One More, Please Help!

[babychrist]

NO. Depression, dispair and suicide are mental illnesses and sins and are not of God at all. True Christian humility understands that "what I want" is not what is important in this world, but rather what God wants of me. We do not ask God for what we want, we ask him for what he wants of us. My philosophy professor in seminary was a very wise man and he once made the comment about people thinking God is a "sugar daddy in the sky." The point of Christian prayer is not to ask God for what I think is best for me, but rather to ask him to have mercy on me and teach me to be content with what God gives me. Wanting something that goes totally counter to 2000 years of Christian teaching is NOT Christ centered. Thus your desire to pray Divine Liturgy and consecrate the Eucharist is not of God.

I don't know how to reply other than burst out in tears. My desire for Christ not of God? I give up. I don't think I have it in me to respond further. And regardless of what seems erroneous to you or anyone else here, it is my reality. In other words, I haven't been giving you all a dozen reasons why women should be allowed to consecrate the bread and wine, I've been relaying to you all how this issue makes me feel and just wanting an understanding ear. Something I haven't gotten. Like I said, I'm going to read Fr. Hoko's book when it arrives. I'm sorry I brought this up. God, I'm sorry.

 

[rusmeister]

Like I said, BC, you need to talk to a live priest in front of you.

It is much more difficult to misunderstand what others are saying to you in live, face-to-face conversation.

I already see misunderstandings about what we mean by humility and by "what we want". In the first case, this does not involve loathing of the complete self, only of what is wrong in us and a desire to become the way God wants us, and in the second case, being able to distinguish between fallen desires and desires that are proper and right. Michael's speaking about fallen desires when he talks about "what we want". You are talking about desiring Christ, which is an unfallen desire. In a word, you are talking apples and oranges.

Again, speaking to a live priest would avoid these pitfalls and the resulting impression that we are a bunch of crazy bad guys.

May the Lord bless you and help you to find the Path!

 

[babychrist]

How is it that a priest is more nutroring than a Sunday school teacher, youth director/ lay minister or a woman active in hopsital ministry in her parish who may or may not be an official sub deacon? Just because she does not have the "tittle"?

No one is getting the fact that it's the physical Christ that I want to have and want to give in return! But I should die to this want? This want is not of God? (which is what I'm hearing others say). God have mercy on me. I wanted to be EO, but I must have the physical Christ, I'll die if I don't. And all I want to hear Him say is, "As you physically accept me from the Father and distribute me physically to others, I accept you, you in your own physicality. Your femininity will not, cannot, should not hamper you from msking me physically present, and giving the physical me to the world. Come imitate your Mother!

 

[babychrist]

Like I said, BC, you need to talk to a live priest in front of you.

It is much more difficult to misunderstand what others are saying to you in live, face-to-face conversation.

I already see misunderstandings about what we mean by humility and by "what we want". In the first case, this does not involve loathing of the complete self, only of what is wrong in us and a desire to become the way God wants us, and in the second case, being able to distinguish between fallen desires and desires that are proper and right. Michael's speaking about fallen desires when he talks about "what we want". You are talking about desiring Christ, which is an unfallen desire. In a word, you are talking apples and oranges.

Again, speaking to a live priest would avoid these pitfalls and the resulting impression that we are a bunch of crazy bad guys.

May the Lord bless you and help you to find the Path!

Thank you. I'm not going to reply anymore. I'll seek help elsewhere (including a priest). I hope that this has all just been a matter of misunderstanding and talking past one another. I felt so fortunate when I came across this board and few weeks ago, and now I'm near tears. I don't expect anyone to know what this does to me and how lightly they need to tread. I guess in all the excitement of getting my previous questions answered, I wasn't using my better judgment. I'm not mad at anyone, just extremely hurt and confused. I won't be posting again until I get this issue resolved.

God bless.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Please forgive me if I am speaking out of place, but a few things jumped out at me in this post.

I personally believe that an understanding of this issue transcends tradition and becomes an issue of "faith". I am a very conservative, confessional, orthodox, and catholic Lutheran. The traditional role of male clergy can be found in Scripture. The women in Scripture have very unique and important roles which can not be fulfilled by men.

When we accept that Scripture is Divinely inspired word of God, and have faith in the teaching authority of Scripture, we are bound by our faith to hear and accept without question what is revealed to us. Scriptures tell us that " a Bishop (Presbyter, Priest, Pastor) is to be the husband of one wife"; women are to "remain silent in Church", and "women are not to usurp authority over men. We therefore accept these teachings on the faith that the Word of God is the word of the Church.

When I find myself questioning the teaching or practice of the Church, I pray for guidance, and look to my Pastor and God's Holy Word for guidance.

Traditions and practice often conflict with our human reason; Scripture also tells us that God's wisdom appears to be foolishness to mankind, therefore reason (which is tainted by the "old Adam") must give way to faith like that of a small child; complete and unquestioning.

Please forgive me if I have overstepped my bounds, I will gladly remove this post if I have caused offense.

Peace to all,

Mark

I understand. But in my case, it seems like someone would just have to look at me and say, "You're not qualified". That I would be rejected not because of my lack of abilities or charism, but simply because I'm me. And I can't describe to you how demeaning that is, how it can lead to feelings of self-hatred and the feeling that I "just don't measure up to a man" (that I'm second-rate). And that if Christ were here now, He'd concur --that even He would reject me, because I'm me. But I'm hoping that Fr. Hopko's book I just purchased will not only lead me to a better understanding of why the EO doesn't call women to the priesthood, but to restore my self-image and sense of self-worth in the process. Chances are, I don't understand the EO reason behind this, having come from a conservative Lutheran and Roman Catholic background. Right now, I just need to take a breath, let all of the hurt and anxiety this issue causes me to dissipate, so that I have room to soak in Fr. Hopko's book. Please pray for me.

 

[Shubunkin]

I am understanding that babychrist is trying to convey the idea she wants to share Christ, that is, his actual, physical body found in the Eucharist. As women, we can do this from the other side of the altar. We lead our families to the altar to accept Christ's blood and body. Without this leading towards the altar by the motherhood, we would have fewer coming to the Eucharist than we have. Of course, dads can do this too. There is nothing more beautiful than a mother or father holding the child up for the priest to administer the Eucharist to their child. The priest is the servant placing the Eucharist within each of us. We have each been lead there by others, and also the Holy Spirit. This is still an important position in the Church, even if rarely noticed, is very necessary.

I hope this helps. If this is what I understand is correct, that is.

 

[Philothei]

Yes, but this does not mean the reasoning behind it is the same. As I said before someone only has to look at me and say, "You're not qualified". It's like looking at an African American and saying, "You're not qualified" simply because you are African American (It is as if some churches (not the EO necessarily), has put a sign over the altar saying, "Women Need Not Apply".

What you are bringing about as an example does not qualify as the same because you make the pressupostion that you as a female role are 'rejected'. You making the assumption to say that you are rejected because of your female role ONLY while Michael tried to show you that firstly:"

-rejection does not ONLY equate males but also "certain" males who "equally" do not qualify... such as the canons forbit devorcees from entering the priesthood
-males who are not physically healthy cannot enter the priesthood
-and the list goes on...

Now if those males see those pre-qualifications as "discrimination" how is that irrelevant to what you are saying?


-secondly it was presented to you that women are not "officially" excluded from the clergy ranks. They were not (as far as our research allows us to know) not involved "liturgically" in the Church but that is ONLY one side of ministry.

Holding the Holy Mysteries seems to me of a "mythical" quality. Giving communion is far more "nutrioring" as a female duty than "sacrificing" or "consecrating the amnos".

If Christ instituted all ministries esp. this of apostleship as the 'higher" of the ministries.. through baptism we are all called to be His Apostles how can we even 'dare" to doubt Him or question Him? We are commanded to do that the way he brought it forth. I know arguing from Tradition maybe seems weak to you right now ...but arguing from Christ and His Apostles should tell you something?

How come the very first assmbly did not have any women priests? Why women were not consecrating the bread and the wine? Were the Apostles wrong about it? They "discriminated" against women on purpose and for what reason? If we go that route I think our conclusions would be pretty much on target.

 

[Philothei]

But this plays right into what I said previously about it being theological untenable (imho). How are women counted in this restoration of fallen Adam? It must be in the same way as their male counterparts for there is only one Christ and one Salvation. If we say "men adhere more closely to the archetype of Adam and of Christ", how do we maintain women's equality in the economy of salvation (salvation again, being the restoration of Adam/Man).

By saying this then you deny the creation... Adam was the archtype, Eve was made of Adam's side. They are equal as they are "side by side" as they share "omoplevroi" the same side... Nevertheless Adam was the "first-created". The way you are stating you see un-equlity then in the "first created couple"?

Also Mary as the Theotokos is the archetype of Eve. The woman who through her the "salvation" came to Adam and Eve after accepting/consenting to have Christ.

So, we see that the restoration of Eve is already presnt. This is God's economy of salvation.
The soteriological ergo (work) or Theotokos is far bigger than any man in this world except the God-man Christ..Think about it...She is higher than the Angels... By consenting to allow the incarnation she took upon her the salvation of all men and women.... She herself does not save but she "enabled" salvation. what can be more honorable for women to emulate? That is why in our church we honor her as the most higher than all the saints. Out of her true humility we honor her as the Queen of Heavens... Now why would we feel cheated about restoration?

In a sense I agree as I pointed out in my OP, but when it comes to the issue of being an image-bearer of Christ, and it's closely associated doctrine of theosis, we need to tred very very lightly. For Paul said, there is neither Jew nor Greek, Slave nor Free, for we are all one in Christ Jesus.

You are setting "human standards" to the old saying of Paul... He was not talking social ethics and social discrimination he was into spiritual things. There is no discrimination in salvation but ONLY Christ Jesus it continuous... What that has anything to do with salvation? All are saved. God does not give out "social" justice...neither was talking about women's lib... He was talking about salvation.

It's not about me and what I am personally comfortable with, it's about logical consistency. I've spent enough time in the Jewish/Hebraic Movement to know how big of an issue this is for some Christians. Many Messianic Jews have a real problem with Christ portrayed as anything other than Jewish.

There is no logical consistency in the Bible then ...since they said "there is no male, female etc" and they did not practice it... in your mind then the Bible maybe is not consistant neither the Apostles? It sounds "normal" for some Messianic Jews to stick to historicity.... But would they say NO to a priest be of another cultural origin? NO.

but the early church did not explore them.

It would be interesting for Mr. Frederika Matthews to explain to us further why so... But she does not. And personally instead of stoping there did my own reseach at the seminary and did not find anything either although I do insist that there was no need for the church to do so....so why do it?

Have you read BTW Presv. Koula Karydoyiannis-Fitztgerald book about women deacons in the early church? I wil try to find it it is printed by HOLY CROSS though.

Just wanted to bring up those points for you to consider. As a reminder I hope I am not offending you. What I say are not ill-meaning just stating the way we see things and how they play out in our Tradition.

peace

 

[Philothei]

And regardless of what seems erroneous to you or anyone else here, it is my reality

By claiming this one then already there should be alarming bells already.. Me thinks. God creates our reality not us. See, we all make that mistake to think that OUR (and also individual) reality is OURs... We live because of God and Christ. Our existance means nothing to God if we are not God-centered

No one is getting the fact that it's the physical Christ that I want to have and want to give in return!

hmmm... I wonder why the "physical"? by physical you mean that Chist can be divided to spiritual and physical? By partaking the Eucarist you partake into physical Christ... I do not see the point truly I do not.. sorry if I offend you..though.
Giving it in return is off the same value as sending the "kerygma" of Christ to others, IMO...

Let me ask you also... if you give the Eucarist (thinking physical is not a good word as we do not partake physical Christ but also spiritual he is ONE Body and spirit ) what difference it makes to you? How this will enable you as an fellow Christian to "fullfill" your calling that otherwise is not fulfilled?

But I should die to this want? This want is not of God? (which is what I'm hearing others say). God have mercy on me. I wanted to be EO, but I must have the physical Christ, I'll die if I don't.

Sorry, no this is not in our Tradition. You defenately need to see a priest no book would give you that answer...

And all I want to hear Him say is, "As you physically accept me from the Father and distribute me physically to others, I accept you, you in your own physicality. Your femininity will not, cannot, should not hamper you from msking me physically present, and giving the physical me to the world. Come imitate your Mother!

Yes, You defenately need to talk to a priest ASAP. There is no Mother to imitate (? Are you talking about Theotokos?)... And the Father already accepts us all, as we are all baptized in the name of the Holy Trinity...

Lord have mercy!

 

[Philothei]

When I find myself questioning the teaching or practice of the Church, I pray for guidance, and look to my Pastor and God's Holy Word for guidance.

Totally agree here the scripture alone does support the ordination of men only. The practice of the Apostles does witness to that also.

 

[Michael G]

Totally agree here the scripture alone does support the ordination of men only. The practice of the Apostles does witness to that also.

And this is why I have stated here that a desire for priesthood that comes from a woman can not be of God.