedicated to their deity (people, buildings, books, etc.) to be more important than things that aren't.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Where does the assumption that functions must be spread equally between men and women come from?
That's a modern thing. Probably a by-product of democracy with its equality among citizens and such. There's no logical reason to suppose God would necessarily consider women equally able to function as men, and a lot of scriptural and traditional evidence to suggest He doesn't.
I can't believe you just said that!
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
And where does the assumption that priesthood = importance and value come from?
Most religions consider things dedicated to their deity (people, buildings, books, etc.) to be more important than things that aren't.
Maybe this is at the heart of the problem. In Orthodoxy, you really don't get this feeling - Priests, Readers and laity are much closer. So in reality I'm beginning to think this is all mainly a western problem - a "two-tier", first class/second class scenario which ought not exist in the first place!
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
I think there is a small misprint. The religion as such may not preach the sanctity of all things religious (although you'd have to explain away a lot of stuff about the Ark of the Covenant or the nature of the Temple then)
How about "Most religio US (people) consider things dedicated to their deity (people, buildings, books, etc.) to be more important than things that aren't."
In fact, history has shown that religious people are likely to kill other people over what seem like quite trivial adjustments to buildings, books or activities
[ 23. May 2012, 10:52: Message edited by: Horseman Bree ]
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
...In fact, history has shown that religious people are likely to kill other people over what seem like quite trivial adjustments to buildings, books or activities
No, actually you are wrong - it is only in a few extreme situations when religious people will resort to such measures. Atheists, on the other hand - well read up on communist Russia!
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
We're going off on a tangent again, but I wonder what the Old Believers would make of the first part of your statment*? Communist persecution of the Church, on the other hand, was not about minor details- it was about the very big issue of the Church's witness to an alternative view of things to their own. I am willing to be corrected, but I don't think that you'll find that Stalin had very strong views on the arrangement of fingers on making the sign of the cross, or how many times you should sing Alleluia.
*I use an example from your own tradition, but this is not to suggest that other traditions, especially those which are or have been state churches, necessarily have a better record in this respect.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
That's a modern thing. Probably a by-product of democracy with its equality among citizens and such. There's no logical reason to suppose God would necessarily consider women equally able to function as men, and a lot of scriptural and traditional evidence to suggest He doesn't.
I can't believe you just said that!
Actually I didn't say that. I wrote it.
Anyway, I'm not sure why it's so hard to believe, given the two thousand year history of Christian gender-relations based supposedly on divine fiat. Or is it just that you consider any religious belief to be beyond criticism?
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Maybe this is at the heart of the problem. In Orthodoxy, you really don't get this feeling - Priests, Readers and laity are much closer. So in reality I'm beginning to think this is all mainly a western problem - a "two-tier", first class/second class scenario which ought not exist in the first place!
Remind me again how many female priests there are in the Orthodox Church?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Maybe this is at the heart of the problem. In Orthodoxy, you really don't get this feeling - Priests, Readers and laity are much closer. So in reality I'm beginning to think this is all mainly a western problem - a "two-tier", first class/second class scenario which ought not exist in the first place!
Remind me again how many female priests there are in the Orthodox Church?
Because you just highlighted the latter part, ignoring the former, you have completely missed the point. Now, please read it again - all of it!
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Because you just highlighted the latter part, ignoring the former, you have completely missed the point. Now, please read it again - all of it!
Which bit? The part where you claim a two-tiered gender-based system isn't really two-tiered?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Because you just highlighted the latter part, ignoring the former, you have completely missed the point. Now, please read it again - all of it!
Which bit? The part where you claim a two-tiered gender-based system isn't really two-tiered?
All of it!
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Because you just highlighted the latter part, ignoring the former, you have completely missed the point. Now, please read it again - all of it!
Which bit? The part where you claim a two-tiered gender-based system isn't really two-tiered?
All of it!
Sorry, you can't just hand-wave away gender discrimination by pretending it doesn't exist, or that being "close" to the roles you're locked out of makes it somehow disappear.
And just what does "close" mean in this context? Physically close, like the way a billionaire is right next to the servant who brings him his morning breakfast? Or close in the sense that they could step into each other's roles in a pinch? In which case your "no chicks doing the Eucharist" position doesn't make much sense.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
Because you just highlighted the latter part, ignoring the former, you have completely missed the point. Now, please read it again - all of it!
Which bit? The part where you claim a two-tiered gender-based system isn't really two-tiered?
All of it!
Sorry, you can't just hand-wave away gender discrimination by pretending it doesn't exist, or that being "close" to the roles you're locked out of makes it somehow disappear.
And just what does "close" mean in this context? Physically close, like the way a billionaire is right next to the servant who brings him his morning breakfast? Or close in the sense that they could step into each other's roles in a pinch? In which case your "no chicks doing the Eucharist" position doesn't make much sense.
OK - find me someone (a woman for example) in the Eastern church who is complaining about discrimination, and how they wish they could be more liberal, like the west.
Just to make my previous point clear, I was trying to compare the eastern church, where there isn't this huge "holier than thou" gulf between clergy and laity, and the west, where this sadly can't be said.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
And where does the assumption that priesthood = importance and value come from?
How about the idea that they're the only ones who can preside at the Eucharist, meaning that they are the only ones who can enable us to come into full communion with God - quite literally the gatekeepers between us and God.
Not to mention the whole sacramental confession and absolution thing. Or the ability to bless the people.
Pretty important, wouldn't you say? Or are you suggesting that these things aren't particularly important to Christian communities?
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK - find me someone (a woman for example) in the Eastern church who is complaining about discrimination, and how they wish they could be more liberal, like the west.
Just because discrimination is not objected to, can we conclude that it doesn't exist? I don't know whether you're familiar with Steven Lukes' Power: A Radical View ? His concept of the three dimensions of power would seem relevant here. Hereis a review of it, which sets out the main ideas.
[ 23. May 2012, 17:06: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK - find me someone (a woman for example) in the Eastern church who is complaining about discrimination, and how they wish they could be more liberal, like the west.
I can easily find you Orthodox theologians and priests and bishops who think there is a debate to be had about ordainign women to the priesthood. Start with Thomas Hopko, Kallistos Ware, or the late Elisabeth Behr-Sigel.
"Liberal, like the west" is a red herring because there are orthodox theological reasons for accepting that women can be ordained priest. As Thmas Hopko wrote in the book he editied on the ordination of women there are Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians who support the ordination of women on theological grounds, deriving authority from tradition and scripture, and "understanding of the biblical doctrine of God".
Those Orthodox might decide that its wrong to ordain woimen. But its pointless to pretend that the question has never been asked by Orthodox, or that there are no Orthodox who want to ordain women. It has and there are.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
OK - find me someone (a woman for example) in the Eastern church who is complaining about discrimination, and how they wish they could be more liberal, like the west.
I can easily find you Orthodox theologians and priests and bishops who think there is a debate to be had about ordainign women to the priesthood. Start with Thomas Hopko, Kallistos Ware, or the late Elisabeth Behr-Sigel.
"Liberal, like the west" is a red herring because there are orthodox theological reasons for accepting that women can be ordained priest. As Thmas Hopko wrote in the book he editied on the ordination of women there are Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians who support the ordination of women on theological grounds, deriving authority from tradition and scripture, and "understanding of the biblical doctrine of God".
Those Orthodox might decide that its wrong to ordain woimen. But its pointless to pretend that the question has never been asked by Orthodox, or that there are no Orthodox who want to ordain women. It has and there are.
It is interesting that all the people you mention are westerners (most if not all protestant converts, obviously with a little protestantism left in them). At my church, we just don't talk about this at all - and I wouldn't want all the debates, devision and other troubles which the west has been involved in for years and years (instead of the true work of the church). Seriously, I (and most others) would say it is more trouble than it is worth!
[ 23. May 2012, 19:42: Message edited by: Mark Betts ]
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
I see you come from Leicester, Mark. Would that be Leicester-on-Don? Or Leicester-on-Volga? I mean, with your suspicion of western converts, you must be from somewhere deep in the heart of Mother Russia, no?
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
I see you come from Leicester, Mark. Would that be Leicester-on-Don? Or Leicester-on-Volga? I mean, with your suspicion of western converts, you must be from somewhere deep in the heart of Mother Russia, no?
No mate, I myself am a western protestant convert.
Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on
:
Note to Mark Betts: Irony does not mean 'a bit like an iron'
[ 23. May 2012, 20:21: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
So your point is that western, formerly Protestant converts to the Orthodox faith can't have valid or legitimate opinions about the ordination practices of the Orthodox Church? And you state this as your opinion, as a western, formerly Protestant convert, on the ordination practices of the Orthodox Church? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
You seem to be practically begging to have your opinion ignored.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
So your point is that western, formerly Protestant converts to the Orthodox faith can't have valid or legitimate opinions about the ordination practices of the Orthodox Church? And you state this as your opinion, as a western, formerly Protestant convert, on the ordination practices of the Orthodox Church?
You seem to be practically begging to have your opinion ignored.
No mate - you're putting words into my mouth. I'm not going to speak ill of my Orthodox brothers and sisters, but there is a tendancy for them to bring a bit of western baggage with them when they convert. I don't deny at all that I have brought some "Forward in Faith" baggage with me as well!
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
No mate - you're putting words into my mouth. I'm not going to speak ill of my Orthodox brothers and sisters, but there is a tendancy for them to bring a bit of western baggage with them when they convert. I don't deny at all that I have brought some "Forward in Faith" baggage with me as well!
So what exactly were you trying to say with your "converts don't count" post? It sounds like the case of a well-known Scotsman where you've defined dissent on this subject out of the Orthodox Church. In other words, the fact that they disagree on this matter proves that they're not really Orthodox after all!
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
No mate - you're putting words into my mouth. I'm not going to speak ill of my Orthodox brothers and sisters, but there is a tendancy for them to bring a bit of western baggage with them when they convert. I don't deny at all that I have brought some "Forward in Faith" baggage with me as well!
So what exactly were you trying to say with your "converts don't count" post? It sounds like the case of a well-known Scotsman where you've defined dissent on this subject out of the Orthodox Church. In other words, the fact that they disagree on this matter proves that they're not really Orthodox after all!
I didn't say "converts don't count". These were not canonical statements, they were just opinions with a somewhat western bias. Christians are allowed to have them, but they don't carry much weight if they contradict the overwhelming majority.
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I didn't say "converts don't count". These were not canonical statements, they were just opinions with a somewhat western bias. Christians are allowed to have them, but they don't carry much weight if they contradict the overwhelming majority.
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to advance here. First you claim that no one in the Orthodox Church would ever suggest women were the spiritual equals of men. Then, when provided with some examples of Orthodox who consider it at least worth consideration, you imply that they're not really Orthodox because they disagree with you. And now you claim that, contrary to your original point, Orthodox believer are allowed to have different opinions on this subject.
Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on
:
test
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I didn't say "converts don't count". These were not canonical statements, they were just opinions with a somewhat western bias. Christians are allowed to have them, but they don't carry much weight if they contradict the overwhelming majority.
I'm not sure what argument you're trying to advance here. First you claim that no one in the Orthodox Church would ever suggest women were the spiritual equals of men. Then, when provided with some examples of Orthodox who consider it at least worth consideration, you imply that they're not really Orthodox because they disagree with you. And now you claim that, contrary to your original point, Orthodox believer are allowed to have different opinions on this subject.
Well, excuse me, but it wasn't as if I was given proper quotes was it - what am I supposed to think?
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
hosting
Hell, our board for resolving conflicts, is currently frozen over. Therefore provocative and sarcastic responses to other posters are not welcome. I will be closing this thread until the usual options are open for dealing with abrasive posting.
thanks,
Louise
hosting off
[ 24. May 2012, 23:02: Message edited by: Louise ]
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
hosting
And Hell is back
hosting off
Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just out of curiosity, which part of the Eucharist is performed with the penis? It seems to be a critical requirement, but I've never had anyone explain why.
Clearly the Elevation.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Zappa:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just out of curiosity, which part of the Eucharist is performed with the penis? It seems to be a critical requirement, but I've never had anyone explain why.
Clearly the Elevation.
Also clearly time for this thread to be closed!
Posted by Spike (# 36) on
:
That's not for you to decide!
Spike
SoF Admin
Posted by Louise (# 30) on
:
It is now that we need to re-jig which threads stay open.
cheers,
L.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0