The World Needs Women Priests

[dzheremi]

No. The central actions of the Eucharist, the blessing and sharing of bread and wine, with the words of institution; or the central action of baptism, the use of water and the triune name; are what I would call the God-given core. The rest is what we've built around that.

On what grounds are you making this distinction between the "God-given core" and the rest that we've built around it? Textual study of the liturgy? Something else?

And much of what we have built is good, and time-tested, and has been a mode of transformative encounter with God for centuries; I don't despise it, but I am clear that it is a human creation with all the limitations that that brings.

If it is the means by which you encounter God, and that encounter is true (not a matter of spiritual delusion), then what does it mean to say that it is a human creation? How is it different than those parts that you identify as the "God-given core"?

I'm contrasting your approach with, say, a sola Scriptura argument against women priests which would rest primarily on some statements in the epistles.

I see.

It depends what you mean by those terms. If by "liberal" you mean

I mean liberal in the sense of accepting and/or propagating innovations in belief and practice that were unknown to previous generations, especially those which have no justification in the theology and practice of the Church.

I'm not sure what the trajectory of my church is right now. On my more pessimistic days I think we're heading for global schism. But perhaps if we are, that can be the prelude to new flourishing.

Is schism good if as a result one of the resulting bodies flourishes?

My point is that we can't look at where we're at today; say that western "liberal" churches are languishing (if that is really true), and African conservative churches are booming, and from there think we can draw neat lines that will tell us where we will be in fifty years, or a hundred, or five hundred.

Sure, but I'm talking about what is observable now. See, for instance, this story from about a year ago on the growth of ACNA vis-a-vis the decline of the mainline Episcopalians.

Nobody a hundred years ago would have predicted the historical events and social changes and spiritual developments of the last century; similarly nobody can predict what the next century will bring, or where new growth will come. To my mind, the fact that we do consistently see new growth in unexpected ways (even if in small ways) says to me that God is not done yet with the traditions some are ready to consign to (not so blessed) memory.

Alright.

I am also talking about the particular situation in secular Australia, which I gather is very different from secular America. So perhaps it would help us both to remember that the social contexts which we're seeking to engage in mission present us each with quite different challenges.

I don't doubt that, though I likewise don't doubt that a Coptic Orthodox liturgy in Australia in basically the same as a Coptic Orthodox liturgy in the United States. Organizationally, you might even have it a little better there than here, depending on what part of the USA you're looking at. You've got one of my favorite bishops over there (if it's right to have 'favorite' bishops) in the person of HG Bishop Suriel, who has never shied away from chastening the members of the Church in America who are going off the rails (his infamous calling out of certain 'celebrity' Coptic priests in the USA for their stealing from and incorporation of Protestant sermons and concepts into their churches; since certain troublesome areas in this regard in the USA and Canada have been subsequently visited by delegations of bishops to sent to hear the people's complaints and offer their suggestions to the Church back in Egypt, it appears that HG was on to something).

I'm finding your argument here confusing. I'm not saying that liturgical worship is sinful, as an activity, or wrong. I'm just arguing that the way we worship - the words and actions we use, the vestments we wear, the way we structure participants and roles, the music, the architecture and art, and whatever other choices we might make that shape the liturgical experience - are all fundamentally human products.

Alright. I guess I am confused because you've written things in this thread like this (post #460; emphasis mine): "I am talking about the structure, content and ornament of corporate worship in itself having disordered or dysfunctional or sinful aspects."

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to read that as not saying that the corporate worship in itself is sinful, since...well...that's what it says. That's what it literally says. You wrote that these things in themselves have sinful aspects. I don't agree. I don't agree that they are in themselves sinful. (And if the key to understanding this properly is to understand the difference between sinful and 'sinful aspects', then I'd appreciate some explanation as to how those two are to be differentiated. Without further explanation, it seems to me that it's just a longer way of saying that they are sinful.)

To go back to my earlier paragraph, largely good, reliable, time-tested, human products, which God has graced with God's presence to us, but not thereby free of the possibility of human sin shaping their production, either.

Does God's grace bless not just the sinner (the person who is sinful), but the 'sinful production' of things? Because from where I'm sitting, it is God's grace -- which is the direct participation of God in the life of the believer/s (not some sort of 'thing' separate from God) -- that enables sinful humanity to be purified and hence by which we offer pure worship and truly holy sacrifices before Him, such that it doesn't really make a lot of sense to say that the offerings themselves are 'shaped in sin'. Again, this is not saying that 'we' can never be wrong, but that the offerings we make as the Church, in the context of the liturgy (and surely some outside of it, but it is in the liturgy that the Holy Spirit is called down upon the gifts; in which we can rightly say we have our hearts with the Lord/Christ is among us; etc.), are pure because He makes them that way.

Since you've singled out the Eucharist as being of the "God-given core" that was not established by man, I imagine that you'll agree with me that the fact that you or any other priest who reverently handles the Eucharistic sacrifice in the altar (both physically before and by the power of the Holy Trinity) are sinful does not therefore make the Eucharist 'shaped in sin' (Lord have mercy). If that is the way you look at the Eucharist, then maybe you can understand that some of us in other traditions look at the entire liturgy similarly -- which is not to say that every part of the liturgy is akin to the Eucharist (it is very clearly the summit of the liturgy), but rather that no part which involves the participation of sinful humanity (which every part does) is thereby 'shaped in sin'.

You seem to me, by arguing that they cannot have any sinful quality, and that they are somehow "guarded and guided by God,"

I am saying that the participation of human beings in the liturgy does not shape or stain the liturgy with human sin, precisely because it is a divine-human undertaking. If it was just people playing at any of this with nothing of the presence and power of God among us, then yes, it would be very easy to see how such play-acting would not be guided and guided by God. But in the holy Orthodox Church of God, that is not the case. (And I don't mean to imply that this is what you or any other heterodox person or church is doing; that's not my call to make, and really for the sake of everyone out there who truly does believe in their own particular Church and its traditions, I would hope that everything I would say of my own would also be true of yours...I'm just saying I recognize that such a distinction could be made.)

to be claiming more for the liturgies (and the churches that pray them) than can reasonably be claimed for any human product.

Again, that's because it's not a purely human product. Humans wrote it down, humans celebrate it, humans nourish and strengthen themselves in community by it, and so on, but everything that sanctifies us through all corporate and/or liturgical worship is God's doing, not man's. Without God, they're just words and motions that could just as well be said by any atheist, Hindu, Muslim, or any other kind of person. It is entirely because of God that we say that they are sanctifying and holy.

And to the extent that what is claimed is, in effect, "We are right, and can never be wrong (and all other churches are wrong because they don't agree with us)," is what I'm saying comes across as breathtakingly arrogant.

Yeah, and if I had said that, then that would be a good point to make, but I didn't say that.

I mean, if you want me to stoop to that level, I can, but I don't think you want that. To me it goes without saying that everything outside of Orthodoxy is incorrect insofar as it strays from what we believe that God has established not just for us in our little communion (85-90 million people; coincidentally, about the same as the global number of Anglicans, from what I've read), but for everybody everywhere. It's just that not everybody everywhere happens to agree with that idea. And in the sense that everyone can follow whatever they want, and no one can be forced to truly adopt a belief system that they do not find to be true, that's fine. After all, I don't think it would be right that anyone should be forced to be Anglican or anything else if that's not what they believe in, either.

Completely separate from that point -- which is not one I made until now, and which I've made in this post only for the sake of illustrating how different it is than what I'm actually arguing -- is what I've tried to maintain throughout this entire discussion: there is nothing sinful in liturgical worship in itself (which is what you had claimed in post #460, referenced earlier), and in fact in various ways it is dangerous to claim that there is. (I think it says some incorrect things about not just ecclesiology, but also possibly about the incarnation and soteriology, and about anthropology.)

That's it. You say these things of the Church are sinful and/or are 'shaped in sin'/have 'sinful aspects', and I say they aren't/don't. That really is the crux of our disagreement, as I see it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Well, I am not saying that Christ or the church triumphant are guilty of what we do in the here and now, no. But that doesn't mean that what we do in the here and now can't be culpable.

I agree entirely. It seems by and large the difference between our positions is largely one of terminology rather than substance.

 

[Paidiske]

On what grounds are you making this distinction between the "God-given core" and the rest that we've built around it? Textual study of the liturgy? Something else?

History and Scripture, mostly. What I've identified as the core is, as much as we can tell, the bit that has been truly catholic (in the sense of being always done by all believers everywhere, since pretty much the earliest time for which we have any evidence; side note, this becomes problematic when we start seeing, say, the Salvation Army rejecting the use of any sacraments; but that would be a point on which my tradition would consider theirs lacking). It's also the bit that we have evidence for Christ himself instructing in the gospels.

The rest is how we've elaborated that. It's not bad to elaborate, but it's good to be clear that - for example - Christ told us to baptise in the name of the Father and the Son and the Spirit, but didn't hand St. Peter a sketch of a taylassan or a chasuble with design notes.

If it is the means by which you encounter God, and that encounter is true (not a matter of spiritual delusion), then what does it mean to say that it is a human creation? How is it different than those parts that you identify as the "God-given core"?

If I may make a comparison; it is perhaps akin to me preparing a meal which I share with friends. The shared meal is a true encounter with my friends, but it is no less true to say that I planned and prepared the meal. In this case, to extend the metaphor, it is as if I know that a friend had chosen beef for dinner, or even insisted that beef was a prerequisite for that friend's attendance (that's your God-given core); but I still chose how to cook it, and what to serve it with.

I mean liberal in the sense of accepting and/or propagating innovations in belief and practice that were unknown to previous generations, especially those which have no justification in the theology and practice of the Church.

That's an unusual definition of liberal.

Is schism good if as a result one of the resulting bodies flourishes?

Schism is not good. But God is good, and works all things together for God's good purposes (as per Romans 8:28).

Alright. I guess I am confused because you've written things in this thread like this (post #460; emphasis mine): "I am talking about the structure, content and ornament of corporate worship in itself having disordered or dysfunctional or sinful aspects."

I'm not sure how I'm supposed to read that as not saying that the corporate worship in itself is sinful, since...well...that's what it says. That's what it literally says. You wrote that these things in themselves have sinful aspects. I don't agree. I don't agree that they are in themselves sinful. (And if the key to understanding this properly is to understand the difference between sinful and 'sinful aspects', then I'd appreciate some explanation as to how those two are to be differentiated. Without further explanation, it seems to me that it's just a longer way of saying that they are sinful.)

Okay. Let me try another analogy. (Analogies can get messy, but hopefully this will help make clear something of what I mean).

Let's take marriage. Marriage, as a concept, (I hate to use the word "institution" of marriage, but I can't think of a better one here), is not sinful. It's not sinful to be married or to celebrate marriage.

But... not only is every marriage affected by the sinfulness of the two people in it (14 years married here, so have made my peace with that particular truth!), but the way our society and culture thinks about and prepares people for marriage, the norms that society adopts, the customs that become familiar, the way we speak of and live out our marriages (note here that I am talking about things which are bigger than the two individuals) can be affected by our sinfulness also.

So we might get a fundamentally good thing (marriage) which has in the way people experience it and live it out, disordered or sinful aspects which are about more than just the personal sin of husband and wife, but about the limitations, dysfunctions and sinfulness of the social milieu in which that marriage exists.

(With me so far?) I'm saying something similar about liturgy. It's not sinful to have liturgy. It's not sinful to engage in liturgical worship. But the thought patterns, norms, customs, attitudes and so on of the people who create and engage in that liturgy (including the disordered and sinful thought patterns, norms, attitudes, etc) will inevitably shape the liturgy.

Since you've singled out the Eucharist as being of the "God-given core" that was not established by man, I imagine that you'll agree with me that the fact that you or any other priest who reverently handles the Eucharistic sacrifice in the altar (both physically before and by the power of the Holy Trinity) are sinful does not therefore make the Eucharist 'shaped in sin' (Lord have mercy).

No, I'm not saying that. And in fact, Anglicans would explicitly reject that line of argument; another of our 39 Articles states: "Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men."

So the Eucharist does not cease to be an effectual means of grace due to the sinfulness of the priest. But I am arguing that it can be an effectual means of grace and still also and at the same time be not free of the influence of sin; and here I have in view not the individual sin of the priest but the sinfulness of the community and all that has shaped its celebration.

I am saying that the participation of human beings in the liturgy does not shape or stain the liturgy with human sin, precisely because it is a divine-human undertaking.

I don't find that a plausible claim. I recall, for example, the Old Testament temple worship, which was surely also a divine-human undertaking with the presence and power of God; and yet some of the prophets and even Christ himself railed mightily against the ways it had become shaped or stained by human sin.

Again, that's because it's not a purely human product. Humans wrote it down, humans celebrate it, humans nourish and strengthen themselves in community by it, and so on, but everything that sanctifies us through all corporate and/or liturgical worship is God's doing, not man's. Without God, they're just words and motions that could just as well be said by any atheist, Hindu, Muslim, or any other kind of person. It is entirely because of God that we say that they are sanctifying and holy.

This is true! All that sanctifies us through worship is God's doing.

What I am arguing is that that is true, and that is not the whole account of all that is there when we gather.

That's it. You say these things of the Church are sinful and/or are 'shaped in sin'/have 'sinful aspects', and I say they aren't/don't. That really is the crux of our disagreement, as I see it.

The implications do go beyond that, though, as we have been exploring.

 

[dzheremi]

History and Scripture, mostly. What I've identified as the core is, as much as we can tell, the bit that has been truly catholic (in the sense of being always done by all believers everywhere, since pretty much the earliest time for which we have any evidence

This is unfortunate, then, because you wrote in post #480 that this includes the "words of institution", which are rather famously not present in the earliest attested version of the anaphora of Mar Mari and Mar Addai, the principle anaphora used by the Church of the East/Persian Church/'Nestorian' Church, which was at one time the church with the largest geographical spread in the entire world.

The status of the words of institution in the East Syrian/Persian tradition is something of an academic question for students of the development of Christian liturgy, and if you or anyone else here are interested in learning more about this aspect of this ancient and venerable liturgy, I would point you to academic papers such as this one available via academia.edu, which deals with what it calls "the absence of Eucharistic words".

So, by your own criteria of representing "being always done by all believers everywhere", the words of institution cannot be a part of this "God-given core", unless you wish to posit that God decided not to care about what Christians at Edessa and points further east were doing.

I don't point this out as a 'gotcha' sort of moment (I certainly think it's curious relative to the rest of Christianity how the East Syrian liturgy developed in this way, but I'm ambivalent as to what it means in any larger sense for anyone outside of the Church of the East and its descendent Catholic uniates), but instead to illustrate how difficult it is to approach the liturgy in this fashion: that matters or elements XYZ are the core, and all the rest is something else. To be sure, to the extent that we find a sort of through line by comparing the earliest manuscripts of, say, the anaphora of St. Basil (particularly across communions...) to later versions, or any liturgies of the various text-types to one another (e.g., the Alexandrian and Antiochian types), I think it certainly is possible to posit a sort of 'core' based on what is shared more or less by all, but I guess where I differ is that I see this as an argument for a kind of 'liturgical maximalism', in that what is developed around that core points to the tradition of a given place and time, and of course as an Oriental Orthodox Christian that means a lot to me when it comes to preserving the liturgy as it is uniquely celebrated by the Copts, the Syriac Orthodox, the Orthodox Tewahedo of East Africa, and of course the Armenians.

I don't see how I could approach the liturgy as a text from a kind of 'core and periphery' idea and still maintain my fidelity to the operating principle that the liturgy as celebrated in particular places among particular peoples is just as important as what is held to in common by (almost) all, as it says just as much about the reception of Christianity around the world as what is held in common. (It might be good to note here that the Non-Chalcedonians never went through a standardization of our liturgies across the communion as the Eastern Chalcedonians did in the 9th-10th century under the influence of Constantinople.) The same is true with regard to the different ecclesiastical canons received in particular churches at different times and places (referenced earlier in the thread); the different Biblical canons received at different times and places; the different forms of chant that developed in different places and times; the different forms of iconography and the different ways of venerating the holy icons, etc.

The rest is how we've elaborated that. It's not bad to elaborate, but it's good to be clear that - for example - Christ told us to baptise in the name of the Father and the Son and the Spirit, but didn't hand St. Peter a sketch of a taylassan or a chasuble with design notes.

I see your point as regards particular forms and of course agree with you here (as I'd have to, given everything I just wrote), but I don't think that being able to note something as a particular development thereby means that it is somehow demoted relative to that which is held in common. There are certain practices directly related to communion that are shared by many particular churches that nevertheless are not practiced by the Coptic Orthodox Church (e.g., communion via intinction), and hence would be in themselves a development relative to what we have received, and would therefore need to be justified with reference to that (not with reference to what others may do, though that may be noted in support of [re]establishing something, e.g., deaconesses -- I imagine it would matter quite a bit to those arguing for the restoration of the deaconess in OO churches that do not currently have them that some of our compatriots like the Armenians do have them, and have had them for centuries), because that historical tradition is inherently valuable and to be protected not any less than anything else.

That's an unusual definition of liberal.

In the context of what we're talking about, I don't see how it is unusual. I just wanted to make sure to distinguish it from the more common/secular political understanding of the term (here in the USA; as I understand it, this term is used differently in Australian politics). I mean a liberal approach to the liturgy, wherein things may change in the name of the ever-elusive 'relevance' that modernist churches seem to always be chasing after. I believe that this is ultimately rooted in an approach similar to what you have described here, wherein some things are taken to be of lesser importance than others because they're not among the much smaller class of things that such churches see as the core of their worship (which as you've noted with regard to the Salvation Army may not include the things that most churches would place in that category).

Schism is not good. But God is good, and works all things together for God's good purposes (as per Romans 8:28).

Alright. Thank you for clarifying.

Okay. Let me try another analogy. (Analogies can get messy, but hopefully this will help make clear something of what I mean).

Let's take marriage. Marriage, as a concept, (I hate to use the word "institution" of marriage, but I can't think of a better one here), is not sinful. It's not sinful to be married or to celebrate marriage.

But... not only is every marriage affected by the sinfulness of the two people in it (14 years married here, so have made my peace with that particular truth!), but the way our society and culture thinks about and prepares people for marriage, the norms that society adopts, the customs that become familiar, the way we speak of and live out our marriages (note here that I am talking about things which are bigger than the two individuals) can be affected by our sinfulness also.

So we might get a fundamentally good thing (marriage) which has in the way people experience it and live it out, disordered or sinful aspects which are about more than just the personal sin of husband and wife, but about the limitations, dysfunctions and sinfulness of the social milieu in which that marriage exists.

But if this is to be taken as an analogue for the liturgy, then it's quite reasonable to insist that the wider society's approach(es) to marriage not dictate to the Church what its own approach ought to be. The topic of marriage and divorce is not infrequently a point of conflagration in Egypt, as it is one means by which the state (which is ordered to be Shari'a compliant in its laws, as per article 2 of the Egyptian constitution) undermines the Church and facilitates apostasy to Islam, which is very lax in comparison as concerns this topic.

In other words: You'd have a point in every society in which the Church is subservient to the state and wider society (so basically all of the secular West), but not in those places in which it is markedly stands apart from such influences very much on purpose, for the preservation of its faith (marriage being exclusively a Church matter in an Egyptian Christian context, as secular marriage simply does not exist in the country; a fact for which any 'blame' can hardly be laid at the feet of the Christian minority).

(With me so far?) I'm saying something similar about liturgy. It's not sinful to have liturgy. It's not sinful to engage in liturgical worship. But the thought patterns, norms, customs, attitudes and so on of the people who create and engage in that liturgy (including the disordered and sinful thought patterns, norms, attitudes, etc) will inevitably shape the liturgy.

To a very limited extent, sure, and probably not in the way that you appear to mean it. The norms, customs, attitudes (etc.) of a given people do manifest themselves in the particular cultural expressions and norms held to by a given church, which do impact some of the distinctive aspects of how we celebrate the liturgy (e.g., women stand on the right side of the congregation and men on the left side in Coptic Orthodox churches) -- but you can't get from that to "therefore our sinfulness shapes the liturgy itself" (or however you'd put it) unless you more or less equate 'cultural' with 'sinful'.

At this level, I don't really care (read: I'm sure there's some theological or pseudo-theological explanation offered somewhere for why women stand on one side of the congregation and men on the other, but I haven't bothered to search it out because it has been presented to me in the past as a purely cultural matter, and I'm satisfied with that), but I think it is good to reiterate here that this doesn't mean that I'm advocating that it therefore ought to be changed or abandoned. There are certain norms that have developed as they have for reasons I will not understand, as I am not Egyptian so that is not my culture, but I nevertheless respect them because part of worshiping as one body is that it is not up to me to remake the Church in my own image. I figure the Egyptians themselves are doing the 'heavy lifting' of inculturation in an American context by having the majority of the liturgy in English here in the United States (at my old parish it was roughly 80% English to 20% non-English, and much of what is said in a given language is a repetition of something already said in another: "Again, let us pray to God Almighty, the Father of our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ..."). I can meet them half way and not mess with their cultural stuff because it's not mine.

"Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments

I guess I can never be an Anglican...

It's very easy to deal with such thinking by just reaffirming that we're not going to be Donatists.

Ironically, I think the positioned outlined in this Anglican article, while it is undoubtedly meant in an anti-Donatist fashion (as it says that even though this is the case, XYZ), gives the servants of the mysteries far too much credit by asserting that evil may have chief authority in the ministration of the sacraments. I could never believe in such a thing, because it is the Holy Spirit that is called upon and explicitly affirmed to sanctify the Eucharistic gifts, and there is no way in any sense that we could say that evil could ever have chief authority over the action of the Holy Spirit, Who is the Lord and life-giver! Thus, in the confession before the Eucharist in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, the priest proclaims openly in a loud voice "The Holies are for the holy. Blessed be the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; the sanctification is by the Holy Spirit. Amen."

Anything which is against this or posits anything over this is against the holy Orthodox Christian faith. I realize that you as an Anglican and/or your Church has a different standard and seemingly a different starting point from which the article you've shared makes perfect sense and is acceptable, and that's fine in its own context, but I want to make absolutely clear that this is not an acceptable opinion in Orthodoxy, as I have been taught it and lived within it for nearly a decade now. (I have no reason to assume anything else was taught before or since my baptism, either.)

Again, this is the core of our disagreement, which you have called an 'over-realized' ecclesiology, but I would rather just call being faithful and adhering to the faith that we actually proclaim in our liturgies and everywhere else.

I hope it is clear now that my position is not 'only we can be right and everyone else is wrong' (though obviously I do find Orthodoxy right in ways that everything else is not, or else presumably I wouldn't be Orthodox; after all, it was a lot easier to be a Roman Catholic and not fast for the majority of the year, or deal with the cultural quirks of Egyptians and Sudanese people), but rather 'I have to affirm what my religion and my Church affirm', no differently than how you affirm what your own church believes by posting that Anglican article in the first place.

 

[dzheremi]

So the Eucharist does not cease to be an effectual means of grace due to the sinfulness of the priest. But I am arguing that it can be an effectual means of grace and still also and at the same time be not free of the influence of sin

No. That is false. The Eucharistic sacrifice is the true body and blood of our Lord, God, and Savior, in Whom there is no sin. Of everything to assert this sort of thing about in the context of liturgical worship, it is least fitting to do so concerning the Eucharist. Out of respect for you as a person and a minister in your particular Church, I will not say more than this.

I don't find that a plausible claim. I recall, for example, the Old Testament temple worship, which was surely also a divine-human undertaking with the presence and power of God; and yet some of the prophets and even Christ himself railed mightily against the ways it had become shaped or stained by human sin.

And for my part, I don't find your invocation of this to be very strong reasoning, as our model in all things is Christ, not those He rebuked, so there is no contradiction between saying that pure prayers are offered to God (as Christ Himself certainly prayed, and taught us to pray) and that Christ cleansed the temple. Sometimes people need to be rebuked for offering things other than purely orthodox worship. Here's HG Bishop Abanoub doing so in our own time, after the Church of St. Simon the Tanner at Mt. Moqattam had been infested for some time with 'charismatic' Protestant heresy that is in no way acceptable for those who claim to be Orthodox Christians to participate in:

Does the fact that people at this location had been swept away in rank heresy mean that orthodox Christian worship itself is therefore 'shaped by sin'? No, because what they had been doing wasn't acceptable in the first place, and will never be acceptable. It was not prthodox worship to begin with. So it would be very disingenuous to say "look at these people who are doing what they ought not do; this proves XYZ about our worship" when what they are doing is against our worship in the first place. And how do we know that it was in fact against our faith, as expressed via our worship (i.e., why insist on Orthodox liturgy anyway)? Because we can compare it to our liturgical standard (i.e., the prayers and supplications of the liturgy), and when we do so we find in it a different spirit entirely; one that is in no way compatible with what we have been given.

So ironically by arguing against such a standard (not saying that you are arguing against Orthodox Christianity in particular, but maybe against the idea that the prayers of Christian liturgy more generally are pure and hence can function as such a standard for comparisons), you're not so much being realistic about the sinfulness of human beings and wider societies (though I understand this as being your point), but weakening the very means by which you can keep to the theological orthodoxy which you have claimed to hold.

Basically if you can't trust your own tradition's liturgy and its prayers to act in such a correcting fashion, then what do you have? Some people over here want to do this, and some people want to do that, and hey, the liturgy is shaped by sin anyway, so why not... (or for that matter, why?)

What I am arguing is that that is true, and that is not the whole account of all that is there when we gather.

I have never claimed and would never claim that it is all that is there when we gather. My argument is that it is not sinful to worship as we do. Orthodox worship is not shaped by sin. You are wrong in saying that it is. That's the bottom line of our entire discussion. I don't agree with you and will never agree with you, and furthermore I find some of what you have written to be highly theologically questionable.

The implications do go beyond that, though, as we have been exploring.

Indeed they do, and as I have been honestly very disturbed by the implications of some of what you have claimed in this most recent reply of yours, I am going to voluntarily withdraw myself from this conversation and this thread. It is better to disagree with someone than to entertain ideas which are blasphemous against the Holy Spirit. Lord have mercy.

 

[Albion]

Sure, but I'm talking about what is observable now. See, for instance, this story from about a year ago on the growth of ACNA vis-a-vis the decline of the mainline Episcopalians.

Forgive me for this footnote, but when we're talking about women priests and liberal trends generally, they don't always exactly fit together.

The Episcopal Church and ACNA both ordain women priests. And, in fact, ACNA's people have often been characterized as having been content to stay with TEC through many years of liberal drift, only leaving recently over Gay ordinations and Same-Sex marriage ceremonies. It's the 'Continuing Anglican' church bodies which have maintained the traditional beliefs and practices.

 

[Paidiske]

I note that you've withdrawn from the discussion (which I regret), but I will allow myself a reply to your last comments.

This is unfortunate, then, because you wrote in post #480 that this includes the "words of institution", which are rather famously not present in the earliest attested version of the anaphora of Mar Mari and Mar Addai, the principle anaphora used by the Church of the East/Persian Church/'Nestorian' Church, which was at one time the church with the largest geographical spread in the entire world.

The status of the words of institution in the East Syrian/Persian tradition is something of an academic question for students of the development of Christian liturgy, and if you or anyone else here are interested in learning more about this aspect of this ancient and venerable liturgy, I would point you to academic papers such as this one available via academia.edu, which deals with what it calls "the absence of Eucharistic words".

So, by your own criteria of representing "being always done by all believers everywhere", the words of institution cannot be a part of this "God-given core", unless you wish to posit that God decided not to care about what Christians at Edessa and points further east were doing.

I had, in fact, forgotten about the anaphora of Mari and Addai, and thank you for reminding me. I would still point out that the adequacy of that anaphora is a matter of robust debate.

I guess where I differ is that I see this as an argument for a kind of 'liturgical maximalism', in that what is developed around that core points to the tradition of a given place and time, and of course as an Oriental Orthodox Christian that means a lot to me when it comes to preserving the liturgy as it is uniquely celebrated by the Copts, the Syriac Orthodox, the Orthodox Tewahedo of East Africa, and of course the Armenians.

I don't see how I could approach the liturgy as a text from a kind of 'core and periphery' idea and still maintain my fidelity to the operating principle that the liturgy as celebrated in particular places among particular peoples is just as important as what is held to in common by (almost) all, as it says just as much about the reception of Christianity around the world as what is held in common. (It might be good to note here that the Non-Chalcedonians never went through a standardization of our liturgies across the communion as the Eastern Chalcedonians did in the 9th-10th century under the influence of Constantinople.) The same is true with regard to the different ecclesiastical canons received in particular churches at different times and places (referenced earlier in the thread); the different Biblical canons received at different times and places; the different forms of chant that developed in different places and times; the different forms of iconography and the different ways of venerating the holy icons, etc.

Sure. I'm not arguing for a kind of liturgical minimalism, where we only bother about the bits we consider absolutely essential. But... hmm. In the west we have the category of adiaphora, "things indifferent;" things which we do one way, but could just as well be done another way (and which other Christians often do in other ways), and that would also be fine. The idea is that there are certain things which are not adiaphora, indifferent. I am surprised to find that that would not be a distinction in other traditions also.

In the context of what we're talking about, I don't see how it is unusual. I just wanted to make sure to distinguish it from the more common/secular political understanding of the term (here in the USA; as I understand it, this term is used differently in Australian politics). I mean a liberal approach to the liturgy, wherein things may change in the name of the ever-elusive 'relevance' that modernist churches seem to always be chasing after. I believe that this is ultimately rooted in an approach similar to what you have described here, wherein some things are taken to be of lesser importance than others because they're not among the much smaller class of things that such churches see as the core of their worship (which as you've noted with regard to the Salvation Army may not include the things that most churches would place in that category).

Ugh, no! I'm not talking about changing the liturgy for the sake of "relevance."

But to my mind, being liberal means more than being willing to try something new; it means drifting so far from the catholic faith that the core things (Scripture, Creeds, core practices however identified) are abandoned.

But if this is to be taken as an analogue for the liturgy, then it's quite reasonable to insist that the wider society's approach(es) to marriage not dictate to the Church what its own approach ought to be.

Yeah, that's kind of where my analogy breaks down. I am not talking about the world shaping the liturgy in that kind of way (where we do things to be more culturally acceptable, or whatever). I could try to elaborate that thought, but since you've bowed out an extensive and complex further discussion might not be useful.

To a very limited extent, sure, and probably not in the way that you appear to mean it. The norms, customs, attitudes (etc.) of a given people do manifest themselves in the particular cultural expressions and norms held to by a given church, which do impact some of the distinctive aspects of how we celebrate the liturgy (e.g., women stand on the right side of the congregation and men on the left side in Coptic Orthodox churches) -- but you can't get from that to "therefore our sinfulness shapes the liturgy itself" (or however you'd put it) unless you more or less equate 'cultural' with 'sinful'.

Well, our cultures are sinful (again, not purely sinful, an admixture of good and bad, etc etc, but still of course sinful because the humans who create, perpetuate and live within those cultures are sinful). I thought that was blindingly obvioius.

Ironically, I think the positioned outlined in this Anglican article, while it is undoubtedly meant in an anti-Donatist fashion (as it says that even though this is the case, XYZ), gives the servants of the mysteries far too much credit by asserting that evil may have chief authority in the ministration of the sacraments. I could never believe in such a thing, because it is the Holy Spirit that is called upon and explicitly affirmed to sanctify the Eucharistic gifts, and there is no way in any sense that we could say that evil could ever have chief authority over the action of the Holy Spirit, Who is the Lord and life-giver! Thus, in the confession before the Eucharist in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, the priest proclaims openly in a loud voice "The Holies are for the holy. Blessed be the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; the sanctification is by the Holy Spirit. Amen."

I think that's a misreading of the article; I don't think it's intending to say that our evil overcomes the action of the Holy Spirit, but is in fact making the opposite point; human evil - however strongly present - does not hinder the grace of God in the sacrament.

I hope it is clear now that my position is not 'only we can be right and everyone else is wrong' ... but rather 'I have to affirm what my religion and my Church affirm', no differently than how you affirm what your own church believes by posting that Anglican article in the first place.

Same, same, though; since your religion and church affirm exactly that only you (collectively) can be right and everyone else is wrong.

No. That is false. The Eucharistic sacrifice is the true body and blood of our Lord, God, and Savior, in Whom there is no sin. Of everything to assert this sort of thing about in the context of liturgical worship, it is least fitting to do so concerning the Eucharist.

Yes, what you say here is true. We truly receive Christ in the Eucharist. What I am saying is not to deny or minimise that. But we don't receive the Eucharist in a liturgical or social vacuum; we receive Christ in the Eucharist in a context which is not free of sin.

Basically if you can't trust your own tradition's liturgy and its prayers to act in such a correcting fashion, then what do you have? Some people over here want to do this, and some people want to do that, and hey, the liturgy is shaped by sin anyway, so why not... (or for that matter, why?)

Exactly. You have to be able to bring better arguments than "this is what we've always done."

My argument is that it is not sinful to worship as we do. Orthodox worship is not shaped by sin. You are wrong in saying that it is. That's the bottom line of our entire discussion. I don't agree with you and will never agree with you, and furthermore I find some of what you have written to be highly theologically questionable.

I still feel that we have not quite entirely understood one another, but to the degree that I read your words at face value, I come back around to my point about breathtaking arrogance.

"What we do is perfect, not at all influenced by any sinful attitude, limitation, lack of insight or human imperfection; it can never be otherwise, and there is never any room for critique, learning, growth, change or repentance."

Okay then. Good luck with that. But don't be surprised that a lot of people look at that as a claim that not only seems demonstrably false, but also very, very dangerous.

I am sorry that you have seen my words as (potentially?) blasphemous, because I have not intended them that way. Lord have mercy, indeed.

 

[The Liturgist]

I had, in fact, forgotten about the anaphora of Mari and Addai, and thank you for reminding me. I would still point out that the adequacy of that anaphora is a matter of robust debate.

Among who? Since the Roman Catholics declared it valid, no one else really seems to care that much. East Syriac Liturgics are sadly not a subject which attracts much interest

Which is a shame, given the East Syriac Rite is the only ancient liturgy to survive primarily as a Cathedral Rite, rather than the Monastic Rite or vestiges of both surviving.

 

[The Liturgist]

Indeed they do, and as I have been honestly very disturbed by the implications of some of what you have claimed in this most recent reply of yours, I am going to voluntarily withdraw myself from this conversation and this thread. It is better to disagree with someone than to entertain ideas which are blasphemous against the Holy Spirit. Lord have mercy

I really don’t think you’re understanding @Paidiske properly and regret that you don’t want to pursue dialogue. I have conversed with her at length, and also have listened to her homilies, and she is about as far removed from the extremes of Joel Osteen or John Shelby Spong or the other villains who seem to be devouring the Western church from both sides as you can get.

Regarding her remark concerning the Eucharist which upset you, this remark brought to mind for me 1 Corinthians 11:27-34, wherein a communicant can partake unwillingly to their detriment, while the same Eucharist is a means of grace for the other communicants. Also, St. Augustine, St. Celestine and St. John Cassian established in their polemics against the Donatists, that a bishop or presbyter could be in a state of sin and still celebrate the Eucharist. Obviously this does not apply to the extent that the celebrant acts in persone Christi.

 

[The Liturgist]

And for my part, I don't find your invocation of this to be very strong reasoning, as our model in all things is Christ, not those He rebuked, so there is no contradiction between saying that pure prayers are offered to God (as Christ Himself certainly prayed, and taught us to pray) and that Christ cleansed the temple. Sometimes people need to be rebuked for offering things other than purely orthodox worship. Here's HG Bishop Abanoub doing so in our own time, after the Church of St. Simon the Tanner at Mt. Moqattam had been infested for some time with 'charismatic' Protestant heresy that is in no way acceptable for those who claim to be Orthodox Christians to participate in:

HG Bishop Abanoub, as I believe I wrote earlier, is one of my favorite Coptic bishops, along with Metropolitan Serapion of Los Angeles and Thrice Blessed Bishop Karas of Blessed Memory. The “Protestant” hymns and doctrines he is talking about however are not Anglican, nor even Protestant properly called, but rather are non-denominational / neo-Restorationist megachurches.

These “biblical doctrines” and the horrible praise and worship music is doing much more lasting damage to Protestant churches as has been caused to parishes in extra-diocesan areas of the Coptic Church.

It should be stressed that the Coptic Orthodox Church enjoys very good relations with the Anglican Church in Egypt, and historically has received funding and philanthropic assistance. And traditional high church Anglicans practice confession; the Eucharist is central to Anglicanism. Also, the Coptic Church might be indirectly in communion with the Anglicans; I mentioned previously that one of the three Syriac Orthodox churches resulting from the schism in India, the Malankara Independent Syrian Church in Thoyizoor, is in communion with the Mar Thoma Syrian Church which is a member of tje Anglican communion. I know the Coptic church is in communion with the other two Indian churches, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church, also known as the Indian Orthodox Church, and the Syriac Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch (the Jacobite churches in India; I forget what the formal title for the Indian Maphrianate is). So it would not be surprising if, in light of the general policy of Coptic neutrality in the schism in India, that the Pope of Alexandria is in communion with the Archbishop of Thoyizoor.

 

[The Liturgist]

Same, same, though; since your religion and church affirm exactly that only you (collectively) can be right and everyone else is wrong.

Note that this is not the Coptic doctrinal position, particularly in light of the process of ecumenical reunification with the Eastern Orthodox, which the Copts have been attempting since the 18th century.

 

[Paidiske]

Among who? Since the Roman Catholics declared it valid, no one else really seems to care that much. East Syriac Liturgics are sadly not a subject which attracts much interest

Which is a shame, given the East Syriac Rite is the only ancient liturgy to survive primarily as a Cathedral Rite, rather than the Monastic Rite or vestiges of both surviving.

Now that I've been reminded of it, I remember reading some discussion of it; I suspect (but have not checked; I am in the process of packing to move, and I'm not sure which books are in which box) in Bradshaw & Johnson's The Eucharistic Liturgies: Their Evolution and Interpretation. I have a vague memory that there was something about other liturgies based on Addai and Mari inserting the words of institution as it was felt to be inadequate without them.

 

[thecolorsblend]

The world needs women priests
to help women in poor countries get an education and jobs.

Jesus ordained two priests.
John the Baptist and Mary of Bethany.

Does the world need women priests?

Your identifier says you're Catholic. So, this quote might be instructive for you.

"With regards to the ordination of women, the church has spoken and says no. Pope John Paul said so with a formula that was definitive. That door is closed."
- Pope Francis

Source: Pope Francis and women's ordination

This is a teaching of the Church of which you claim membership. Why are you rebelling against it?

 

[Love365]

Your identifier says you're Catholic. So, this quote might be instructive for you.

"With regards to the ordination of women, the church has spoken and says no. Pope John Paul said so with a formula that was definitive. That door is closed."
- Pope Francis

Source: Pope Francis and women's ordination

This is a teaching of the Church of which you claim membership. Why are you rebelling against it?

I believe in God, free speech, and open debate.

 

[thecolorsblend]

I believe in God, free speech, and open debate.

I gather that includes topics your Church has definitively answered?

 

[Love365]

I gather that includes topics your Church has definitively answered?

God can open any door.

 

[thecolorsblend]

God can open any door.

True. But what the Church binds is bound. What the Church looses is loosened.

The Church has said that the door is shut when it comes to women's ordination. And so, it is shut and will remain shut.

 

[pescador]

True. But what the Church binds is bound. What the Church looses is loosened.

The Church has said that the door is shut when it comes to women's ordination. And so, it is shut and will remain shut.

"The Church"? I suppose that you mean the Catholic church (since you're a Catholic), so it has shut the door when it comes to women's ordination. So what? It doesn't apply to Protestants who are led by the Spirit, not the (human) law.

If women can't be ordained by the Catholic church, who loses? The answer is obvious.

 

[Hmm]

True. But what the Church binds is bound. What the Church looses is loosened.

The Church has said that the door is shut when it comes to women's ordination. And so, it is shut and will remain shut.

Genuine question. Do you mean that the Church saying that the door is shut for women's ordination is an example of the Church binding something. If so, could the Church not loose it to allow it? You can only loose what is bound I imagine.

 

[thecolorsblend]

So what? It doesn't apply to Protestants

I am Catholic. I was addressing another member who identifies as Catholic. You Protestants do whatever you want.

Genuine question. Do you mean that the Church saying that the door is shut for women's ordination is an example of the Church binding something. If so, could the Church not loose it to allow it? You can only loose what is bound I imagine.

No.