“Orthodox lay chaplain”

[ArmyMatt]

Can't say how old this tradition is, though.

at least to the 19th century. Makrakis was one.

 

[archer75]

I don’t see how you draw the idea that a layperson can be a representative of the Church in a manner not expressed in any other language, place or time in history, broadly speaking. If they are legitimate representatives, in what manner was this expressed in 5th-century Rome, 9th-century Byzantium, or 15th century Russia? What term in what languages were used to express this? Who decided, and who accepted the title and function? Church history MUST have a record of such people.

If they are just lay people, then why claim a particular title? If the title is necessary, then what does our Church say in its Tradition that they have the authority to do? I see an effort to have it both ways - to be seen simultaneously as both clergy and laity, and I don’t see that in Tradition.

"Father, can I have your blessing to sit at a table and represent our parish at a table among a set of tables at which various people will sit? The other people at tables will be representing other confessions that claim Christ, and non-Christian religions and cults. Orthodox people who work for a large secular organization will be able to find our table on the list and approach me. I can tell them about readers' services nearby, as well as services celebrated by clergy."

"Yes, I checked with His Eminence, and it's okay with him."

"One more thing -the secular organization calls the people who sit at these tables 'table people' and some of the table people are ordained in their religions and cults. Even some Orthodox table people are ordained."

"I see what you mean. Juat put down that you'll be a lay table person. That should keep anyone from thinking this is part of an ordained ministry."

"But what if someome translates 'lay table person' into Russian and uses the word священник, which means presbyter?"

"Let's not worry too much about putative mistranslations into Russian. Even if someone messes up in English and ends up thinking you're ordained to the presbyterate, just say you're not."

"But what were such people called in the 7th century?"

"The title is for the understanding of the lay organization. It's not a rank bestowed by the Church."

"But how..."

"People use titles not bestowed by the Church all the time for organization and clarity in the world. Mister, Mrs., Dr...the Church doesn't confer degress that attest to the study of scientific medicine, but says that saints who were modern physicians held these degrees."

"Okay. Father, bless!"

*blessing given*

 

[seashale76]

when were you at HC? that sounds familiar to me from one of the females I spoke to on an OISM trip.

where is she getting her PhD?

feel free to pm me if you want your time there to be private.

Please use the word women, Fr. Matt.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Please use the word women, Fr. Matt.

they’re synonymous. I used them interchangeably before without an issue.

 

[seashale76]

they’re synonymous. I used them interchangeably before without an issue.

Woman is a noun and female is an adjective. Also, one rarely sees males used instead of men in the same manner or as often. It is an issue. There are entire sections of the internet dedicated to the 'men and females' phenomenon.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Woman is a noun and female is an adjective. Also, one rarely sees males used instead of men in the same manner or as often. It is an issue. There are entire sections of the internet dedicated to the 'men and females' phenomenon.

as evidenced by my username, I am in the Army. female and male are used as nouns in the Army. I have used both on here as nouns. the fact that I use them interchangeably hasn’t been an issue on here.

so, I do say woman and I say female, I also say man and male.

 

[rusmeister]

I don't know about lay chaplains, but Greece has a tradition of lay preachers. Can't say how old this tradition is, though.

This is an interesting point, and not entirely irrelevant, I think. But preaching as such is just giving homilies, aka teaching, which is not a sacramental or restricted activity. I think the traditional understanding (the only one that counts) assumes that the chaplain is unrestricted and CAN administer the sacraments of his denomination.

 

[rusmeister]

as evidenced by my username, I am in the Army. female and male are used as nouns in the Army. I have used both on here as nouns. the fact that I use them interchangeably hasn’t been an issue on here.

so, I do say woman and I say female, I also say man and male.

I think the issue Seashale is referring to to be one of usage. Yes, “male” and “female” ARE also used as nouns (but ought not to be, IMO), but they are more clinical and less human in their usage. Even as nouns, they remain more descriptive (adjectival) than ontological (WHAT they are). Even in the Scripture translated into English, “male and female created He them” is obviously adjectival in nature. But I do get why you would not perceive much of a difference. But I don’t think pedantry entirely unwarranted here.

 

[rusmeister]

Further, any remotely competent translator will not mistranslate so as to create a contradiction in terms not present in the original text. So here the approach will have to be not to translate chaplain as "priest" and then smack another word on, creating a contradiction in terms, but to translate the notion—an Orthodox layperson who functions somehow as a representative of the Church in this non-Church organization.

As an actual translator, I think that puts an unreasonable burden on the translator. It assumes that “he will know what you mean”. A translator is logically going to look for and operate from historical assumptions, which are frankly at odds with the understanding you are so firmly embracing.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think the issue Seashale is referring to to be one of usage. Yes, “male” and “female” ARE also used as nouns (but ought not to be, IMO), but they are more clinical and less human in their usage. Even as nouns, they remain more descriptive (adjectival) than ontological (WHAT they are). Even in the Scripture translated into English, “male and female created He them” is obviously adjectival in nature. But I do get why you would not perceive much of a difference. But I don’t think pedantry entirely unwarranted here.

it’s not that I don’t perceive a difference. it’s that in military use their really isn’t one.

 

[rusmeister]

it’s not that I don’t perceive a difference. it’s that in military use their really isn’t one.

I would argue that there IS a difference, but that military intelligence is just being its usual self in failing to perceive it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I would argue that there IS a difference, but that military intelligence is just being its usual self in failing to perceive it.

and I would say that the military culture, just like every culture, has its own terminology, jargon, and slang.

 

[archer75]

As an actual translator, I think that puts an unreasonable burden on the translator. It assumes that “he will know what you mean”. A translator is logically going to look for and operate from historical assumptions, which are frankly at odds with the understanding you are so firmly embracing.

The translator is obligated to know something. This is not such a burden in this case.

I am not firmly embracing anything. I cannot see why referring to someone as an Orthodox lay chaplain is a secret road to women's ordination.

Are all texts now to be vetted for how easy they are to translate into Russian? Why specifically Russian?

 

[archer75]

This is an interesting point, and not entirely irrelevant, I think. But preaching as such is just giving homilies, aka teaching, which is not a sacramental or restricted activity. I think the traditional understanding (the only one that counts) assumes that the chaplain is unrestricted and CAN administer the sacraments of his denomination.

What about the sacramentless denominations?

What exactly would you prefer here? Do you want this job not to exist? Not to be called lay chaplain? Where does your objection begin?

 

[rusmeister]

The translator is obligated to know something. This is not such a burden in this case.

I am not firmly embracing anything. I cannot see why referring to someone as an Orthodox lay chaplain is a secret road to women's ordination.

Are all texts now to be vetted for how easy they are to translate into Russian? Why specifically Russian?

I find it quite difficult to say anything to you, because it seems you simply want to deny everything I say here.

Slippery slopes are real. They actually exist. The issue is not that a genuine slippery slope is “secret”, but that it is NOT a sudden leap to a point, but rather one step that makes a later step possible, gradually making something once thought unthinkable more thinkable, and finally realized into practice, and eventually normalized. Thus, it is not immediately obvious to most. As long as fornication was stigmatized in society, the idea of same-sex sodomic relationships was unthinkable. It became thinkable when fornication was tolerated as ”free love” in the sexual revolution, and was openly practiced less than a generation later. In its turn, fornication was unthinkable as acceptable social practice until the idea of divorce for reasons other than adultery was admitted in society. (Easy, or “no-fault” divorce is a more complicated issue, because the idea was openly introduced a century ago, but it took decades for it to be legalized, and it wasn’t legalized until it was first socially tolerated as a normal and acceptable thing.)

And you leap to a straw man argument in suggesting that I am arguing that Russian is the specific language by which English should be measured. I’m not saying that. I’m saying that any non-Western language would do to compare and see how the concept translates, non-Western because of the problem of cognates. Russian and Greek are two better examples because they are traditionally Orthodox countries, and so have established language regarding Orthodox practice.

And since you ask about other denominations, I say that they can do what they want. Since they do not accept our ecclesiology or Tradition, there is nothing we can say except that they have the wrong ecclesiology and tradition. But insofar as the idea of a chaplain has been accepted in Orthodoxy, it has been accepted quite specifically as a priest, and we can see that when we turn to non-English speaking Orthodox cultures.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Slippery slopes are real. They actually exist.

they are also logical fallacies. just because something went down a certain road in the past, that doesn’t mean it will happen in another case.

 

[rusmeister]

they are also logical fallacies. just because something went down a certain road in the past, that doesn’t mean it will happen in another case.

A slippery slope CAN be, a) an actual slippery slope, where one thing really does lead to another, or b) a logical fallacy. If it is a real thing, then it is not a fallacy.

In the case of the fall of sexual morality over the past 100+ years, it can be shown that the social changes accepted actually were and are a real slippery slope and no fallacy. It is absolutely certain that if marriage were held sacred, then there would be no social tolerance of public cohabitation or pornography, and it was the acceptance first of the idea of easy divorce followed by sympathy and tolerance for adulterers led to tolerance of fornication and pornography, the “sexual revolution”, which in turn made possible the tolerance and then acceptance of public sodomic relations, which led to the alphabet soup movement, “transgenderism”, and other things like pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia are right down the road; there is a definite trajectory to these things. That is a very real and undeniable slippery slope, where a thing is first unthinkable, then it is made thinkable, and finally it is practiced.

And so the question is whether one thing really can lead to another, make the other thing possible. Can a trajectory be shown? I think it can, and that it is sufficient to establish a very real likelihood. If a thing is 90% likely to happen, then we can say that it will probably happen. One doesn’t need to insist that the probability be 100%, though given man’s inclination to amartia, sin, I think we can safely bet on tendencies in those directions.

So what are the tendencies in our society? We are extremely far from a society such as a traditional Islamic society, that oppresses and subjugated women; the tendency is to claim not merely equality before the law, but absolute equality and even identicality in all things, that there is no difference that matters between the sexes. When the head of the Health Dept is a man pretending to be a woman, and everyone goes along with his pretense, this cannot be denied. Thus, we HAVE seen calls, even in the Orthodox Church, for women to be ordained, as most of the rest of the Christian West is now doing. Envelopes are being pushed, and borders tested, to see the extent to which human tradition, Christian Tradition, and Orthodox Tradition may be dismissed or changed in the name of that modern fashion that I’ll call identicality in order to avoid confusing it with the normal equality, legal and ontological. This is being done in many small ways. Some either promote or practice the dismissal of head-covering for women, without applying Chesterton’s Fence and asking why it ever came to be a tradition, some take baby girls being baptized into the altar, there has been a definite push for deaconesses, (again, Chesterton’s Fence), and such things are consonant with the fashion of the world. It is a fact that these things (with the noted and rare historical exception of deaconesses) were not practiced in the Orthodox world, and now they are being practiced - and either primarily or exclusively in the West. Do these things guarantee a successful move to introduce priestesses? No. Do they make priestesses more thinkable, more of a possibility than before? Do they move on that trajectory? The answer is obviously “Yes”, even if some think they won’t end in priestesses. And those “some” have already been shown to be wrong on a number of things in the Christian world at large. The same people believed that easy divorce would ensure that all marriages would be happy marriages, that “birth control” would not lead to sexual promiscuity (the 1930 Lambeth Conference comes to mind), that same-sex “marriages” could never happen, and some might still say that open tolerance of pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia could never happen; the very people who appeal to the idea of a logical fallacy to effectively claim that there is no such thing as a chain of consequences, of one change making a later change possible.

I’m not saying you’re claiming that, Fr Matt, but in not acknowledging the real social changes that became possible in sequence, your post does kind of come across as if it were denying slippery slopes in principle, even if you didn't intend that.

 

[ArmyMatt]

A slippery slope CAN be, a) an actual slippery slope, where one thing really does lead to another, or b) a logical fallacy. If it is a real thing, then it is not a fallacy.

In the case of the fall of sexual morality over the past 100+ years, it can be shown that the social changes accepted actually were and are a real slippery slope and no fallacy. It is absolutely certain that if marriage were held sacred, then there would be no social tolerance of public cohabitation or pornography, and it was the acceptance first of the idea of easy divorce followed by sympathy and tolerance for adulterers led to tolerance of fornication and pornography, the “sexual revolution”, which in turn made possible the tolerance and then acceptance of public sodomic relations, which led to the alphabet soup movement, “transgenderism”, and other things like pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia are right down the road; there is a definite trajectory to these things. That is a very real and undeniable slippery slope, where a thing is first unthinkable, then it is made thinkable, and finally it is practiced.

And so the question is whether one thing really can lead to another, make the other thing possible. Can a trajectory be shown? I think it can, and that it is sufficient to establish a very real likelihood. If a thing is 90% likely to happen, then we can say that it will probably happen. One doesn’t need to insist that the probability be 100%, though given man’s inclination to amartia, sin, I think we can safely bet on tendencies in those directions.

So what are the tendencies in our society? We are extremely far from a society such as a traditional Islamic society, that oppresses and subjugated women; the tendency is to claim not merely equality before the law, but absolute equality and even identicality in all things, that there is no difference that matters between the sexes. When the head of the Health Dept is a man pretending to be a woman, and everyone goes along with his pretense, this cannot be denied. Thus, we HAVE seen calls, even in the Orthodox Church, for women to be ordained, as most of the rest of the Christian West is now doing. Envelopes are being pushed, and borders tested, to see the extent to which human tradition, Christian Tradition, and Orthodox Tradition may be dismissed or changed in the name of that modern fashion that I’ll call identicality in order to avoid confusing it with the normal equality, legal and ontological. This is being done in many small ways. Some either promote or practice the dismissal of head-covering for women, without applying Chesterton’s Fence and asking why it ever came to be a tradition, some take baby girls being baptized into the altar, there has been a definite push for deaconesses, (again, Chesterton’s Fence), and such things are consonant with the fashion of the world. It is a fact that these things (with the noted and rare historical exception of deaconesses) were not practiced in the Orthodox world, and now they are being practiced - and either primarily or exclusively in the West. Do these things guarantee a successful move to introduce priestesses? No. Do they make priestesses more thinkable, more of a possibility than before? Do they move on that trajectory? The answer is obviously “Yes”, even if some think they won’t end in priestesses. And those “some” have already been shown to be wrong on a number of things in the Christian world at large. The same people believed that easy divorce would ensure that all marriages would be happy marriages, that “birth control” would not lead to sexual promiscuity (the 1930 Lambeth Conference comes to mind), that same-sex “marriages” could never happen, and some might still say that open tolerance of pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia could never happen; the very people who appeal to the idea of a logical fallacy to effectively claim that there is no such thing as a chain of consequences, of one change making a later change possible.

I’m not saying you’re claiming that, Fr Matt, but in not acknowledging the real social changes that became possible in sequence, your post does kind of come across as if it were denying slippery slopes in principle, even if you didn't intend that.

I am not denying slippery slopes in general. merely saying it IS a fallacy concerning the current topic of lay chaplains. there has been no push from people within the Orthodoxy to ordain women simply because lay chaplains exist in the English speaking Orthodox world.

 

[rusmeister]

I am not denying slippery slopes in general. merely saying it IS a fallacy concerning the current topic of lay chaplains. there has been no push from people within the Orthodoxy to ordain women simply because lay chaplains exist in the English speaking Orthodox world.

You are affirming the idea of lay chaplain. OK.

The reason I am "butting heads" is because I have a problem with the whole idea of a chaplain NOT being either a priest or an actual pastor or equivalent, of the word "chaplain" meaning "a professional psychologist (or whatever) who gives religious advice". That wasn't a generally accepted understanding forty years ago in the English-speaking world. I still think the word refers to an actual pastor or priest. It's from THAT perspective that I'm coming from. Obviously, if anyone who can give advice can be a chaplain, then anybody at all can be a chaplain. I would expect a chaplain to be able to give last rites, Communion, hear confessions, etc. But you're using a new definition that obviously means that a "lay chaplain" couldn't do those things.

So from MY understanding, there is no fallacy, because if a woman can be a chaplain at all, whether Orthodox or not, then obviously she would be able to administer sacraments. You have to first accept that pretty much anybody can be a chaplain and that chaplains are not required to be able to administer sacraments. That's not a chaplain at all, in my book, but most likely a psychologist.

You'd have to convince me that chaplains were never expected to administer the rites of their confession, something I know to be generally untrue. If they are no longer expected to administer sacraments, that represents a very recent change, in my own lifetime and AFTER my own military service.

In general, if people from the past, nearly any period, came to the present, (after getting over the culture shock) they'd think we were bonkers.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You are affirming the idea of lay chaplain. OK.

The reason I am "butting heads" is because I have a problem with the whole idea of a chaplain NOT being either a priest or an actual pastor or equivalent, of the word "chaplain" meaning "a professional psychologist (or whatever) who gives religious advice". That wasn't a generally accepted understanding forty years ago in the English-speaking world. I still think the word refers to an actual pastor or priest. It's from THAT perspective that I'm coming from. Obviously, if anyone who can give advice can be a chaplain, then anybody at all can be a chaplain. I would expect a chaplain to be able to give last rites, Communion, hear confessions, etc. But you're using a new definition that obviously means that a "lay chaplain" couldn't do those things.

So from MY understanding, there is no fallacy, because if a woman can be a chaplain at all, whether Orthodox or not, then obviously she would be able to administer sacraments. You have to first accept that pretty much anybody can be a chaplain and that chaplains are not required to be able to administer sacraments. That's not a chaplain at all, in my book, but most likely a psychologist.

You'd have to convince me that chaplains were never expected to administer the rites of their confession, something I know to be generally untrue. If they are no longer expected to administer sacraments, that represents a very recent change, in my own lifetime and AFTER my own military service.

In general, if people from the past, nearly any period, came to the present, (after getting over the culture shock) they'd think we were bonkers.

I am not affirming the idea of the lay chaplain. I have never said either way whether or not I support the idea from an Orthodox POV. I just think your logic to your conclusion is incorrect. that does not mean I disagree with your conclusion. so we’re not butting heads. I disagree that Pascal’s Wager is a good argument for God’s existence, but I agree with Pascal’s conclusion that there is a God.

and you’re just wrong when you say that to YOU there is no fallacy (which is also erroneous, since logical fallacies aren’t subjective), because plenty of Christian denominations have women pastors who don’t believe in sacraments, and therefore they cannot administer them because to do so would violate their faith. chaplains are not expected to minister sacraments if their faith rejects them. that, by the way, has been on the books since before WWII.

by the way, I don’t agree that the laity should be chaplains, since chaplains are a pastoral role and should only be for priests and bishops.