Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
And for those of you who don't know, I do not support the POV of women clergy.

I wish this would not be turned into a Orthodoxy debate either.

I guess I am too into this emotional topic/thread.

Argghhhhh.....

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
And for those of you who don't know, I do not support the POV of women clergy.
...
I guess I am too into this emotional topic/thread.

---

Personally Owned Vehicles? Why shouldn't women clergy be allowed to drive their own vehicles?

I am too into HOT ladies. Well - one HOT lady, so far its brought me nothing but children... well, children and happiness *sob* (sorry, couldn't help that one, it just struck me funny.)

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristibule:

quote:

---

Originally posted by duchess:
And for those of you who don't know, I do not support the POV of women clergy.
...
I guess I am too into this emotional topic/thread.

---

Personally Owned Vehicles? Why shouldn't women clergy be allowed to drive their own vehicles?

I am too into HOT ladies. Well - one HOT lady, so far its brought me nothing but children... well, children and happiness *sob* (sorry, couldn't help that one, it just struck me funny.)

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
Thanks, Myrrh, for the reference to the first page of this thread and to Fr Gregory's comments.

He wrote this:

quote:

---

It is not a matter of the person who preaches or teaches or leads, (no headship here). In our traditions [= "Catholic and Orthodox", in Fr Gregory's words] this (teaching / preaching / leading) is not exhaustive or exclusive or definitive of what a priest is about. Being the icon of Christ at the Eucharist is what the priest is about. There is a lot more to it than that but that's the centre.

---

We've had a lot of discussion about what it means to be male or female and what it means to represent or be the icon of Christ at the Eucharist. But what about preaching and teaching and leading?

In the RCC women occasionally preach at Mass, but strictly speaking they aren't supposed to do so, because laypeople aren't supposed to preach at Mass.

Some women are allowed to be administrators. Abbesses are in charge of their abbeys, but not in authority over men. There are a handful of female presidents of RC colleges and universities -- but not, as far as I know, of theological seminaries.

What about in the Orthodox Church?

My sense is that an implicit doctrine of "headship" is still very strong in the RC and Orthodox traditions. It is reinforced by the fact that a bishop (and hence a priest) brings together the three charisms of priesthood, teaching and leading. A bishop has a critical role as teacher and doctrinal arbiter. And, in these traditions, a bishop has to be male.

---

quote:

---

So I agree with Dyfrig's statement:

quote:

---

Those in favour of a male only priesthood have never, to my mind, adequately separated out the priesthood per se from male-dominated power structures (and, indeed, power structures as a whole). If someone were to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a distinction to be made and were that distinction to be worked out in genuine practice, then this issue may have more juice to it.

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
...we [Orthodox] often turn to other members, men and women, who show some remarkable ability to teach or to lead etc., the mothers of the Church as well as the fathers, and we remember even women in this role as being Equals-to-the-Apostles, St Nina the Enlightener of Georgia etc.

...our priesthood is actually male and female both and yet we have male priests, it should be noted that historically we had women serving at the altar table (and still do in monasteries), ordained to the diaconate, but that function has been whittled away by the general power grab in male dominance, much as the married episcopate has been atrophied by the monastic control which came to predominate from what, about the 6/7th century on?

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
I'm really trying to understand this. Are you saying that if the Orthodox were really true to their tradition they would have female deacons and married bishops? Are there many Orthodox who advocate this? I had always thought of Orthodox as extremely conservative on this score: no female altar servers, bishops only chosen from amongst the monastics, etc. St Nina is a worthy example, but she died in 335. Who are some other mothers of the Church

---

Er, yes, conservative I've come across...

Not that I've done a thorough study of this, but seems to me that most of the upheaval came in around the 4th century when it became de rigueur to be a Christian while not particularly affecting the norm of societal differences between men and women, for example a lot of misogyny inherent in the Greek and Roman world view also expanded on entry into the Church, and it was around then that some began reading Christ's words on 'become eunuchs for God' as Him proposing a superior sort of virginal Christianity which gained ground as more became monastics and that together with the Gentile idea of a celibate priesthood added to the confusion of the times.

There was a huge fight about celibacy for the priesthood and the Orthodox maintained a married priesthood for bishops as well as priests, it's only from about the 6/7th century on that the practice of choosing bishops from the monastics took off, but the principle, no matter how many argue against it, is still that of married bishops. If any say differently then they have changed the teaching as passed on by word or epistle.. (Timothy,Titus, tradition, there's a potted history on this page: (Married Bishops in the Orthodox Church).

The following a selection from previous discussions on this.


Those who promote the idea of celibate bishops according to the canons quote the following as proof:

quote:

---

Canons of the Fifth-Sixth Council

Canon XII:Moreover, this also has come to our knowledge, that in Africa and Libya, and in other places the most God-beloved bishops in those parts do not refuse to live with their wives, even after consecration, thereby giving scandal and offence to the people. Since, therefore, it is our particular care that all things tend to the good of the flock placed in our hands and committed to us - it has seemed good that henceforth nothing of the kind shall in any way occur. And we say this, not to abolish and overthrow what things were established of old by Apostolic authority, but as caring for the health of the people and their advance to better things, and lest the ecclesiastical state should suffer any reproach...But if any shall have been observed to do such a thing, let him be deposed.

Canon XLVII: The wife of him who is advanced to hierarchical dignity, shall be separated from her husband by their mutual consent, and after his ordination and consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a monastery situated at a distance from the abode of the bishop, and there let her enjoy the bishop's provision. And if she is deemed worthy she may be advanced to the dignity of a deaconess.

---

quote:

---

Canon XIII.

Since we know it to be handed down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be advanced to the diaconate or presbyterate should promise no longer to cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic perfection and order, will that the lawful marriages of men who are in holy orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a convenient time. Wherefore, if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife: lest we should affect injuriously marriage constituted by God and blessed by his presence, as the Gospel saith: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder;" and the Apostle saith, "Marriage is honourable and the bed undefiled;" and again, "Art thou bound to a wife? seek not to be loosed." But we know, as they who assembled at Carthage (with a care for the honest life of the clergy) said, that subdeacons, who handle the Holy Mysteries, and deacons, and presbyters should abstain from their consorts according to their own course [of ministration]. So that what has been handed down through the Apostles and preserved by ancient custom, we too likewise maintain, knowing that there is a time for all things and especially for fasting and prayer. For it is meet that they who assist at the divine altar should be absolutely continent when they are handling holy things, in order that they may be able to obtain froth God what they ask in sincerity.

If therefore anyone shall have dared, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to deprive any of those who are in holy orders, presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be deposed. In like manner also if any presbyter or deacon on pretence of piety has dismissed his wife, let him be excluded from communion; and if he persevere in this let him be deposed.

---

quote:

---

Apostolic Canons:

Canon V. (VI.)

Let not a bishop, presbyter, or deacon, put away his wife under pretence of religion; but if he put her away, let him be excommunicated; and if he persists, let him be deposed


CANON LI
If any Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon, or anyone at all on the sacerdotal list, abstains from marriage, or meat, or wine, not as a matter of mortification, but out of an abhorrence thereof, forgetting that all things are exceedingly good, and that God made man male and female, and blasphemously misrepresenting God’s work of creation, either let him mend his ways or let him be deposed from office and expelled from the Church. Let a layman be treated similarly.

---

quote:

---

(The History of the Christian Church by Henry C. Sheldon



In the Greek Church, the requirement of celibacy on the part of the entire clergy was never insisted upon. The synod of Gangra (in Paphlagonia), in the latter part of the fourth century, declared it a proper ground for excommunication, if any one should refuse to share in divine service when a married priest was ministering at the altar. Even bishops at this period occasionally lived in married relations after consecration. Such was the case with the father of Gregory Nazianzen, who had children born in his family after assuming the episcopal office, one of them being the distinguished theologian himself. Socrates states that in his time abstinence from marriage was a matter of choice among the clergy of the East, there being no binding law upon the subject. [Hist. Eccl., v. 22.] "It was gradually," says one of the most learned, as well as most candid, of Roman-Catholic writers, "that in the Greek Church it became the practice to require the bishops and all the higher clergy to abstain from married life. The apostolic canons know nothing of such a requirement. They speak, on the contrary, of married bishops; and church history also gives examples of the same, such as Synesius in the fifth century." [Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, ї 43.] In the case of Synesius, the privilege of retaining his wife was made by him a positive condition of accepting the episcopal office. The Greek Church, however, came finally to insist upon celibate bishops.

---

quote:

---

In both the Apostolic Canons (2nd-3rd centuries) and the Apostolic Constitutions (c. 400) celibacy was not compulsory. A bishop or priest who left his wife "under pretense of piety" was to be excommunicated. New tendencies at the beginning of the 4th century tried to prohibit clerical marriage while individual choice in the matter had been the rule up to this time. At the first Council of Nicaea (325 A.D.) Spanish bishop Ossius of Cordoba wanted the Council to decree celibacy as a requirement for ordination throughout the universal church, but Egyptian bishop Paphnutios (see APPENDIX below) protested that such a rule would be difficult and imprudent and that celibacy should be a matter of vocation and personal choice. The Council endorsed Paphnutios's position.

(Ordination of Married Men in the Eastern Church)

---

quote:

---

In the course of church history, Jesus response to the Sadducees has most often been interpreted as favoring celibacy. From the third-century church father Cyprian, through Vatican II, the prevailing Roman Catholic interpretation has been that those who preserve their virginal chastity are vanguards of a realm where people will be like sexless, pure angels. Max Thurian, a Protestant monk, has stated: "Celibacy is related to the resurrection of the dead: it is a sign of eternity, of incorruptibility and of life" Marriage and Celibacy [Allenson, 1959]. p.115).

In one of the earliest comments on Mark 12:25, Clement of Alexandria rejected this interpretation. He recognized that, since the marital state had been blessed by Jesus, his words here should not be read as a denigration of marriage. Clement discerned that Jesus'
criticism was directed not against marriage but against a carnal interpretation of the resurrection. By a reductio ad absurdum,
Clement reasoned that monks who reject marriage because it involves physical intercourse, which is not a part of the everlasting life,
should also abstain from eating or drinking." (Jesus on Marriage and the Afterlife by William E. Phipps)

---

quote:

---

Are there living Orthodox women who are teaching and leading these days?

---

quote:

---

Mother Maria Skobtsova did not live what one usually thinks of as the ideal monastic life of constant prayer in quiet solitude. Even after she was tonsured a nun she lived and was active "in the world." (
Mother Maria Skobtsova A Saint of Our Day Bonnie A. Michal)

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
The Othodoxen tonsure nuns!!!!!

Jesus wept; even in my Triddie youth the Roman ones settled for a buzzcut...

One lives and learns.

m

---

I can just see the look of shock on your face now.

Remember that tonsuring has never been the same at all times and in all places. The traditional male Benedictine tonsure is done by shaving a circular shape, while the Celtic tonsure was to do the same in a more triangular shape. In the Eastern traditions, tonsuring simply means the snipping of hair from five points of the head, in the form of a cross, and is done to everybody at Baptism, as well as various other Sacraments. Monks and nuns of the Basilian Rule are tonsured in this fashion and, unlike the case of Benedictines, the lasting focus is on the act of tonsuring and not the long-term maintenance of the physical tonsure. (That said, I don't know whether even our Benedictine monks maintain the tonsure these days).

[ 13. July 2007, 11:39: Message edited by: Saint Bertelin ]

--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doulos:
Sorry if I'm being really slow here, but are there Anglican dioceses (is thatthe correct plural?) which do not allow women priests? Or which do allow them but are not particularly welcoming? (I am trying to get my head around what's been said on the Ship about the diocese of Sydney, which I cannot fathom at all theologically - but of course that's a different subject!)

Apologies if this question has been answered already on this thread. I have read through about half of it and my eyes re starting to go funny!

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
...Anglican "deaconesses" are not strictly deacons as such, ...women given to ancillary works.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Women priests are not welcome in either the dioceses of Wangaratta ( northern Victoria) or the Murray (South Autralia). There may be other like-minded dioceses in Oz; over to Anglican Shipmates for an update.

---

From memory, there are 23 dioceses in Australia.

Of these, 18(19) ordain women as priests.

* Armidale has the rather peculiar ruling of officially "no women priests", but occasionally suspends that canon, and another is substituted for 24 hours, so that a woman may be priested to serve as chaplain to the Anglican girls' school in Armidale.

* Sydney ordains women only to the diaconate. Any female bishops or priests may only act as deacons in Sydney.

* The Diocese of the Murray doesn't ordain women as priests - not sure about the diaconate.

* The Diocese of Wangaratta doesn't ordain women as priests, and I don't think they can even act as deacons in Wangaratta, though I could be wrong.

* I *think* the fourth diocese is Ballarat.

Oh, and then there's Good Old Brisbane. Where yes, 9% of clergy are female. But old prejudices die hard. At our recent Synod, the anti-OoW members got behind a schedule which would have permanently marginalised women clergy in the diocese. I counted about 10 parishes before Synod which could be classed as defiantly anti-women. The number has since risen, in the wake of the Schedule, which proposed as one of the protective measures, that a parish could vote in perpetuity to exclude women from its sanctuary, claiming conscience.

Pardon the cynicism: I've heard and witnessed countless stories of people who have come round from a virulently anti-women stance to become their staunchest supporters (I think of a couple at my first training parish, who when my rector was inducted, refused to take communion from her for 12 months, and then suddenly appeared at the altar rail one morning). I think it approaches the sin against the Holy Spirit for a (a handful of vocal people from a) parish metaphorically to put its hands over its ears and refuse to even test it out. Or, for that matter, to show downright discourtesy - such as one Anglo-Catholic parish which refused to allow a female clergyperson access to the premises for a Deanery meeting at which she was presenting a Diocesan document. (The rector and wardens stood in the driveway and physically barred her access.)

So: even in dioceses which do ordain women, the road is yet long, hard, and bloody.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
St B and MT; Mother Maria sure as hell did rock; a lady who managed to have it both ways by doing the marriage thing first and then going for the best as a bride of Christ. Now why 5 points for the tonsure: I presume 3 for the Trinity and what about the other 2?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nunc Dimittis:
The Diocese of Wangaratta doesn't ordain women as priests, and I don't think they can even act as deacons in Wangaratta, though I could be wrong.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
What is the situation of women priests etc in anglican nigeria, if at all ?

---

quote:

---

afrol News, 18 March - The Anglican 'Church of Nigeria' says it will not commence the ordination of women but the issue may be revisited in the future. This is contained in a pastoral letter issued by the Primate of the Church, conservative Archbishop Peter Akinola, who also announced a major missionary strategy that is set to double the church's members by 2007.

The issue of ordination of women had been discussed at the Church of Nigeria's standing committee, which ended a larger meeting in Kaduna last Saturday. Archbishop Akinola, on behalf of the committee, said that Nigeria's Anglicans not yet were considering taking on female clergy.

- The Standing Committee for now has resolved that the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) shall not commence the ordination of women, the Archbishop's pastoral letter says. "However, the issue may be re-visited in the future," it adds. No further explanation is given, there is no reference to the discussion by the church men and no references are given.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

The priest is a sign, the supernatural effectiveness of which comes from the ordination received, but a sign that must be perceptible, and which the faithful must be able to recognize with ease. The whole sacramental economy is in fact based upon natural signs, on symbols imprinted upon the human psychology: “Sacramental signs,” says Saint Thomas, “represent what they signify by natural resemblance.” The same natural resemblance is required for persons as for things: when Christ’s role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this “natural resemblance” which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ. For Christ was and remains a man.

---

quote:

---

Leaving aside the fact that women are as “perceptible” as men, this leads to a kind of sacramental receptionism (in which the believer’s perceptions are what render the sacrament valid). This reduces the sacrament from an objective reality into a subjective experience. It also puts an undue focus upon one aspect of the priestly person: his (or her!) sex. Why, after all, should sex be any more determinative of perceiving Christ — if perception were the sine qua non for the validity of the sacrament — than any other quality. And isn’t a woman more “perceptible” as Christ than a loaf of bread is as his flesh? Personally, I don’t find the figure of a paunchy octogenarian cardinal to be as “natural” or immediate a reminder of Christ as a younger and more ascetical woman.

Which is, of course, my fault. For I should be able to see Christ in every member of Christ’s body, for Christ is in them. It is not Christ’s maleness that is of significance, in the Eucharist or in anything else, but his humanity, which obviously includes his maleness, but just as obviously is not limited to or by it.

Which brings us to the serious doctrine this position contradicts. For it is taught that what is not assumed (by Christ in the Incarnation) is not redeemed. And Christ assumed the whole of human nature. Otherwise how could women be saved? Christ assumed the totality of human nature when he became incarnate, and as the Chalcedonian Definition affirms, he received that totality of human nature solely from his mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary. And she was, obviously, a woman.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
In my view that's a problem for Western Christianity....

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Why would it matter which sort of mistake is made?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liturgy Queen:
Andreas has unwittingly nailed it on the head for me: it's the existence of "inherent differences between men and women" that I cannot accept. Knowing people who fall outside of a binary gender system, how could I?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
I think modern science can give us a little help. For example, the brain of the embryo is developed differently under the influence of different hormones and other molecules. Scientific data come to hint as to what we already knew, that men and women behave differently, understand things differently, etc etc. Perhaps it's difficult to accept after all those cultural wars and the egalitarian opinions expressed, but it's easy for me to conceive since I know God loves variety and He does not give the same gifts to everybody.

Now, I am not saying that women cannot become priests. No. My contribution is to point the way a general discussion has to take, namely to examine the extent to which our "biology" (and even beyond that) affects the way we approach God and operate within the Church.

TubaMirum, what do you think, why none of the church ammas questioned all-male ordination? Why God did not call any woman to become a priest in their times?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
[QUOTE]

And how do you know there have never been female priests? I bet there have been, in fact, when men weren't around to enforce the rules. Anyway, you might just as well ask why there weren't many or any female lawyers or doctors or university professors, and why women could not inherit or succeed to the throne or vote until about a hundred years ago.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Andreas, I'll ask again: what characteristics do men always possess that women never do? What behaviors do men exhibit that women don't?

---

quote:

---

What "gifts of the spirit" are gender-specific?

---

quote:

---

BTW, how do you know none of the ammas questioned all-male ordination?

---

quote:

---

And how do you know there have never been female priests?

---

quote:

---

I bet there have been, in fact, when men weren't around to enforce the rules.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, you might just as well ask why there weren't many or any female lawyers or doctors or university professors, and why women could not inherit or succeed to the throne or vote until about a hundred years ago.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
Being a Priest is something which has to do with gender role, not sex.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I remember a monk explaining how men and women come to same "conclusion" but following different ways. While men are more analytical, women are more intuitive etc. I know that the way women think always fascinated me...

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liverpool fan:
Being a Priest is something which has to do with gender role, not sex.

---

How do you know? In my view, this is not obvious and needs to be examined.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TubaMirum:
Andreas, I'll ask again: what characteristics do men always possess that women never do? What behaviors do men exhibit that women don't?

---

Many. But as science barely begins answering these questions, we can't go in great depth here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Do you think that women and men think, for example, in the same ways? ... I remember a monk explaining how men and women come to same "conclusion" but following different ways. While men are more analytical, women are more intuitive etc. I know that the way women think always fascinated me...

---

Oh, yeah, monks are the real experts on how women think. Especially monks that have read "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus". 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"

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vesture, Posture, Gesture:
There have never been female priests ever ever. Women could not inherit the throne ? Catherine the Great, Elizabeth I.......

---