|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Priestly genitalia [Ordination of Women]
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I don't think that's right Andreas actually. You only have to read Kallistos Ware..... . Metropolitan Anthony Bloom also had leanings in that direction.
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
There is no one actively asking the Church to change Her mind on who can become a priest. As far as I can tell, bishop Kallistos has asked questions about things like that, but that does not say much. After all, I ask such questions too. I think that had bishop Kallistos, or any other bishop for that matter, brought that debate in the Orthodox Church, there would be an official response to him from his local synod. As far as I know, nobody is saying that women can/should become priests. Can you link us to bishop Kallistos saying that women can/should become priests?
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Well what I'm trying to say is that Bishop Kallistos would consider this more of an open question rather than anything he specifically calls for, and for that I would cite himself in 'The Orthodox Church' part 2 chapter 14 on the Sacraments.
There has also been a collection of essays published which he has contributed to which calls for the return of the Female Diaconate which is obviously distinct from the priesthood. I will try and dig up the title.
My main point was just to state that I think in Orthodoxy, the matter is far more open for discussion in comparison to say, the Roman position which is unequivocal.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
The big question to my mind is whether a woman has operated as a priest of Christ at any point of human history. If a woman, at some point in history, was ordained by Christ to be His priest, then there is no reason for us not allowing women into priesthood. As far as I can tell from the history of the Church. both before and after the Incarnation, no woman became a priest. Why is this? Why, even though there are many women Saints, there is no woman priest? Even the word priest, at least in Greek, is of the male gender. The female equivalent of priestess, has been connected with the gentiles and has been rejected by the Christians. Is it for cultural reasons that Christianity rejected the word "priestess"? Or is it because no woman can act as a priest that a negative meaning was attached to the word?
Also, as far as I can tell, the Saints have not questioned the order of the Church, even though there have been many women Saints. This, combined with the fact that for Orthodoxy, the order of the Church reflects the way the world has been created by the Word, is an important thing to consider.
I find it interesting that the people who now support women priests in Protestant circles are not themselves Saints. I ask the question whether someone who is not a Saint can distinguish between what's right and what's wrong in theological issues.
Lastly, the current situation of the Orthodox Church. Every time a journalist has raised the issue in Greece (mostly in relation with the developments in the Church of England) the response by the bishops and the priests has been that this is another hint for the gap that separates Orthodoxy from Protestantism. All the Church officials I heard on TV express the opinion that it is a closed matter for Orthodoxy. Of course, other people might exist that are less vocal about their opinions... I don't know.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
I find it interesting that the people who now support women priests in Protestant circles are not themselves Saints. I ask the question whether someone who is not a Saint can distinguish between what's right and what's wrong in theological issues.
If by 'Saint' you mean one who is canonised... well, one has to be dead for that.
If you are using it in the Biblical sense of a believer or virtuous person... well, geez, I think we have a few of them around actually!
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Neither. Orthodoxy has a very specific experience of what a Saint is. But I don't want to have a monopoly of the discussion here. So, I back off. If, however, anyone's interested in what sanctity means for Orthodoxy, I think there are many resources available that give a glimpse into it.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paige
Shipmate
# 2261
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
The big question to my mind is whether a woman has operated as a priest of Christ at any point of human history.
My priest does this every Sunday... ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Sister Jackhammer of Quiet Reflection
Posts: 886 | From: Sweet Tea Land, USA | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
You believe so, Paige. I read Andreas as saying that the question for him is whether this is actually so.
--------------------
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
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
In Orthodox liturgical practice, do women participate as acolytes (if the Orthodox use that term)? Do they ever, during a Mass, go behind the iconstatis? Do they prepare the holy table or touch the liturgical vessels?
In Why Catholics Can't Sing (which was brilliant and which I must plug here), Thomas Day reports that when he asked an Eastern Orthodox colleague why women are not allowed behind the iconostasis, the man without hesitating replied "Because they are polluted by menses."
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
By way of a side issue I raised earlier, how can a bishop be female if they are named in Scripture as only being allowed to have one wife ? That is a pretty clear implication isn't it ?
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
By way of a side issue I raised earlier, how can a bishop be female if they are named in Scripture as only being allowed to have one wife ? That is a pretty clear implication isn't it ?
Just as clear as the implication that they must be married, and (presumably but not as clearly) that they ought to resign if the aforesaid wife dies. In light of this quote, one might ask as well whether a bishop whose wife has died (either before or after consecration) ought to be allowed to remarry (is it one wife at all, or one wife at a time?).
And I'm not even touching on the question of whether a divorced man, whether remarried or not, can be a bishop -- much less whether a divorced man whose first wife is dead can be, or a divorced man who has remarried either during his first wife' life or after her death can be a bishop.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
In Orthodox liturgical practice, do women participate as acolytes (if the Orthodox use that term)? Do they ever, during a Mass, go behind the iconstatis? Do they prepare the holy table or touch the liturgical vessels?
In Why Catholics Can't Sing (which was brilliant and which I must plug here), Thomas Day reports that when he asked an Eastern Orthodox colleague why women are not allowed behind the iconostasis, the man without hesitating replied "Because they are polluted by menses."
I know of a case of a strict nun who was adamant that women should not receive Communion during menstruation, even if they had made all of the usual preparations that anybody ought to before Communion: confession and fasting. It is certainly one of those things that is believed by Orthodox people of certain cultures (although not all, and at least Antioch has explicitly denounced this) and it does indeed seem likely that some clergy have allowed, and possibly encouraged this.
I'm not sure where it comes from, to be honest with you, but I suspect that it may be a particular interpretation of disciplines surrounding contact with the holy and bodily "issues". For example, the guidance for priests, which accompanies the Divine Liturgy, says:
quote:
Beside all these, the fourth temptation is bodily stimulation in sleep from pollution. If this happen, let him not dare to serve the Liturgy with the exception of great need.
It seems to me that there is a marked difference between a man having an issue because of masturbation and a woman having an issue because of something perfectly natural and unstimulated, and I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the idea that women should abstain from Communion when menstruating or that they do not serve at the altar because they happen to be menstruating.
Regarding women in the sanctuary, it isn't true that they are not "allowed" in. The norm is for nobody to go in unless they have specific need to do so, and the norm is for there to be at least one male server. In female communities, it is quite legitimate for one of the community to serve in the altar.
Also, yes, it is true that women do not touch the holy vessels (apart from veneration of the chalice at Communion) or prepare the gifts but that is a red herring. Such contact with the holy gifts and vessels is proper to the role of those in episcopal, priestly, diaconal, or at least subdiaconal orders. A lay man may not touch the vessels any more than a woman. My parish has a Reader who serves Sunday by Sunday, and even he doesn't touch the altar or the vessels.
I think the issue is perhaps best summed up in an article from The Shepherd magazine, published by our ROCOR monastery in Brookwood.
quote:
The regulations about not entering certain areas, or touching certain objects, are then not so much bans or prohibitions but rather safeguards of that holiness, that "set apartedness."
In our modern society, we tend always to see things subjectively and self-centredly; we are trained from childhood to do this. We therefore think of our rights, and when we meet something like the Orthodox practice in this instance, we find the matter odd, because our first thought is that our rights have been eroded. This is why I suggested that we look at the thing from the other end. In churches that have been set apart for God, we have no "rights," everything that is allowed us is a mercy from God, even to enter there in the first place. This is why on entering church, even the narthex, Orthodox Christians make three deep reverences, remembering their unworthiness to enter therein, that they are entering upon holy ground.
Thus, when we speak of these traditions as prohibitions, we are simply using a kind of short-hand—essentially, rather than speaking of prohibitions, we would better say that we have no blessing to enter there or to touch that.
(omitting bits abou catechumens and the specific case of an unconsecrated church)
The laity stand in the nave, and do not enter the sanctuary. Oftentimes one hears that only men are permitted to enter the sanctuary—this is again another "short-hand version," which only approximates to the truth. More properly only those whose ministry requires them to enter the sanctuary, or those who have received a blessing to enter there, are permitted to enter. In general, but not exclusively, this means that women do not enter there.
Regarding cor ad cor loquitur's other questions, I'll answer those to which I know the answer as best I can.
quote:
Do Orthodox seminaries that prepare men for ordination have women as their heads? As senior professors?
I don't know the answer to this. I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. However, I do know that traditionally seminaries are monastic foundations, often attached to the monasteries, and that in such cases the seminarians (at least those who are unmarried) are expected to adopt the monastic lifestyle of that community for as long as they are studying. I am under the impression that men living as part of a female monastic community would cause some sort of canonical conflict, but I'm not sure. It would certainly mean that the principal/dean would be a monk and I can understand how the teaching "staff" would be more likely to be male than female in such a situation.
quote:
Do Orthodox women ever exercise roles of formal authority in the Church over men?
What sort of role are you looking for here? There are numerous roles in which women do take on leadership roles, have authority and command respect from both men adn women alike. At the recent All-Diaspora Council of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, most of those who spoke on behalf of their diocese were clergy, and so were male, but some dioceses sent lay representatives, inluding women. Women are choir directors, catechesis co-ordinators, and all sorts else. Priests' wives get a title of their own and many are well-known authors. When I was made a catechumen, I was given a present in the form of a book on Orthodox living, co-authored by Presbytera Juliana Cownie. One well-known contemporary Orthodox author and speaker is Khouria Frederica Mathewes-Green.
What I like, though, is the idea that value and respect needn't come from what would be considered to be prestigious in a secular system. To be a respected within Orthodoxy, one doesn't need qualifications of the world, a "successful" job (whatever one of those is), authority over a number of people, or something similar. That just isn't how we think. I enjoyed reading a recent open letter to the ROCOR hierarchs signed by many of the faithful. The signatories appended their position after their names, and among the list of such people as the "Rector of St Unpronouncable's Parish", "Professor of Theology", &c. were also to be seen "housewife", "mother of three Orthodox children", and similar descriptions. I liked that a lot.
quote:
Do they hear confessions from women? From men?
No. No lay person performs the role of ordained clergy, and this is a priestly function.
quote:
Do they act as spiritual directors?
Yes, they do - and not just to women either. Many people turn to their parish priest for spiritual direction, which is why most people will have a male spiritual director, but it is not a rarity for people to seek out some monastic for the same purpose, and there is no reason that this monastic cannot be female.
quote:
In Orthodox liturgical practice, do women participate as acolytes (if the Orthodox use that term)?
This was answered above, but to clarify your query about terminology, we use the same term as our Catholic friends: "servers". We don't use the term "acolyte" in the sense of "altar server", which I think is an Americanism, and then one that is mostly used in Anglican circles. In the Catholic tradition, an "acolyte" is something different from an altar server, and we don't use the term in Orthodoxy.
quote:
Do they ever, during a Mass, go behind the iconstatis? Do they prepare the holy table or touch the liturgical vessels?
The answer to these came about earlier in my post as well.
quote:
Are women allowed, as a matter of normal practice to preach in the context of an Orthodox Mass?
I honestly don't know. Someone more knowledgeable will need to answer this one.
quote:
Are they allowed to read the gospel?
No. Lay people do not perform the role of ordained clergy, and reading the Gospel is proper to the order of Deacon. In the absence of a deacon, a priest proclaims the Gospel, by virtue of his having been ordained deacon.
quote:
The other scripture lessons?
Definitely, yes.
quote:
I guess that Orthodox no longer have ecumenical councils (please enlighten me here) but if another one were held, would women be allowed to participate in the debate?
We haven't had an Oecumenical Council since the eighth century, not because we don't need one in the present climate, but it is precisely the present climate that would make it a difficult thing to achieve. Still, we plod.
As for your question about women at such councils, what we're actually talking about here is the place of the laity, and not specifically women. Our Church is an hierarchical Church. In each jurisdiction, it is the Synod of Bishops who gather to pray and ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their role as successors to the Apostles. Still, they listen to their flocks (both men and women) to try to ascertain the mind of the Church, hence letters to them from the laity (such as the one mentioned above), and in some cases, councils which, while not authoritative on their own, have an important place in assiting the bishops (such as the All-Diaspora Council mentioned above), at which clergy, monastics and laity take part.
Honestly, I don't know what the arrangements would be for an Oecumenical Council. I don't know whether it would be just bishops, or bishops and clergy, or whether monastics and laity would get stuck in as well. I should imagine that any final decision would lie with the bishops but I see no reason why monastics and laity - women included - would not be able to take part in the discussions and debates.
quote:
Are women ever given temporal authority over Orthodox parishes?
No. As above, we are an hierarchical Church. Therefore, all parishes come under the authority of the bishop by the very nature of our understanding of what Church is, and what the episcopate is within that. A priest is an extension of his bishop but ultimately, all spiritual, temporal and sacramental authority over any parish, monastery or mission belongs properly to the bishop. No lay person, either male or female, ever takes on this role. If a priest dies, his parish would probably be cared for by another priest or by a monastery with the bishop's blessing until such time as a replacement can be found.
I hope that goes some way to answering some of your questions. I'm sorry for the mammoth post.
--------------------
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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
There is no implication that bishops must be married. That is assumption and cannot be derived from the text.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
In light of this quote, one might ask as well whether a bishop whose wife has died (either before or after consecration) ought to be allowed to remarry (is it one wife at all, or one wife at a time?).
For us Orthodox types, bishops may not be married (although they may have been married). No bishop, priest, or deacon may get married. No man who has been married more than once, or who is married to a woman who was previously married to someone else, can be made a deacon, priest, or bishop. And that applies whether the first marriage ended by death or divorce. For us, for this purpose, it doesn't make any difference.
St. B is absolutely correct that the rule on entering the altar is one of need, not of gender, and that one enters only to serve, and only with a blessing. When my parish in Memphis was giving tours of the church to groups of schoolchildren, everyone who was conducting the tours had a blessing to enter the altar to remove a child who entered the area and wouldn't come out when told they should. (I don't remember if that actually happened on anyone's tour, but we all had a blessing to do so if we needed to.) If someone needs to enter the altar to do electrical work or plumbing, gender isn't an issue -- the person doing the work must have a blessing to enter, and then they can go do it.
My understanding of the rules regarding menstruation is that, in some places and at some times, menstruating women have been forbidden from receiving the Eucharist, but that is absolutely wrong. And we can see its wrongness during the Liturgy, when, during the Great Procession, many of the people (men and women alike) will reach out to touch the hem of the priest's robe as he passes by. This act is in memory of the woman with the issue of blood, who touched the hem of our Lord's garment and so was healed.
It is true, though, that during the celebration of the Eucharist, no one who is bleeding may be in the altar. If the priest were to cut his hand during the Divine Liturgy, the service would have to be stopped and he would have to leave the altar immediately, and could not return until the bleeding was stopped. In the same way, a woman who was menstruating would not be able to serve at the altar.
I don't think there's any need to say any more about cor ad cor loquitur's other questions, other than to offer a tiny clarification of one of the things St. B said. A layperson who is serving as a spiritual director (usually a monk or a nun) may hear confessions, but may not grant absolution. In such cases, the person and their director and their priest work it out so that the person makes their confession to their director, and then goes to the priest for absolution.
And to answer one question St. B didn't know the answer to: I know for a fact that both St. Tikhon's and Holy Cross (two of the three major Orthodox seminaries in the US) have women as tenured professors. I am not certain about St. Vladimir's. If a seminary doesn't have any women serving as professors, it is not because there is anything in our Tradition that says they shouldn't.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Bertelin:
quote:
Are they allowed to read the gospel?
No. Lay people do not perform the role of ordained clergy, and reading the Gospel is proper to the order of Deacon.
This is almost completely correct. The one exception is at Agape Vespers on Pascha Afternoon. Then the Gospel for the day is read in as many languages as possible, by laypeople. And at our parish, at least, that has meant both men and women. Until the mission down south in Olympia opened up, we had a woman in our parish who read it in French. Now I presume she does it down there.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anna B
Shipmate
# 1439
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
No bishop, priest, or deacon may get married.
I believe it was Frederica Mathewes-Green who said that if she were a young woman looking for a husband, she'd hang out in a coffee shop near an Orthodox seminary, reading theological works.
--------------------
Bad Christian (TM)
Posts: 3069 | From: near a lot of fish | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
My understanding of the rules regarding menstruation is that, in some places and at some times, menstruating women have been forbidden from receiving the Eucharist, but that is absolutely wrong. And we can see its wrongness during the Liturgy, when, during the Great Procession, many of the people (men and women alike) will reach out to touch the hem of the priest's robe as he passes by. This act is in memory of the woman with the issue of blood, who touched the hem of our Lord's garment and so was healed.
Aha!
Thank you for this, Josephine. I knew it didn't sit well with me and your illustration highlights for me exactly why that is.
quote:
I don't think there's any need to say any more about cor ad cor loquitur's other questions, other than to offer a tiny clarification of one of the things St. B said. A layperson who is serving as a spiritual director (usually a monk or a nun) may hear confessions, but may not grant absolution. In such cases, the person and their director and their priest work it out so that the person makes their confession to their director, and then goes to the priest for absolution.
Ahhh. Now there's something I didn't know. I was aware that some people make confession to someone other than their parish priest and are then absolved by the parish priest, such as the case with many priests' families. I had just always assumed that it would be a priest who would hear the confession, but now I think about what you say, I suppose that there's no reason why a competent lay spiritual director could not hear the confession, as it is specifically the absolution that is a priestly function.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
This is almost completely correct. The one exception is at Agape Vespers on Pascha Afternoon. Then the Gospel for the day is read in as many languages as possible, by laypeople. And at our parish, at least, that has meant both men and women. Until the mission down south in Olympia opened up, we had a woman in our parish who read it in French. Now I presume she does it down there.
[/qb][/quote]
And thank you, Mousethief, for this as well. I missed out on this as my parish worships in a converted room of a private home to which people travel from up to 40 miles around. After the Basil Liturgy, the Acts of the Apostles, Paschal Mattins and the Chrysostom Liturgy, we were all sort of zonked out and I really don't think that anybody would have turned up had we done Agape Vespers. Maybe that says something about us, though.
If we did it, we could probably just about manage English, Russian/Slavonic, Bulgarian, Nigerian, Greek, and Romanian. We have recently had an addition of a Bulgarian family. The two children seem very keen.
--------------------
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
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
[disclaimer] This is not a troll statement, I’m genuinely curious.[/disclaimer]
What are the main reasons for the ordination of women?
a) There is a biblical mandate for women in leadership
b) Society / culture has changed
c) Biblical leadership is gender neutral
d) a combination of the above
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
I forgot a possible fifth option:
e) There may be biblical commands for men in leadership but there is enough ambiguity to allow the ordination of women
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
another option: the Church (including those that wrote the bible) has been wrong on that one.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
Luke, my answer is that there are some Biblical mandates for women in positions of leadership and service to the community of the sort seen in the Christian priesthood. Additionally, our society is ordered in ways which differ from the societies in which the church was first ordered. Moreover, the Bible is not our unique source of understanding for our religious role. We may interpret the statement in Genesis that humans are made 'male and female, in God's own image' as being more important than specific commands elsewhere to give men primacy.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It seems to me that this debate presupposes that men and women are the same thing.
No, it doesn't.
In fact some of the strongest proponents of the ordination of women have been those who (in my opinion) exagerrate the differences between men and women, and think there are such things as "feminine" and a "masculine" spiritualities, and that both should be part of a complete church.
quote:
Of course, I can well be wrong. If this is the case, then the pursue for social justice is a genuine one. Under that prism, the church's history for the past three thousand years turns out to be less God-centred than we thought it to be.
Three thousand?
Anyway, the opposite could be true. Humans have been denying women the place in the churches to which God has called them.
If the current ordination of women is in your view bowing to the world, then so might the previous refusal to ordain women.
quote:
For the time being, this is a non-issue for the Orthodox church, because nobody asks for women to be allowed into the priesthood. In my opinion, this fact has to be taken into account by our Protestant friends that make this debate.
Why should we take it into account? If God is calling us to do something, why should we go against the Spirit to please a group of people most of whom who do not even acknowledge we are Christians?
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by Luke:
a) There is a biblical mandate for women in leadership
(a) But we are talking about eldership which isn't quite the same thing as leadership.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
It seems to me that this debate presupposes that men and women are the same thing.
No, it doesn't.
I said "it seems to me". Whether it does or not is another question altogether. It might not be. But I have only experienced people who say that women can do it also, like men do.
quote:
In fact some of the strongest proponents of the ordination of women have been those who...
Then my experience is too limited. although, if they speak about feminine and masculine spirituality, then we get into separations that are new and deep... "There is no man or woman in Christ" comes to mind...
quote:
Three thousand?
People worshipped the Son of God and guided others to worship God a long way before the Word became flesh you know...
quote:
Anyway, the opposite could be true.
Yes, this is what I am saying. I could well be wrong and the opposite could be true.
quote:
Why should we take it into account? If God is calling us to do something, why should we go against the Spirit to please a group of people most of whom who do not even acknowledge we are Christians?
Because we were talking about the Orthodox Church in particular... If no Orthodox makes a fuss about it, then the non-Orthodox should be more careful when they make comments on Orthodox practices that exist inside the Orthodox Church. My comment was not supposed to be "we don't do it. Listen to us and do not do what we do not do". You misunderstood me.
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
There's no biblical mandate for women in the episcopate - especially in the passage I cited several times before.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
There's no biblical mandate for women in the episcopate - especially in the passage I cited several times before.
The passage in full:
quote:
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you. An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God's work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
If I read the "one wife" requirement as you wish me to, I would have to exclude from the episcopate (inter alios) the infertile, and celibates. They don't have children, and Paul in this passage presumes that the candidates for consecration will have kids just as plainly as he presumes they will have penises.
The passage though, simply does not read to me like a list of formal requirements to be satisfied for consecration to be valid or effective. It is simply good advice. You get a measure of a man's character (though not a flawless one by any means) by looking at the way he runs his household, his personal bearing, and his reputation. Had Titus appointed a drunkard, he would in all likelihood (though not necessarily) have appointed a bad bishop, but not an invalid one. Likewise a polygamous bishop would be sub-optimal, but not (by this passage) impossible.
The most you get from the epistle is that Paul assumed that overseers would be men. Which I'll happily concede, he probably did. He didn't assert or command or argue that (all of which he would have been quite capable of doing) - he assumed it. Just like he assumed that men of an age to be bishops would have children. As such, it has no more authority than Paul's equally natural, and equally wrong, assumption that Christians might properly keep slaves.
We've moved on since then - the truth of the fundamental equality before God of men and women was in the Gospel from the start, but we've been slow to work it out. But we are getting there. The ordination of women isn't a new thing - it is an organic extension of the same sort of Christian (and pre-Christian) thinking that has slowly acknowledged that the rich are no more likely to be virtuous than the poor, that people of another race may yet be children of the same God, that the keeping of slaves is a sin, and that the possession of a penis is no indicator of moral, intellectual or spiritual advantage. You can see all those ideas affirmed in the Gospel, and you can see them all denied in the history of Christendom, but we may hope decreasingly so, as the Spirit leads us into the truth.
[ 24. October 2006, 15:33: Message edited by: Eliab ]
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
"I would have to exclude from the episcopate (inter alios) the infertile, and celibates"
You can't make that assumption. If one is going to marry at all, one wife... is what it means.
Equality is more beautiful is it is considered in the light of separate roles for men and women, equal but seperate.
Your own view (and I know ken disagrees) which appears to me as equality meaning women should fill roles specifically allocated to men seems suspiciously to derive from feminism - "what is it that the men do that we don't and if we can't, then we should....." The actualy present view you espouse, like the general feminist movement in History (I mean the category of Feminist Historian rather than a history of Feminist) is one that started off with its own premises and then tried to develop legitimacy off the back of polemic. I think the same applied when considering your arguement about revalation in this way. That's a later arguement, not an initial one.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
"I would have to exclude from the episcopate (inter alios) the infertile, and celibates"
You can't make that assumption. If one is going to marry at all, one wife... is what it means.
You're better at reading St Paul's mind than we are?
I see no reason to believe that your reading of the text is a strictly literal one, nor that it is in any way the intended or 'right' non-literal one.
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
"I would have to exclude from the episcopate (inter alios) the infertile, and celibates"
You can't make that assumption. If one is going to marry at all, one wife... is what it means.
You miss the point. The "but one wife" part I agree means "at most, one wife". That bit doesn't exclude celibates.
What does exclude celibates (by the same reasoning you use to assert that the candidates MUST be male) is the expectation that a bishop will have believing and righteous children. A celibate, presumably, will not.
Now I DON'T think that Paul wrote this passage to exclude celibates, but to give a picture of a typical 'wise choice' for a bishop. And his stereotype is, naturally enough, a married man with one wife and several children. That's the sort of person that Paul expected Titus to appoint, because that was (in that society), what you would expect a suitable person of character and standing to be. It doesn't mean that in our society a suitable candidate for the episcopate cannot be single. Or childless. Or female.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
Re-reading that, I think I may give the impression of being more culturally-relativist than I mean to be.
To correct that, I would add that I don't think, even in first century Crete, a single, childless female would necessarily have been a poor choice of bishop, and had Titus appointed one, she would have been a valid bishop. The fact that neither Paul nor (I assume) Titus in fact thought to appoint her may speak to human cultural limitations, but does not suggest a change in the nature of the episcopate.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Though of course Paul and Timothy were both single childless men, at least at the time the Epistles were written ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Equality is more beautiful is it is considered in the light of separate roles for men and women, equal but seperate.
"separate but equal"
Not perhaps the best way to phrase your argument, VPG, at least for readers aware of US civil rights history. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif) 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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Well, that view on it was irrational in that their motives for racial segregation were not the same as those they gave, hence the logical irrationality.
That isn't applicable in the case I am describing.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Well, that view on it was irrational in that their motives for racial segregation were not the same as those they gave, hence the logical irrationality.
That isn't applicable in the case I am describing.
There's a need for those opposed to OOWTTP to convince us that there is no such irrationality... especially those who happen to be male priests, for example.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
I can accept the Ordination of Women as something rational, its just not compatible with Catholic rationality that's all. Its parallel to it.
Thanks for clarifying your position vis a vis St Paul and celibacy Eliab.
I think its purely conjecture to assume he could have chosen a women when its pretty clear he never does ever.
I've never understood this 'back then they had to conform to the stereotypes of their time' arguement. Ok, I see the logic, but actually Christianity itself its entirely counter cultural to the culture of the 1st Century AD isn't it ?
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
I think its purely conjecture to assume he could have chosen a women when its pretty clear he never does ever.
Chosen for what exactly? Our threefold ministries did not exist as separate orders in New Testament times. They overlap with a number of ministries that are not always distinct from each other.
The Christian-elder-as-a-sacrificial-priest, as in Roman Catholic and some other churches today, is simply unknown in the New Testament. No women are described as bieng in such a role, but no men are either, because nobody is.
Those Christian ministries that are described in the New Testament are varied and called by varied names. There are clearly some women in some of those ministries. Whatever people were being chosen for, at least some women were being chosen for it.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Luke, my answer is that there are some Biblical mandates for women in positions of leadership and service to the community of the sort seen in the Christian priesthood. Additionally, our society is ordered in ways which differ from the societies in which the church was first ordered. Moreover, the Bible is not our unique source of understanding for our religious role. We may interpret the statement in Genesis that humans are made 'male and female, in God's own image' as being more important than specific commands elsewhere to give men primacy.
T.
Thanks Teufelchen for your clear response. Would most here hold this view?
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Vesture, Posture, Gesture: quote:
I've never understood this 'back then they had to conform to the stereotypes of their time' arguement. Ok, I see the logic, but actually Christianity itself its entirely counter cultural to the culture of the 1st Century AD isn't it ?
Not entirely. The whole bit about women being subordinate to men was precisely cultural.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Luke
Soli Deo Gloria
# 306
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Equality is more beautiful is it is considered in the light of separate roles for men and women, equal but seperate.
"separate but equal"
Not perhaps the best way to phrase your argument, VPG, at least for readers aware of US civil rights history. OliviaG
It would be interesting to actually compare theological justifications for slavery with the 'Separate but Equal' stance.
--------------------
Emily's Voice
Posts: 822 | From: Australia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
"Not entirely. The whole bit about women being subordinate to men was precisely cultural."
And what would be your evidence for that assumption ?
By way on another point, I don't think Christ instituted the Priesthood purely on the basis social norms.
[ 24. October 2006, 20:50: Message edited by: Vesture, Posture, Gesture ]
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Vesture, Posture, Gesture: quote:
Equality is more beautiful is it is considered in the light of separate roles for men and women, equal but seperate.
Okay, can you name anything other than motherhood or becoming a nun that a Catholic woman can do that a Catholic man can't?
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
"Not entirely. The whole bit about women being subordinate to men was precisely cultural."
And what would be your evidence for that assumption ?
Cultural history of the Greco-Roman world. Women had almost no rights.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
You speak of motherhood as if it is something small ! I'd say it was pretty major !
What I would say, as would the Catholic Church or FiF I think, is that women cannot be priests in the same way that I as a man cannot give birth.
That gift of the relationship which a mother has to her child is something I will never have. I'd love to know what it is like but I won't.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Historians rule number one states: Don't judge a society by the maxims of your own time.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
1. Then according to you a man can become a father (also an extremely important role), a monk, a priest, and a bishop. A woman can become a mother or a nun. Yeah, right, separate but equal. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
2. I'm not judging history by my times. I'm judging current church polity by today's times. Polity that indeed started during an era when women were considered of less worth than men, despite their role of motherhood being a "major" function.
[ 24. October 2006, 21:06: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Your notion of equality though seems to be that which I described in relation to the polemic of the feminist movement. That is to say 'I define equality by what men and women SHOULD both be able to do'
I define it by the fact that we are equal by virtue of God giving us distinct, equally important, but different vocations.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
A definition that is coincidentally advantagious to your sex. Fancy that.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
Your notion of equality though seems to be that which I described in relation to the polemic of the feminist movement.
But on the previous page, ken cited examples here of women leaders and preachers predating modern feminism. 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
|
|
Vesture, Posture, Gesture
Shipmate
# 10614
|
Posted
Indeed Ken did. I refer you to the comment I made to that statement - your link will suffice.
Similarly the movement to ordain women only arises within the last 100 years or so as something serious.
--------------------
An undergraduate proudly told Benjamin Jowett, the great 19th Century Classicist that he was an agnostic. Jowett replied "Young man, in this university we speak Latin not Greek, so when speaking of yourself in that way, use the word ignoramus"
Posts: 427 | From: London | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
I appreciate the time that people have taken to answer the questions I posed about Orthodox practice. I've learned a lot from their responses.
I nonetheless can't escape the view that there are two fundamentally consistent views one could hold.
The first is exemplified by literalist evangelicals and some traditional Catholics. For one of many examples of evangelical teaching along these lines, see this newsletter.
For a traditional Catholic presentation, see this priest's response to a query.
For example:
quote:
Lets start with the role of the clergy. Those who have received Holy Orders have the sacramental role of representing Christ. The meaning of their vocation is that they are signs, masculine signs as the Pope has reminded us in recently years, of Jesus Christ, who is on one hand Head of His Mystical Body the Church, and on another, Bridegroom of His Bride the Church. Their sacramental role, and the authority that goes with it, is to constitute order within the communion of the Church. Thus, we speak of a hierarchy, an ordering of authority among otherwise equal Christian persons in the Church ...
(emphasis added)
The essay goes on to say that this divine order, the hierarchy of roles and relationships, attains its fullest expression in the Mass. "The church building has a presbyterium, sanctuary, that sets off the main body of the Church from the place where the priest offers the sacrifice. Thus, even architecturally, and even in the absence of the assembly, the distinction between Head and the Body is present."
It goes on to condemn a series of practices that violate this order, citing a Vatican "Instruction on certain questions regarding the collaboration of the non-ordained faithful in the sacred ministry of the priest" -- full text here.
These forbidden practices include quote:
- assumption by the laity of titles such as "pastor", "chaplain", "coordinator", " moderator" ... which can confuse their role and that of the Pastor, who is always a Bishop or Priest.
- preaching of the liturgical homily, by other than the bishop, his priests or his deacons [the Vatican instruction adds: "This exclusion is not based on the preaching ability of sacred ministers nor their theological preparation, but on that function which is reserved to them in virtue of having received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. For the same reason the diocesan Bishop cannot validly dispense from the canonical norm since this is not merely a disciplinary law but one which touches upon the closely connected functions of teaching and sanctifying."]
- having non-priest members of presbyteral councils
- granting more than a consultative voice, to parish councils and finance committees; having someone other than the pastor preside
- appointment of non-priests to head deaneries, or to assist in heading them
- in liturgical celebrations ... quasi-presiding by the laity, leaving only the essential priestly functions to the celebrant [this rules out the 'holy zap' mentioned above]
The Vatican instruction sums it up well: quote:
The functions of the ordained minister, taken as a whole, constitute a single indivisible unity in virtue of their singular foundation in Christ. As with Christ, salvific activity is one and unique. It is signified and realized by the minister through the functions of teaching, sanctifying and governing the faithful.
This view, though I strongly dissent from it, is at least consistent. It affirms the essential subordination of the feminine to the masculine; this subordination is reflected not only in the hierarchical structure of the liturgy but also in the hierarchical structure of the Church.
The other consistent view is the one held by groups like the Anglicans, which, as I understand it, would say that since women clearly are able to exercise the charisms of teaching and governing, there is no reason why they can't also exercise that of sanctifying or consecrating.
A view that women cannot be priests but are in all other respects equal to men seems to go against the essential unity of word and sacrament, against what the Vatican instruction calls the essential unity of the munus docendi, sanctificandi et regendi. To me it seems a hedge, a position "stuck in the middle".
[ 24. October 2006, 21:56: Message edited by: cor ad cor loquitur ]
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
