|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
What makes the last 1500 +/- years of Tradition any more relavent than the first 500 +/- years? Why can't we say "it happened once; it can happen again."
That's actually a very good question, Bede. Because, as you know, the way we work things out in the Orthodox Church gives a lot of weight to what happened in the first 500 +/- years. When we are trying to settle a disputed point, we look to antiquity, and we figure the ancient practice or belief is preferable to the new.
Why do you think I asked the question that way? ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
quote:
But that, by itself, isn't the whole answer. Some things developed in the Church over time....
And I don't think that a woman will ever be made an Orthodox bishop (or a priest, since a priest is the personal representative of the bishop), although I do think that women will be made deacons in the not-too-distant future.
It's possible, of course. If we've got it wrong, and have had it wrong for 1500 years or so, the Holy Spirit is quite capable of leading us to have the sort of council where such things are decided.
And that's a much-too-long answer to a short and simple question. I hope I haven't confused the issue by my long-windedness.
Actually, by holding out the possibility (not necessarily probability) of change being lead by the Spirit, you express a resonable position.
I will off-handedly remark that when the Episcopal Church first started ordaining women to the deaconate, it wasn't seen as the "same" as male ordination to the deaconate. Once the door had been opened, though, it started people thinking about the issue. Later, these earlier ordinations of women were seen as the same as the ordination of men.
If you see the Orthodox ordaining women to the diaconate, even if the "women's diaconate" is not viewed the same way as the "male diaconate," it will start you down the same slippery slope we've walked. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
If you see the Orthodox ordaining women to the diaconate, even if the "women's diaconate" is not viewed the same way as the "male diaconate," it will start you down the same slippery slope we've walked.
Why, though?
The diaconate is an order in its own right. If it's viewed as a stepping stone to priesthood, then it could become problematic, but it isn't viewed that way. The permanent diaconate is alive and well in Orthodoxy and has been for centuries, for people who are called to diaconal ministry. Women have been ordained to the diaconate in the past for centuries, and I'd very much like to see what Josephine would - a restoration of that practice.
(Please, please, the past tense of lead is led ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
If you see the Orthodox ordaining women to the diaconate, even if the "women's diaconate" is not viewed the same way as the "male diaconate," it will start you down the same slippery slope we've walked.
Why, though?
The diaconate is an order in its own right. If it's viewed as a stepping stone to priesthood, then it could become problematic, but it isn't viewed that way. The permanent diaconate is alive and well in Orthodoxy and has been for centuries, for people who are called to diaconal ministry. Women have been ordained to the diaconate in the past for centuries, and I'd very much like to see what Josephine would - a restoration of that practice.
(Please, please, the past tense of lead is led )
Well, it only took over a 100 years (if I remember correctly) for the change in mindset to occur in the {P}ECUSA. It was, in part, the recognition of the validity and worth of the women's ministry as deacons that helped to fuel the questions for the {P}ECUSA for priestly ordination. Add to that the historical evidence that at least some places did ordain women to more than the diaconate, and the rest is history.
Interestingly enough, I think the female vocational diaconate probably helped to revive the concept of the vocational diaconate for men in the {P}ECUSA, since that is what all the women were originally ordained to. I know there were also movements in the Roman Church at the same time, but the ECUSA had its own example to draw upon.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
From the on-line version of Sojourners Magazine (free registration required):
The real tradition of women and church leadership
There is at one error in this opinion article that I caught, at least with regards to the current use of the word "presbitera." (Maybe someone with an Orthodox background can tell us how long "presbitera" has been used to refer to a priest's wife.) Still, she points to some archeological evidence from around 820 CE AD for there being a bishop who happens to be female.
Here thesis is "Women's restriction in the church did not derive from tradition, but from the gradual importation of sub-Christian thought from outside the church, into the church."
This article is not scholarly, but an opinion piece in a popular Christian magazine. So, don't expect rigor that would be needed to conduct a discussion in Purgatory or Kerygmania around here . It is something to think about, though.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
...when the Episcopal Church first started ordaining women to the deaconate, it wasn't seen as the "same" as male ordination to the deaconate.
The Anglican Church of Canada still has canons relating to deaconesses on the books, proof on the point.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
There is at one error in this opinion article that I caught, at least with regards to the current use of the word "presbitera." (Maybe someone with an Orthodox background can tell us how long "presbitera" has been used to refer to a priest's wife.)
Is there an Oxford Greek Dictionary? You'd need a reference like that, I would guess, to document when and how the word has changed over time. But as far as I know, "presbytera" has been used to mean "wife of the priest" for very nearly as long as there have been priests.
But apparently few people who aren't Orthodox know that. I tried googling for the history of the word presbytera, and this was the first hit -- I didn't pay to read the whole article, but note that the first paragraph assumes that a presbytera is a priest.
I wondered about the phrase "presbytera sancta" -- a mix of Greek and Latin. What is that about?
Still, because I know how the term presbytera is used, and has been used, by us hide-bound, stuck-in-the-mud, change-averse Orthodox, I'd hardly consider a reference to a woman using the honorific "presbytera" was evidence of women in the priesthood.
quote:
Still, she points to some archeological evidence from around 820 CE AD for there being a bishop who happens to be female.
I'd like to see the icon she refers to. There's a wonderful icon of the Theotokos that shows her vested as a bishop. Not that the Theotokos was ever in her life so vested -- you have to know the story that goes with the icon to understand it. I'd want to know more about the episcopa in the icon mentioned in the story before I accepted that it was in fact a bishop who happened to be female.
I have recently read a brief booklet by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo (essentially a transcript of portions of a presentation he made "off-the-cuff" at a conference in 1995 or 1996) on the subject of gender in the Church. In this, he explains that the reason gender exists is as prophecy and as revelation. In his understanding, maleness exists as a prophecy of Christ, and femaleness as a prophecy of the Church.
quote:
It is not without reason that Christ says that the gender relation between men and women will not exist in the resurrection, and Paul instructs us that in the Kingdom, there is no longer the distinction of "male" and "female." If human gender is given for prophecy, then when all prophecy has been fulfilled, there is no longer a need for prophets nor for the means of prophecy. When Christ and the Church have been visibly united, whel all is clear and manifest, then the prophetic role of human gender will have been fulfilled and will pass away.
That is why, according to Archbishop Lazar, only men are called to the liturgical or ordained priesthood. "Throughout Scriptural history, women have held the prophetic role of revealing the Church" while "the prophetic role of men is in revelation about Christ." The priesthood (or, more to the point, the episcopacy), is a prophetic role about Christ, and so must be filled by a man.
Archbishop Lazar says, "This realization that gender is connected to prophecy and revelation has been lost largely because man, in his arrogance, began to relate the respective roles of men and women to relative value. When "role" was identified with "value," humanity was degraded, women were reduced to serfdom, and the whole mystery and meaning of human gender and marriage was lost."
I need to read some more, and think some more about what the Archbishop has said. So far, it makes sense to me.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EJ.
Shipmate
# 9063
|
Posted
I'm rather confused when this two-genders-separate-callings -argument comes forth.
I've met some intersexed individuals, and their witness about themselves seems to indicate that a division of humanity into two separate, non-overlapping genders is a bit shaky project. I used to believe you just look at person's genitalia and then it's easy to tell which is which, but this doesn't seem to be the case. Also, not all of these people identify as man or woman, but prefer to speak of themselves as just people (gender not being such an issue when using Finnish: the third-person singular pronoun "hän" means either he or she: there are no gendered pronouns in Finnish).
This is why I think giving gender as man-or-woman a God-given status is, IMO, slightly dubious.
Gender seems to be a physiological but also a sociological complex. I know there're pretty few intersexed individuals, but this seems to undermine objections to OoW quite radically (literally "at the root"), as gender does not seem to be an entirely God-given attribute of people, or at the very least it seems that God gives a gender from a selection wider than just two.
Posts: 137 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rowen
Shipmate
# 1194
|
Posted
Today's national Australian newspaper carries an article about women in ministry- my own minister and my church is featured.
Just thought I would mention this- because it is something that makes me proud today.... the Australian Church and women in ministry
--------------------
"May I live this day… compassionate of heart" (John O’Donoghue)...
Posts: 4897 | From: Somewhere cold in Victoria, Australia | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I have recently read a brief booklet by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo (essentially a transcript of portions of a presentation he made "off-the-cuff" at a conference in 1995 or 1996) on the subject of gender in the Church. In this, he explains that the reason gender exists is as prophecy and as revelation. In his understanding, maleness exists as a prophecy of Christ, and femaleness as a prophecy of the Church.
[snip] That is why, according to Archbishop Lazar, only men are called to the liturgical or ordained priesthood. "Throughout Scriptural history, women have held the prophetic role of revealing the Church" while "the prophetic role of men is in revelation about Christ." The priesthood (or, more to the point, the episcopacy), is a prophetic role about Christ, and so must be filled by a man.
I find that very interesting. A kind of embodied theology of St Paul's own language re: Christ as the head of the church, and the church as bride - husbands as the head of the wife, wife as the glory of the husband thing. So therefore, the man 'prophesies' Christ as groom; as the woman 'prophesies' the Church as bride. However, I don't see why gender needs to be reasoned away in this fashion, unless one feels the need to put gender in its place, for some reason.
Ultimately, this theory seems to be a rather convoluted extrapolation from a very basic, though profound, metaphor; and while obviously relevant today in many ways, still heavily coloured with cultural overtones of the day.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
++Lazar is always an interesting read and is one of the few hierarchs who thinks (and you thought that the Anglicans were the only ones with dim bishops )-- did he not write on the Orthodox response to Star Wars?? but I post on the word presbytera. I pulled out my handy Lightfoot's Apostolic Fathers (most recently in use last summer when our witch-burning semi-postulant was preaching at matins, and I wanted to read something useful while he frothed from the pulpit) as I had a vague recollection of having seen reference but after several of Ignatius' letters, I haven't come across it. However, my tattered Lidell & Scott (yes, I know that there are better lexica about, but I can't afford them right now) tells me that presbytera is also translatable as referring to a woman with precedence, presumably of honour or seniority- a phenomenon still characterizing parish life. Not knowing the context of each use of the word, we may never know what was meant. However, the sub-apostolic church was never shy about deacons in the feminine, so the absence/shortage of parallel presbyteral references would suggest that the practice was nonexistent, or very local and minimal.
To make it more confusing, there are a few hundred references to the word without a gender ending (pres., pr., presbyt.), owing to the propensity of scribes to save on paper and ink (which also happens with personal names so we don't know if Hermiod. is Hermiodos or Hermiodé), and we haven't even touched dialect or local names of non-Hellenic origin, where the gender of the person, likely clear to locals, is not accessible to us.
My difficulty with the argument of antiquity of OWP is not that it is patchy, or isolated, because we are talking about traces from 17 or so centuries ago and much has been lost, but that there seems to be no discussion of it at the time-- no commentary, or justification or diatribe, but I might not have read as much as I think I have. And the patristic period was as full of fulminators as today-- one fears what would have been said if they had all written blogs.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted on another thread by PaulTH:
The Rochester Report recognises the "open process of reception" for women priests. It also says that the development "could be either accepted or rejected" (3.6.10). And that the process "will continue until not just the Church of England but the whole Church comes to a common mind about the matter" (3.1.16). It is still "hypothetically reversible" (3.6.24).
Is there any meaningful sense in which OOWP in the Anglican churches is still "reversible"? I think this is the key to the women bishops controversy in the C of F. When you have female bishops (ten years and more in Canada) you have pretty much crossed a line.
Putting on the sacramentalist hat, which doesn't fit me that well, I can see that the "reverse" would create discomfort, but pre-bishops, not chaos. Baptisms, after all, are valid regardless of who does them. Invalid eucharists would be distressing, but not worse.
But reverse a consecration to Bishop, and you have chaos - invalid confirmations, and possibly invalid ordinations.
So, is this the issue of the day?
P.S. I think ordination's thermodynamically irreversible, but I don't know about theodynamically!
[ 08. February 2006, 13:56: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I think the problem you have put your finger on here, Henry, is the invention of "an open period of reception", which is technically the position of the entire Anglican communion.
It's a fudge of course, but it does allow us to say that we in a process of discernment, whilst maintaining the fiction that we are a part of the greater catholic church (in the organic sense, not the entire company of saints sense). My view is that what is done is done. If you disagree with it or are concerned it may not be right, then leave. Going back is too much to contemplate. It won't happen.
I have stated before that I think if re-integration of the church in the west is to take place, then it is probably better that Anglicanism looks towards the other protestant denominations. They understand our mindset, and hopefully vice versa. Which is not to say they necessarily like it of course, but that's something else. We can pray about the distant future, but in the near future there will be no rapprochement between Anglicanism and Rome.
Though other things may happen. Such as fissures in the Anglican communion. That may change things for some of the remaining parts.
We have no prior experience of "an open period of reception". Reception had hitherto been what happened after the church issued an edict of some sort. Anglicanism never did that. Personally I consider that gutless and unfair - unfair on women whose orders are being doubted, and unfair on those who are forced to keep up the rhetoric in order to demonstrate that reception has not taken place. And unfair on the rest of us who have had a bellyful of rhetoric.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
I think the problem you have put your finger on here, Henry, is the invention of "an open period of reception", which is technically the position of the entire Anglican communion.
:blink: I didn't know that.
I don't know anyone in the ECUSA who talks about the ordination of women as if it were anything but a done deal. We had a conscience clause when the thing went through for bishops who didn't want to ordain women, but my understanding is that new bishops had better be okay with ordaining women. In practice this doesn't always work out, as there are places where women are discouraged from seeking ordination, but the canons say a congregation may nominate for the diaconate (and thus eventually the priesthood) a confirmed adult in good standing, not a confirmed man in good standing.
I can't imagine going back on this. It would be insane. I can't think of a single woman under 65 in my parish who wouldn't be completely outraged if the decision to ordain women were rescinded, and most of the ones over 65 would be none too pleased. If someone wants schism in the Episcopal Church, they should propose this; women and men all over the country would rise up in angry protest.
We're not going back. Ever. If it meant the Anglican Communion would shatter, I'd be sad about that, but I wouldn't lift a finger to stop it. More than half the population of the Episcopal Church will not sit still for being treated as unworthy and second-best creatures of God. In our church, to refuse to ordain women is to say that we are not made in God's image.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Yes, I realise that it is not well known, RuthW, especially in the North American provinces. Nevertheless that is what the 1988 Lambeth Conference agreed, and it remains the formal position to this day. I won't repeat my own views on it.
I'm not sure I have much to add at this point on your latter paragraph. Since well before I joined the ship, I stopped claiming to know the answer to the OoWP/B. I used to be pro-, but ultimately found the arguments of both sides run out of steam when pushed. If I were to push your own arguments in your last paragraph, I would point out that they are predicated on certain presuppositions. Given those presuppositions it makes perfect sense. The robustness of those presuppositions needs to be seen in the longer run.
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
If I were to push your own arguments in your last paragraph, I would point out that they are predicated on certain presuppositions. Given those presuppositions it makes perfect sense. The robustness of those presuppositions needs to be seen in the longer run.
True. And fair enough. But in the short run, I have to live my life as a Christian as best I can, and I simply could not do that in a church that did not ordain women. I think I have a lot of company.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cymruambyth
Shipmate
# 10887
|
Posted
I don't know if anyone has mentioned it (I'm not going to read all 18 pages of this thread - I do have a life, after all!) but the Anglican Church of Canada has been ordaining women since 1978, and (gasp!) we're still here. And guess what, like their male counterparts, there are those who excel and those who don't. We are all created, so scripture tells us, in the image of God "male and female, created He them". If I, as a woman, am created in the image of God, then why should my gender make a difference to a call to ordination? Not, thank God, that I have been so called, but if I were to be....
Moreover, isn't the whole idea of wearing the robes based on the theory that the priest represents the Incarnation and don't the robes hide any gender-related attributes?
If you ask me, the whole debate isn't about theology or scripture, tradition, or reason, it's about power! And that's pathetic. As someone else pointed out, if all the women who minister in any capacity in the church went on strike, you'd soon see if the church can survive.
Oh, and by the way, the difference between Priest and Minister? Priests are ordained, set apart for a specific role in the church. The entire Body of Christ is made up of Ministers.
--------------------
"Tradition is the living faith of the dead; traditionalism is the dead faith of the living." Jaroslav Pelikan
Posts: 556 | From: The True North Strong and Free | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Hello Cymruambyth and welcome to the world of dead horseflesh.
Can I tactfully point out how disrespectful this bit of your last post was? quote:
I'm not going to read all 18 pages of this thread - I do have a life, after all!
Some of us - of all theological persuasions - come down here to check on what people think and say about these topics. Is it too much to ask that you do the same first? It only takes about 15 mins. to skim-read a page. If you were to do that, you would find that pretty well all points have rejoinders "from the other side", whichever side you happen to be on. In that one sentence you have announced that everyone who disagrees with you, and everyone who might have agreed with you so far is not worth the effort of listening to.
Everyone is expected to argue their case with conviction. Occasionally some of us overstep the mark, though mostly we try to remain within it. But what possible use is a discussion board where people aren't prepared to put in the effort of reading what other people think?
If you are going to complain about power in the church, do you not think that your cause might be given more credence if you were to engage with others who might disagree, rather than indulge in drive-by postings that seek to belittle the other?
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
... It only takes about 15 mins. to skim-read a page. ...
So, at 18 pages, that's 4.5 hours.
I know you have a point, but maybe suggesting reading the first couple and last couple might go over better.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
... It only takes about 15 mins. to skim-read a page. ...
So, at 18 pages, that's 4.5 hours.
I know you have a point, but maybe suggesting reading the first couple and last couple might go over better.
I don't care how well it goes over. Cymruambyth can spread his/her reading out over several days or even weeks. This thread isn't going anywhere.
quote:
Oh, and by the way, the difference between Priest and Minister? Priests are ordained, set apart for a specific role in the church. The entire Body of Christ is made up of Ministers.
Really? I had no idea. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by josephine:
I have recently read a brief booklet by Archbishop Lazar Puhalo (essentially a transcript of portions of a presentation he made "off-the-cuff" at a conference in 1995 or 1996) on the subject of gender in the Church. In this, he explains that the reason gender exists is as prophecy and as revelation. In his understanding, maleness exists as a prophecy of Christ, and femaleness as a prophecy of the Church.
.... (quote excised to save space)...
That is why, according to Archbishop Lazar, only men are called to the liturgical or ordained priesthood. "Throughout Scriptural history, women have held the prophetic role of revealing the Church" while "the prophetic role of men is in revelation about Christ." The priesthood (or, more to the point, the episcopacy), is a prophetic role about Christ, and so must be filled by a man.
This is very interesting, and seems logically consistent to me (even though I may not agree with its application!). Josephine, or anyone else, would you mind clarifying two points for me? When I read "women have held the prophetic role of revealing the Church," that suggests to me that women are called to, for example, administrative, educational or evangelical roles in the church, plus feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, and presumably anything else that falls into the category of "revealing the Church." I'm not sure I actually see women in all of those roles in reality, so what have I misunderstood? Please tell me that "revealing the Church" isn't about making the coffee!
Second, if some men are called to the priesthood and all women are called to be the church, what prophetic role do un-ordained men play? Which are they called to, the female Church prophecy or the male Christ prophecy, and how do they fulfil it?
Josephine, your posts are always interesting and illuminating. Thank you!
OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
When I read "women have held the prophetic role of revealing the Church," that suggests to me that women are called to, for example, administrative, educational or evangelical roles in the church, plus feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, and presumably anything else that falls into the category of "revealing the Church." I'm not sure I actually see women in all of those roles in reality, so what have I misunderstood? Please tell me that "revealing the Church" isn't about making the coffee!
I think, if you take His Grace's thoughts to their logical conclusion, one might think that perhaps the roles of deacon and reader should be filled only by women, in the same way that the role of priest should be filled only by men. Those roles seem to me to reveal "Church" the same way that the bishop reveals "Christ."
But when the Church chose the first deacons, she chose men. Perhaps there was a compelling reason for that. Or perhaps it shows a flaw in His Grace's reasoning, or mine. I'm not sure.
On the other hand, my daughter has been struggling with the issues surrounding the role of women in the Orthodox Church, and several older women have pointed out to her that, while the ordained clergy are all men, in most parishes, it's women who actuually make things happen. In our parish, for example, the Christian education program was initially organized by a woman, it is currently being administered by a woman, and most of the teachers are women. The current treasurer is a woman. The parish bookstore was organized by and is run by a woman. The Sisterhood raises and disburses funds for much of the parish's charitable work. Our choir director is a woman. So, while women are not ordained clergy in Orthodoxy, we're hardly sidelined.
And then there is the whole area of monasticism, and how that would fit in with His Grace's remarks on gender. Both women and men can be monastics, of course -- and that works, since that calling is a foreshadowing of the Eighth Day, when there is no longer male or female, when prophecy is ended because all things are made plain.
quote:
Second, if some men are called to the priesthood and all women are called to be the church, what prophetic role do un-ordained men play? Which are they called to, the female Church prophecy or the male Christ prophecy, and how do they fulfil it?
That's a really good question, OliviaG, and it's not one that I've thought all the way through.
I think the fact that all Orthodox Christians are viewed as being ordained to the laity has some bearing on it. But I haven't worked out how it all fits together yet, or if it does.
The role of women in the Church is not one that troubles me greatly, from the inside. Before I was Orthodox, I was a member of a church that allows women to fill every possible role -- preachers, pastors, evangelists. So, from the outside, it looked very egalitarian. From the inside, though, it wasn't. My experience in it was that it was deeply mysogynistic. Women could be pastors, but if their husband or father hit them, it was their own fault for not being submissive enough.
In the Orthodox Church, it's the other way around. From the outside, we may not look extremely patriarchal, unegalitarian, whatever word you'd want to use. All those guys with beards in black robes running things. But from the inside, the experience of it is very different.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
The diaconate is an order in its own right. If it's viewed as a stepping stone to priesthood, then it could become problematic, but it isn't viewed that way.
The diaconate B2F is talking about, i.e. an order of priesthood, has nothing to do with the diaconesses. Women cannot become diacons in the orthodox church. However, like I stress many times, words have more meanings than one. Diakono means assist, help. Diakonos is the assistant. Therefore, women diakonesses help the church; they don't help in the church. They can be used to e.g. bring communion to a sick parishioner, but they have never and will never do what a deacon does in the church. They are not ordained in priesthood; they are not ordained into the diaconate.
I see that confusion exists even among Orthodox in the West about the diaconesses, so I thought I would make this post. We had discussed the issue in some depth two years ago in Greece, so the info I share with you might be of use.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Abishag
Ship's Quality Shag
# 4710
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
Well, for me it's that the Church didn't ordain women as priests for nearly two millennia, even though Jesus and the early Church let Gentiles in (and become priests as well!), overturned a host of other cultural norms and so forth, and even St. Paul -- the man who said that "male or female, all are one in Christ Jesus," a line often used as justification for female priests -- also said he would not allow a woman to speak in church. So whatever Paul had in mind (apart from the question of respecting his letters as authoritative), it seems that he could view all of us, male and female, as "one in Christ Jesus" while not believing in men and women as having the same roles or functions in the Church.
So, for me, it comes down to Christian tradition and that I have yet to see any argument convince me that we should overturn that.
(Doctrinally, so everyone knows where I am coming from, I am an Anglo-Catholic; at least here in the US I would be considered so. I'm not wholly sure if that word means the same over in the UK though. It's not a matter of "style of service" as it is my theology, i.e. not "High Church" with emphasis on candles so much as doctrines... pretty much taking C.S. Lewis as my modern teacher with a dash of Chesterton would be a good way of summing up)
Sorry if I'm repeating a question here but this thread is 18 pages and I don't have time to read right through.
I want to ask whether you would use the same argument about homosexual priests?
It does seem to me that in some Anglo-Catholic circles, there is an inconsistency in argument when it comes to these two areas.
--------------------
http://www.celticheads.com
http://www.evamcintyre.com http://www.bangormonachorum.com
Posts: 763 | From: Keeping King David warm...while reading a good book! | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Abishag:
quote:
Originally posted (19 July, 2001 13:13) by ChastMastr:
Well, for me it's that the Church didn't ordain women as priests for nearly two millennia,...
Note the date on that posting ... ChastMastr has changed his opinion since July 2001.
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Abishag:
Sorry if I'm repeating a question here but this thread is 18 pages and I don't have time to read right through.
I want to ask whether you would use the same argument about homosexual priests?
It has been raised a few times...
to look at a long thread try clicking on the "printer -friendly view" button. That will load the whole thread as one page, with fewer (but still too many...) irritating graphics.
If you are on a dial-up connection make a cup of tea while it loads
Then you can use your browser's search facility (CTRL-S in most of them) to find words like "homosexuality". It turns up a lot - some people can't seem to leave it alone when talking about women priests. I wonder why (he says ingenuously)
You might want to consider saving the whole "printer-friendly" page to your local disk where you can read or search or print it at your convenience. That's also a simple way to "archive" a thread you care about before the Evil Host Monsters come and chop it off.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Over in the Serious and Constructive discussion on CofE women bishops
quote:
Jonathan the Free said:
I think that charismatic evangelicals are an interesting case, because we are one of the few groups in the Church of England that has not made up our minds on the ordination / consecration of women yet. Everyone else has made up their minds, we haven't.
and
I could think of other similar churches where the announcement of an appointment like that would cause people to resign from the PCC or leave the church. Even if those PCC members had not voted for Resolution B when they had the chance... I'm sure the same applies to women bishops. It might cause practical pastoral problems beyond FiF and Reform. Even if it is the right thing to do in the end (and I think it probably is) there's a lot of questions to be addressed.
and
I don't think there would be any appetite to pass Resolution B here. Given that a majority of people support women priests, it would seem strange.
[...]
I think quite a few people would just hope that the churchwardens or the patrons would find a man without us having to know how they did it !
Does this imply that Anglican evangelical charismatic churches don't have a doctrinal objection to women vicars but they think that men are more significant or notable in some way and therefore their particular parish Really Ought to have a man to show they have Arrived and are now Serious Players in the church of England?
[ 14. February 2006, 13:30: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
The idea I was trying to convey is what do you do with a parish where say 80% of the congregation are in favour of women priests and 20% are against. Thinking here of an evangelical church where the objections are based around headship, leadership and teaching rather than presbyteral ordination or celebration of communion. So the objections are doctrinal but not held by the majority.
A compromise is to have a male vicar and female curate. It means you keep those of the 20% who want to continue being a part of the church. But if you have a female vicar then you can't.
How are the 80% to vote on Resolution B ? They personally do not object to the ordination of women, but they do not want to have a female vicar if that means losing 20% of the congregation. The choice is to vote for Resolution B to represent other people's views, or to hope that a male vicar gets appointed, or to deal with the aftermath of a female vicar if one is appointed.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
The diaconate is an order in its own right. If it's viewed as a stepping stone to priesthood, then it could become problematic, but it isn't viewed that way.
The diaconate B2F is talking about, i.e. an order of priesthood, has nothing to do with the diaconesses. Women cannot become diacons in the orthodox church.
Thanks, Andreas.
My position has shifted over the past two years as well as Chastmastr, although perhaps not in exactly the way people might assume.
That aside, I have a question which you might be able to help with, Andreas.
I understand what it is about the nature of the episcopate (and, by extension, the presbyterate), that makes it a specifically male Sacramental role. However, I don't see why this necessarily applies to the diaconate as well. I know of more than one priest and at least one bishop who would agree, but as it has been discussed in depth where you currently are, you may be able to shed some light on the matter. Leaving aside, for the timebeing, the historical roles of deacons and deaconesses, what is it about the nature of the diaconate that makes it specifically a male role? I can answer this for bishops and priests, but I can't for deacons.
Many thanks.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Here is a New Directions article on the lack of women leading large evangelical churches by John Richardson. I don't agree with all of it, but it raises a lot of interesting issues.
I think it is inevitable that the Church of England will have women bishops, but not that large churches of my own churchmanship will have women vicars !
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
(Dipping my toe in with some trepidation)
Jonathan the Free, do you think that 20% of people disagreeing with having a woman priest would necessarily translate into 20% of people leaving? Some would; I imagine (no data here but considerable experience of other types of disputes)that a lot would accommodate themsleves, possibly with lots of grumbling initially. There may even be the 'present company excepted, of course' excuse mumbled occasionally.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
what is it about the nature of the diaconate that makes it specifically a male role?
Presumably it's an argument that goes like this - all the first 7 deacons were male, the symbolic interpretation of the ministry (cf. Ignatius) was that the deacons represented the serving ministry of our Lord, our Lord was man - therefore.....
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dyfrig:
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
what is it about the nature of the diaconate that makes it specifically a male role?
Presumably it's an argument that goes like this - all the first 7 deacons were male, the symbolic interpretation of the ministry (cf. Ignatius) was that the deacons represented the serving ministry of our Lord, our Lord was man - therefore.....
Thanks for engaging with that, dyfrig. I realise it's been a number of days since Andreas posted.
I do see that argument. I'm just not sure I'm convinced by its application to the diaconate in the same way that I am for the episcopate. As I would understand it, gender is not intrinsic to the nature of Christ's serving ministry in the same way that it is to his High Priestly ministry. Presumably, this is why women, in the past, have performed diaconal roles, among other women at least, even if not liturgical.
I have come across a certain amount of variation among Orthodox folk but Andreas is the first whom I have seen state unequivocally that women cannot be deacons in the sense of the diaconal ministry that we see exercised in church by men.
ETA that I'm not challenging his position, but it's the first time I have seen a definite position put forward from an Orthodox source and so would like to enquire more about the exact nature of diaconate that forms the basis of this.
[ 21. February 2006, 16:00: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The parallel between deacons of the Church and the 7 deacons in the Acts has been rejected by an ecumenical council. There's no link between the two; we are talking about two different things.
The Orthodox Church views priesthood in a certain way. Since there are three degrees of priesthood (diacons, presbyters, bishops), then all three are for men only, because priesthood is for men only.
I don't think we use different arguments for priests than we use for bishops. At leats, I have never heard of such arguments.
[ 21. February 2006, 16:16: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
Re: the article by John Richardson,
Large evangelical churches have problems of their own, such as people treating them like cathedrals and wanting to be anonymous, esp. by not joining home groups. The church I attend has this problem. Anybody who wants to play the 'churches run by male ministers are bigger' game has to grow up a bit and face the issues.
We also need to realise that Peter Brierley has a peculiar mentality towards church numbers and growth. In his 2002 survey of Scottish churches, he claimed that churches with fewer elders or deacons grew faster, or were less likely to decline. He seemed to favour the leadership of the one rather than eldership, deacons (in the Nonconformist sense) or team ministry. This is pastorally highly contentious thinking, and very possibly short-sighted. This sort of one-size fits all mentality might also be a little removed from reality in some cases.
Besides, conservative Anglo-Catholics don't have anything to shout about in terms of numbers of church attenders. They would do better to do some missionary work of their own rather than alternate hypocritically between supporting evangelicals for having large churches and bashing them for agreeing with women's ordination.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cocktailgirl
mixer of the drinks
# 8684
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
As I would understand it, gender is not intrinsic to the nature of Christ's serving ministry in the same way that it is to his High Priestly ministry.
B2F, could you unpack this a bit for this hard of thinking shipmate? I don't know what you're getting at.
Love the sig, by the way. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
And could we clarify whether we are talking about Jesus' gender or his sex.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
As I would understand it, gender is not intrinsic to the nature of Christ's serving ministry in the same way that it is to his High Priestly ministry.
B2F, could you unpack this a bit for this hard of thinking shipmate? I don't know what you're getting at.
Of course I can. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
When I was an ardent supporter of the OOW to the episcopate and priesthood, I saw that the priest acted in persona Christi, but I would only have argued that the priest would need to be human in order to be "valid matter" (if you will). In my view, as it then was, any further requirement (such as maleness) would also mean that the priest would have to be Jewish, in his late 20s/early 30s, perhaps have a mole behind his left ear (if Our Lord had such a mole) and so forth. The Creed stated that Christ became man (in the sense of human) and that was enough for me. In light of that, the only argument opposed to the OOW for which I had any sympathy was the question of authority, which I put to the back of my mind until the Gene Robinson debate came up a couple of years later, and I began to reassess it again, which is, incidentally, what started me searching elsewhere, but I digress.
It is only later (and due largely to reading the earlier pages of this thread), that I was introduced to a concept that I had never before considered, and that was that gender (and I say gender as I get confused by the debates that go on about what is and isn't correct use of gender and sex in which no consensus ever seems to be reached) is intrinsic to the nature of a person in a way that ethnicity, eye colour, &c. are not.
This was new to me and caused me to perhaps step back from my ardent support for the OOW, as I realised that I perhaps had not considered all of the issues. I still haven't delved into this in great depth, I must admit, but accepting, for argument's sake, that the Sacramental and Eucharistic Sacrificial nature of Christ's nature is intrinsically male, which would mean that the episcopate (and also priesthood) would also be intrinsically male, I don't see how it would necessarily follow that the same would apply to the diaconate.
Now that may be due to a flawed understanding of diaconate on my part, and Andreas has helpfully highlighted that the three major orders are all part of the priesthood to one degree or another, but it still seems to me (in my perhaps flawed understanding) that the disctinctions between those degrees are sufficient to make the "maleness" of the sacrificing bishop/priest - if that is indeed the case - not applicable to deacons.
On a personal level, for me, the OOW is like issues of sexuality. I submit to Orthodox teaching and practice because of what I believe about the Orthodox Church, and I don't place my own reasonings over and above that, but I still think it's important to try to ascertain an understanding of these things rather than slavishly and unquestioningly following them.
quote:
Love the sig, by the way.
Thanks.
It's tickled me for a few months now and so I thought I ought to give myself the opportunity to giggle about here so I don't end up being too irreverent in church.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
It is only later (and due largely to reading the earlier pages of this thread), that I was introduced to a concept that I had never before considered, and that was that gender (and I say gender as I get confused by the debates that go on about what is and isn't correct use of gender and sex in which no consensus ever seems to be reached) is intrinsic to the nature of a person in a way that ethnicity, eye colour, &c. are not.
Then you're talking about sex, with the addition that you hold gender to be strongly determined by sex.
Do you think take this view 'that gender is intrinsic to the nature of a person' to revealed truth or do you take it to be a conclusion, in principle, that anyone could arrive at through the use of reason?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
And then there's the undoubted fact that if women were not eligible for the 'serving ministry' the Church would come crashing to a halt.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
It is only later (and due largely to reading the earlier pages of this thread), that I was introduced to a concept that I had never before considered, and that was that gender (and I say gender as I get confused by the debates that go on about what is and isn't correct use of gender and sex in which no consensus ever seems to be reached) is intrinsic to the nature of a person in a way that ethnicity, eye colour, &c. are not.
Then you're talking about sex, with the addition that you hold gender to be strongly determined by sex.
Thank you. I'm never sure.
quote:
Do you think take this view 'that gender is intrinsic to the nature of a person' to revealed truth or do you take it to be a conclusion, in principle, that anyone could arrive at through the use of reason?
I honestly don't know. I really haven't explored the concept in any detail since I was introduced to it, so I'm not really in a position to say with any sort of conviction. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
That's perhaps laziness on my part, but my reading is focusing on the lives of the Saints at the moment.
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
And then there's the undoubted fact that if women were not eligible for the 'serving ministry' the Church would come crashing to a halt.
Well yes. Precisely!
[ 21. February 2006, 20:16: Message edited by: Back-to-Front ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Back-to-Front:
Thank you. I'm never sure.
Pleasure. The standard use in the humanities is that sex is the stuff of chromosomes and squishy bits, gender is to with discourse, behaviour and the performance of societal roles.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The parallel between deacons of the Church and the 7 deacons in the Acts has been rejected by an ecumenical council. There's no link between the two; we are talking about two different things.
Which ecumenical council? I'm sure you're right, but I'd love to read what the Council said.
quote:
The Orthodox Church views priesthood in a certain way. Since there are three degrees of priesthood (diacons, presbyters, bishops), then all three are for men only, because priesthood is for men only.
I was under the impression that this was a distortion of the Orthodox view brought into the Church when most of the Church was under the Ottoman yoke, and most theological education was being done in Catholic countries.
But I could be wrong. Can you suggest a source, in English, I could read to clarify?
quote:
I don't think we use different arguments for priests than we use for bishops. At leats, I have never heard of such arguments.
No, the arguments for priest and bishop are identical, because a priest serves as a sort of an extension of the bishop. But the deacon's role is different, and so the same arguments need not apply.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cocktailgirl
mixer of the drinks
# 8684
|
Posted
Thanks, B2F, for expanding on what you meant. There's a large 'if' in your post with which I (fairly obviously) do not concur, but at least I have some idea what you're on about now.
Relatedly, I've never heard of the idea that the diaconate is somehow part of the priesthood. I had always understood them to be separate. Andreas, I also would be interested if you could post a link/reference to substantiate what you've said. Thanks.
Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The sixth ecumenical council taught thus:
"Whoever affirms that the number of deacons should be seven according to the saying of the Acts, should know that the reference in that passage is not to Deacons of the Mysteries but to such that serve tables." (epitome of canon 16; you can read the entire canon)
The fact that there are three degrees of priesthood is to be find in way the canons of the ecumenical councils are written.
I have not read much on priesthood, but I guess that you can find answers in what the ancient fathers taught about it. Perhaps St. Dionysios the Areopaghite would be a good place to start.
(The Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, chapter five)
"The rank of the sacred ministers is divided in the following manner. Their first power consists in purifying the uninitiated by way of the sacraments. Their middle power is to bring illumination to those whom they have purified. Finally, they have the most marvelous power of all, one which embraces all who commune in God's light, the power to perfect these by way of the perfected understanding they have of the contemplated enlightenments."
St. Dionysios insists on the threefold division of EVERY hierarchy. (par.2)
(par. 5) "The divine order of hierarchs is therefore the first of those who behold God."
(par. 6) "The light-bearing order of the priests guides the initiates to the divine visions of the sacraments."
"The order of deacons purifies and discerns those who do not carry God's likeness within themselves and it does so before they come to the sacred rites performed by the priests."
He goes on explaining the tasks of the deacons.
He then restates the task of each order, and says that the high-priests share in the tasks of the other two orders and that the priests share in the task of the deacons because "For although inferiors may not boldly and sacrilegiously trespass on the functions of their superiors, the more divine powers have, in addition to their own, the sacred understanding of the inferior ranks as part of their own perfection."
I hope this helps.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cocktailgirl
mixer of the drinks
# 8684
|
Posted
Andreas, I think you can say that there is a threefold division to the sacred ministry without saying that there is a threefold division to priesthood. Your last quote seems in any case to say that deacons do not share in the priestly task, whilst priests may share in the diaconal task. This, ISTM, works in favour of them being two distinct but related orders. So a priest may proclaim the gospel at mass (by virtue of his/her ordination to the diaconate) but the deacon may not pronounce the absolution, for example.
Posts: 841 | From: in hac lacrimarum valle, propping up the bar | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by M.:
(Dipping my toe in with some trepidation)
Jonathan the Free, do you think that 20% of people disagreeing with having a woman priest would necessarily translate into 20% of people leaving? Some would; I imagine (no data here but considerable experience of other types of disputes)that a lot would accommodate themsleves, possibly with lots of grumbling initially. There may even be the 'present company excepted, of course' excuse mumbled occasionally.
No need to trepidate.
I don't know.
It's never really been tested, which is the point I am making. Because it has not really been tested, no-one wants to be brave enough to go first, which creates the stained glass ceiling.
Some would leave, some would stay and whinge, some would resign from positions of power, some would cut their tithe, some would plot against her, some would get used to it. On the other side, some more people would turn up from a less evangelical position. By having a woman vicar, an evangelical Anglican church would be making a statement about its churchmanship.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cocktailgirl:
Andreas, I think you can say that there is a threefold division to the sacred ministry without saying that there is a threefold division to priesthood. Your last quote seems in any case to say that deacons do not share in the priestly task, whilst priests may share in the diaconal task. This, ISTM, works in favour of them being two distinct but related orders. So a priest may proclaim the gospel at mass (by virtue of his/her ordination to the diaconate) but the deacon may not pronounce the absolution, for example.
This is where I'm up to as well, cocktailgirl.
I do appreciate your quotes and explanations, Andreas, but I'm not sure they deal with the specific question we're raising here, about the difference in the nature of the diaconate from that of the episcopate and priesthood. Even from the perspective that episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate are all different manifestations of priesthood, the distinction does still exist. Do you see what I mean?
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
... where say 80% of the congregation are in favour of {something} and 20% are against.
Does the value of {something} make a difference?
Examples I can think of would be - remarriage of divorced persons
- changes in musical style
- building new premises
- use of candles
- presence of decoration
- translation of the Bible
[ 23. February 2006, 01:35: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Oh granted there are other values of {something} that raise similar issues.
Building works and music are probably the most controversial on your list !
One can try and get round musical disagreements by having yet another service in a different musical style. One can almost avoid the issue, even if this is 'wrong' it gives the impression of having sorted it out. Difficult to ignore a woman vicar. (Whereas one can almost ignore a woman bishop.)
Similarly remarriage after divorce. If you really object you don't have to attend the wedding.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
I just saw the word genitalia....after that I didn't notice dates of posts or anything else 
