Why we don't have women as priests (Moved from TAW)

[rusmeister]

Where have I disputed this?


True, I thought it best to refrain from doing so.


Please, either cite where I said I was in favor of women priestesses, or retract this statement and its implication.

Attacking what one believes to be bad arguments in favor of our theology and practices is a way to defend those things. Putting forward bad arguments in favor of our theology and practices is a way to attack those things.

Have a blessed Lent, Capp.

 

[Cappadocious]

You as well.

 

[LilLamb219]

MOD HAT ON

Just a quick Mod Hat to say that a clean up has been made in this thread. Guests are allowed fellowship posts and to ask questions. Clean Up also involved responses.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[truefiction1]

Why do you accuse progressives of being uneducated? This sort of essentialism of gender is something many educated individuals reject.

I would give up on this couple. Unless you want a divided marriage, it is not a good idea for them to join the orthodox church if the wife has strong feelings on this matter.

Missed this post. Sorry. I really feel that the label of "progressives" is useless. I only meant it in a hypothetical way. What I really meant to say is that a good many people might be making an error in judgment due to a particular way of viewing gender that could possibly be inaccurate. If one accepts the ideas of say, Karl Gustav Jung regarding archetypes and symbols and applies this understanding in a correct way to liturgical practices within the Church, one might have a better understanding of why there has never been females serving the liturgical function of the prietshood and that "sexism" or "essentialism" are really not at the root of it. I don't believe in essentialism either, but I do believe in the existence of the anima and the animus and of the cosmic man, and if you know how these archetypes speak to our psyche (spirit) you will also know why Christ came as a man and why those who symbolize His role within their liturgical activities are also male. You will also understand the meaning of the great mother and that archetype is fulfilled by the Theotokos (virgin Mary), not by women priests.

 

[FireDragon76]

This is far less eloquent than what Rus has said, but I'll say it anyway, keeping this simple. The Orthodox Church has never had to make any apologetic for women's ordination. Why? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN UNDERSTOOD as a no-brainer for two millennia! .... The Orthodox Church, being the vessel of Truth that she is, has maintained a steady tradition that is well-grounded in theological consistency.

"The Church has spoken" is hardly going to persuade non-Orthodox that Orthodoxy is a vessel of Truth.

I don't see how the opposition to female ordination is theologically consistent, in fact the theological reasoning used seems to go against some of the deepest Christological dogmas of the Christian faith.

I admit I have more respect for the Jungian archetype argument, but I still find it rather weak, especially because Jung is not exactly Orthodox Holy Tradition.

 

[truefiction1]

"The Church has spoken" is hardly going to persuade non-Orthodox that Orthodoxy is a vessel of Truth.

I don't see how the opposition to female ordination is theologically consistent, in fact the theological reasoning used seems to go against some of the deepest Christological dogmas of the Christian faith.

I admit I have more respect for the Jungian archetype argument, but I still find it rather weak, especially because Jung is not exactly Orthodox Holy Tradition.

It's only a weak argument when people don't realize what it is that drives religious practices, which is the case for most religious persons. It's often known intuitively, but not easily verbalized. Once the unconscious mechanisms are understood, the findings are hard to contest. We are talking about religious liturgical practice and customs and what is best in regard to these, not about banal secular organization. So, what roles women and men may play in society are one thing, and their liturgical roles are another, because religion serves a unique and important function. To fiddle with its form could eventually lead to widespread societal neurosis.

 

[rusmeister]

duplicate post

 

[rusmeister]

It's only a weak argument when people don't realize what it is that drives religious practices, which is the case for most religious persons. It's often known intuitively, but not easily verbalized. Once the unconscious mechanisms are understood, the findings are hard to contest. We are talking about religious liturgical practice and customs and what is best in regard to these, not about banal secular organization. So, what roles women and men may play in society are one thing, and their liturgical roles are another, because religion serves a unique and important function. To fiddle with its form could eventually lead to widespread societal neurosis.

Lewis said this in a different way, one that I think more congenial to the modern person asking "Why?"
(I'm agreeing with you, in case it isn't obvious.)

 

[ArmyMatt]

"The Church has spoken" is hardly going to persuade non-Orthodox that Orthodoxy is a vessel of Truth.

usually it's not meant as a persuasion. but if Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and the Church IS His Body. then one should say that the Church has spoken and it should be enough, if one believes that the Church is what we say it is. but again, that is not meant to persuade.

I don't see how the opposition to female ordination is theologically consistent, in fact the theological reasoning used seems to go against some of the deepest Christological dogmas of the Christian faith.

could you supply any evidence?

 

[GregConstantine]

"The Church has spoken" is more geared towards those already Orthodox rather then those outside.

I like what truefiction1 said about Jung and the archetypes. ( I have a psych background) While Jung is certainly not Orthodox, we all know that, I think the way truefiction1 explained it is a good example of finding something already existing in our culture (ergo, the secular field of psychology) and seeing something there that is correct and true and show the truth of Orthodoxy via a truth already existing in the culture or society.

I've said this before on other treads, but we are too quick to dismiss secular psychology based on a caricature of what we think it is based on how it is portrayed in the media, and by impressions we get of it in a poorly taught psych 101 class in college.

 

[rusmeister]

I've said this before on other treads, but we are too quick to dismiss secular psychology based on a caricature of what we think it is based on how it is portrayed in the media, and by impressions we get of it in a poorly taught psych 101 class in college.

As a broad generalization this applies to VERY few people, I think. In my experience, almost NOBODY dismisses psychology, "secular" or otherwise; most accept placidly that "psychologists say thus-and-so, therefore it must be true". I have to dig to find anyone who questions modern "-ologies" on ANY level.

There is no general rebellion against psychology. I think there ought to BE one, and that what truth there is can only be fetted out by serious traditional believers, ideally Orthodox. I do not say there is no truth in psychology, but it looks like you and I would have to go through a lot of stuff to find out where we agree and where we differ, and my tack (where I would be coming from) would be on the philosophy of the psychology rather than the details that assume the philosophy.

But I agree on "what the Church has spoken". It is a far more rational thing to accept when you discover just how faulty our individual authority is, and how stable (by comparison, if nothing else) the Church's is.

PS - when you misspeak "treads", I immediately think of Ogre/GEV. I'm an old Metagaming fan.

 

[ArmyMatt]

"The Church has spoken" is more geared towards those already Orthodox rather then those outside.

good way of putting it

 

[GregConstantine]

speaking as someone who has been in the field of psychology and studied it, unfortunately, I will have to disagree with you. I would say you're right generally speaking that there isn't a "rebellion", however, amongst many Christians, both Orthodox and not in my experience, can be very hostile towards anything having to do with psychology. When I declared my intentions to major in psychology, many of my evangelical friends (I was not Orthodox at this time) warned me not to major in psychology because of all the false info I will be fed. And even among the Orthodox, we had to deal with a man a few years ago at our parish who was having an obvious schizophrenic episode and many refused to aknowledge that and respond appropiately to the situation.
So, I will have to respectfully disagree.

 

[rusmeister]

speaking as someone who has been in the field of psychology and studied it, unfortunately, I will have to disagree with you. I would say you're right generally speaking that there isn't a "rebellion", however, amongst many Christians, both Orthodox and not in my experience, can be very hostile towards anything having to do with psychology. When I declared my intentions to major in psychology, many of my evangelical friends (I was not Orthodox at this time) warned me not to major in psychology because of all the false info I will be fed. And even among the Orthodox, we had to deal with a man a few years ago at our parish who was having an obvious schizophrenic episode and many refused to aknowledge that and respond appropiately to the situation.
So, I will have to respectfully disagree.

No problem.
My own objections to modern sciences, specialists and education stem from philosophical and theological considerations, which are not considered at all in modern studies of things. It is, if you will, "meta-consideration" of these things, not yahoo anti-intellectualism. So the modern study of the thing itself, from that perspective, offers no special advantage in consideration that I would admit. For example, do they teach what they teach in the context that man is a created and Fallen being?

The history of modern psychology is that of a recent phenomenon that followed and is broadly based (in its beginnings) on the ideas and philosophies of Darwin and Freud and their followers. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you heard multiple references to Freud in the course of your studies.

But since I agree that there are true things that can be known - that there IS a genuine psychology based on true philosophy and theology (and that's the whole problem - most aren't, and so are only right coincidentally rather than foundationally), I'm not surprised that you can correctly recognize a situation and have a true understanding of it.

But psychology is about the soul, and using Greek words instead of English ones doesn't change that. The foremost authority on the soul is the Church, and any efforts to study the relationship of the soul to behavior ought to refer to it. But the modern teaching of psychology, generally speaking, does not. Its rightness, again, is coincidental, and therefore random. Ditto for psychiatry. Like all other branches of study, they have been "secularized", cut off from the other branches and especially from the central trunk, the Truth of the Incarnation, and their professors say "That has nothing to do with what we study."

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

QFT

No problem.
My own objections to modern sciences, specialists and education stem from philosophical and theological considerations, which are not considered at all in modern studies of things. It is, if you will, "meta-consideration" of these things, not yahoo anti-intellectualism. So the modern study of the thing itself, from that perspective, offers no special advantage in consideration that I would admit. For example, do they teach what they teach in the context that man is a created and Fallen being?

The history of modern psychology is that of a recent phenomenon that followed and is broadly based (in its beginnings) on the ideas and philosophies of Darwin and Freud and their followers. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you heard multiple references to Freud in the course of your studies.

But since I agree that there are true things that can be known - that there IS a genuine psychology based on true philosophy and theology (and that's the whole problem - most aren't, and so are only right coincidentally rather than foundationally), I'm not surprised that you can correctly recognize a situation and have a true understanding of it.

But psychology is about the soul, and using Greek words instead of English ones doesn't change that. The foremost authority on the soul is the Church, and any efforts to study the relationship of the soul to behavior ought to refer to it. But the modern teaching of psychology, generally speaking, does not. Its rightness, again, is coincidental, and therefore random. Ditto for psychiatry. Like all other branches of study, they have been "secularized", cut off from the other branches and especially from the central trunk, the Truth of the Incarnation, and their professors say "That has nothing to do with what we study."

 

[GregConstantine]

"I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you heard multiple references to Freud in the course of your studies."

Actually, no. Most of modern psychology actually rejects Freudian theory of human development as not having much merit. Modern psychology is much more biology based, finding the cause of certain behaviors and mental illnesses via physiology, genetics, and biology.
That statement I quoted just proves my point. It's popular to portray psychology and psychiatry in the media (and the media btw gets those two fields mixed up all the time) as very Freudian, when in fact, most modern psychologists and psychiatrist have rejected Freudian theories.

Almost all of Freud's specific theories have either been disproven or recognized as fairly ridiculous. His theories about psychological development into adulthood (penis envy, Oedipus complex, oral/anal/genital stages, etc) seem to be empirically wrong or at best untestable, and have been replaced with much more complete developmental models. His theories of how the brain works (Id, Ego, Superego) are useful as a broad metaphor, but not so much besides that. His theories of psychopathology are incredibly outdated, offensively sexist, and often empirically wrong. The benefits of Freudian psychoanalysis have been shown to be mainly due to having the chance to discuss your psychological problems with somebody who sits and is willing to listen to you about them.

 

[GregConstantine]

"But psychology is about the soul, and using Greek words instead of English ones doesn't change that. The foremost authority on the soul is the Church, and any efforts to study the relationship of the soul to behavior ought to refer to it. But the modern teaching of psychology, generally speaking, does not. Its rightness, again, is coincidental, and therefore random. Ditto for psychiatry. Like all other branches of study, they have been "secularized", cut off from the other branches and especially from the central trunk, the Truth of the Incarnation, and their professors say "That has nothing to do with what we study."

I must ask, what do you expect? We do not live in an Orthodox country in which the majority of the population is Orthodox radiating with the uncreated light of God? We can't even say that about Russia, which has one of the highest abortion rates in the world.
Your statement about how psychology has been secularized can be applied to just about everything in our non Orthodox society. So we should reject everything then? My issue is that it would seem psychology gets singled out as a bigger target by Christians compared to some other fields, based on a lack of information about what people who study and work in the field of psychology and psychiatry are actually doing. Rather than finding out for themselves, they make erroneous, sweeping generalizations based on distorted images presented to us by the media.

 

[GregConstantine]

this is helpful:
Knowledge Summit: Thinking Straight About Modern Psychology

 

[truefiction1]

"I'll bet dollars to doughnuts you heard multiple references to Freud in the course of your studies."

Actually, no. Most of modern psychology actually rejects Freudian theory of human development as not having much merit. Modern psychology is much more biology based, finding the cause of certain behaviors and mental illnesses via physiology, genetics, and biology.
That statement I quoted just proves my point. It's popular to portray psychology and psychiatry in the media (and the media btw gets those two fields mixed up all the time) as very Freudian, when in fact, most modern psychologists and psychiatrist have rejected Freudian theories.

Almost all of Freud's specific theories have either been disproven or recognized as fairly ridiculous. His theories about psychological development into adulthood (penis envy, Oedipus complex, oral/anal/genital stages, etc) seem to be empirically wrong or at best untestable, and have been replaced with much more complete developmental models. His theories of how the brain works (Id, Ego, Superego) are useful as a broad metaphor, but not so much besides that. His theories of psychopathology are incredibly outdated, offensively sexist, and often empirically wrong. The benefits of Freudian psychoanalysis have been shown to be mainly due to having the chance to discuss your psychological problems with somebody who sits and is willing to listen to you about them.

Freud made some mistakes, but his discovery of the impact of the subconscious mind upon our consciousness is highly significant. Modern psychology training in colleges ignores this contribution completely, to the detriment of the field of social psychology. Besides, the psychotherapy school did not end with Freud, he was merely the founder of something that is still developing to this day. Probably all of Freud's conceptual errors have been corrected at this point. Irving Yalom, author of "Existential Psychotherapy" exposes the real reason that Freud successfully treated some of his patients, and it had more to do with his unrecorded efforts, or his going way out of his way to help them outside of therapy, than the actual clinical work.

 

[Kristos]

So.....tell me about your mother