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

[truefiction1]

It just won't work within the Orthodox Faith, for extremely practical and even obvious reasons. If one is Orthodox it should be obvious. I really don't wish to have to come right out and draw the reality of human male sexual impulsivity and fantasy, or the envy and suspiciousness of wives. But given the nature of these things and the nature of the priesthood in the Church, it would be disastrous, and would also serve to create even more divisions, simply because many would reject it. Why create needless division? Why fix that which isn't needing to be fixed?

I have never in my life been one to put women down. If anything, I have blown them up too large in my own psyche (due to transference). But women and the priesthood in the Orthodox Church is a ridiculously horrific idea, mostly because of dogs like myself, who come in great numbers, I'm afraid, with our wagging tongues and redhot sin-loving souls. Do you wish to torment and tempt us now with priestesses? Holy schniekees! I might as well throw in the towel. Call it "quits". It's over - I'm a gonner.

 

[rusmeister]

Christ didn't present "Truth" as a bunch of unchanging facts about the world. No, he told Pilate that all those who hear the truth hear his voice. What that exactly means is a mystery we encounter in a dynamic way. Your Orthodox conceptualization of truth is not particularly biblical. In the Bible God is always doing a new thing (Isaiah 43:19). The Bible is a narrative of a people (Israel and the Church) deepening relationship with God, with Truth, it is not a static presentation with all answers for all time.



There were women elders in the Jesus movement too, until they were removed when Christianity became a patriarchal state religion. Many conservative Protestants support women's role in ministry precisely because they do take the Bible seriously and it's hard to overlook the biblical evidence that women played a role as elders in the early church. No, they may not have presided over Eucharists that were identical to what modern Orthodox do, but that's precisely my point- liturgy changes and the Orthodox church would like converts to pretend that the liturgy they experience today is the exact same liturgy the early church experienced, and that's not the case.

Hi, FD,
It looks like you're being contentious. If you want to try to understand why we don't have women priests, you are welcome to ask, in detail. If you want to debate us, we even have a special sub-forum for that. But simply promoting your own beliefs here is not especially welcome.

I could say that we think YOUR conceptualization of truth is not biblical. I WILL say that it is inconsistent with two millennia of Christian faith, and says that Christians have always been stupid, bigoted and wrong until you came along to correct them.

Absolutely anything at all may be characterized as "a new thing". I could justify any wild heresy by calling it "a new thing". I could promote the ritual sacrifice of infants into ritual fires and call it "a new thing". But I think it far more to the point to wax biblical and quote from that complex library of ancient texts that there is nothing new under the sun.

The word "Christian" has existed from the beginnings of the Church, but the word "Christianity" did not exist until after the "Reformation" (which reformed nothing, only broke own the Western Christian world into a chaos of disunity and ever-increasing schism). For all of the Christian history before the invention of that word there was only "the Church", and you were either part of it or you were not. The Church that became a state religion was the exact same Church of the catacombs that you ostensibly admire with the exact same bishops who had survived the persecution of Diocletian. It is "patriarchal" only insofar as God being our Father and not "our Mother" is "patriarchal".

You perceive liturgical development as "change". But it is NOT change in any dogmatic sense. You're mixing and matching apples and oranges. The "changes" made represented no change in doctrinal understandings but only to clarify existing eternal truth, a thing that does NOT change.

But since you are probably set in your thinking, I won't debate these things here. If you want to get curious, and ask questions that honestly try to understand how we can think things that are seemingly contradictory to what you understand to be biblical (for we will insist that the teachings and practices of the Church ARE biblical), then ask away. But simply arguing with us in our main forum is not welcome. People can do that in the General Heresy (oops, Theology) Forum. We try to maintain a non-contentious and welcoming atmosphere here at TAW, and if you're OK with that, it would be nice to see more of you.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Simply because God has appointed man to govern and be over the earth. Adam was over Eve. Eve sinned but when Adam chose the curse began. Because it is the father who is the head of the household.
Ephesians 5:22-33 ESV /
Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

You quote the Scripture truly, and I'm not arguing that. I also have no desire to be a priest, nor to have a female priest, so I am not arguing that either.

However, I do question whether this is really the thinking of the Orthodox church, and whether this is the actual reason not to have women priests? To be honest, it seems the marriage relationship is a bit more egalitarian within the Orthodox church than you might be suggesting? I would be curious about this.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Christ didn't present "Truth" as a bunch of unchanging facts about the world. No, he told Pilate that all those who hear the truth hear his voice.

true, but truth is unchanging, or else it would not be true.

Your Orthodox conceptualization of truth is not particularly biblical. In the Bible God is always doing a new thing (Isaiah 43:19). The Bible is a narrative of a people (Israel and the Church) deepening relationship with God, with Truth, it is not a static presentation with all answers for all time.

actually it is. in the Bible, both Old and New, men are priests. truth is never relative. God is Trinity. stuff like this is not, and has not, been up for negotiation. if it were, you could easily show something from the Bible to show you are correct. that there is some variety when it comes to what "truth" is, and more than just opinion.

There were women elders in the Jesus movement too, until they were removed when Christianity became a patriarchal state religion.

any facts or figures to back this? because anyone who has met an abbess would know how silly this statement is.

No, they may not have presided over Eucharists that were identical to what modern Orthodox do, but that's precisely my point- liturgy changes and the Orthodox church would like converts to pretend that the liturgy they experience today is the exact same liturgy the early church experienced, and that's not the case.

no we don't. ancient liturgies were not done English, people who traveleb by air were not prayed for, and there was no office of President to pray for. even if one sees what St Justin Martyr writes about the services one can see that there are changes. the theology behind it, and the focus have not. we know it has changed.

you say that they did not preside over the Eucharist, but then you say there were women elders (which is where we get the word priest). so what exactly was their priestly role that they have been denied all these years?

 

[GregConstantine]

Truth is also not an abstract idea or preposition, but a Person. His name is Jesus Christ, who is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

Anything else that is true in the universe ultimately finds its "truthfulness" in the person of Jesus Christ.

That is our "conceptualization" of Truth.

In the West, more often then not, truth is a abstract concept or idea that one must intellectually and mentally comprehend and assent to. For us, Truth is a person that one comes to love.

 

[FireDragon76]

The Hidden History of Women's Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West: Gary Macy: 9780195189704: Amazon.com: Books

Part of the problem for moderns looking back and saying the Church never ordained women is that the definition of ordination has changed throughout the centuries as theology developed.

Greg, I actually agree with that concept of truth... I don't see how it's incompatible with anything I'm saying. If truth is a person, then it it is also relational, which means that truth will be experienced differently by different people, in different times and places.

 

[rusmeister]

The Hidden History of Women's Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West: Gary Macy: 9780195189704: Amazon.com: Books

Part of the problem for moderns looking back and saying the Church never ordained women is that the definition of ordination has changed throughout the centuries as theology developed.

Greg, I actually agree with that concept of truth... I don't see how it's incompatible with anything I'm saying. If truth is a person, then it it is also relational, which means that truth will be experienced differently by different people, in different times and places.

I think we should ask for this to be moved to St Justin's.

But until that happens, I'll say that the trouble I find in your idea begins in first saying that "truth is a person" (as if it were ANY person) when we think it is one particular Person Who is the same yesterday, today and forever, and then draw an equation of the truth being "relational", and then speak of the truth as a thing measurd by how it is experienced. In short, you are saying that subjectivism is the truth. The wild self-contradiction of subjectivism, thoroughly smashed in CS Lewis's great essay "The Poison of Subjectivism", says that the absolute truth is that all truth is relative - which is basically the same thing as saying "the truth you should all accept is that there is no truth", which was illustrated pretty well in the old Star Trek episode, "I Mudd", where the bad robots are told that everything Mudd says is a lie, and Mudd proceeds to tell the robots that he is lying, upon which their logic circuits melt down from the self-contradiction.

Ordination was not a thing based on legal definitions. It has always been seen as a sacrament. Local restrictions, known as canons, were imposed from time to time based on local necessities, but that never changed the fundamental nature of ordination; only reinforced its nature as being a sacred thing.

 

[truefiction1]

FireDragon, if you are Orthodox, you will know that conceptually, relationally, or whateverwise, the ordination of women to the priesthood is not "truth" for Orthodox Christians. If it is your truth, then it is because you are not Orthodox, and not a part of Holy Orthodox Tradition, but stand outside of it. We generally don't judge those who are not a member of the Church, so you're entitled to believe as you wish, but please believe it within your own Reformation tradition and don't attempt to foist things upon us that we have already thought better of. We do know our own history, and are well aware of ordained deaconesses and the like. Baptism and Chrismation, done in the nude in a whole body manner, was practiced in the early Church and men rubbing holy oil all over the body of fully nude women was not done. This task was performed by women, for obvious reasons, and so there were women who were ordained for this purpose. The practices of baptism and chrismation have changed, and so this office fell out of service. If a service is again needed, then women may once again be ordained. This hasn't happened for us. Things are done according to what's best for the health of the Church.

Most importantly, you say that you have rejected Orthodoxy because they are "this way" or "That way" in their approach to things. How individuals who happen to be members of the Church, whether of the episcopate, other clergy, or laity, act or are, is not an indicator of the worthiness of the religious Tradition. If it were, then none of us would be Orthodox -- or religious at all, for that matter. The Church Tradition has a life of its own, which many do participate in, which you are largely unaware of because you have chosen to judge based upon deceptive appearances, rather than on the basis of deep personal experience and spiritual encounter. If you are not a part of this Tradition, you're not in any position to judge it or attempt to change it.

 

[buzuxi]

Provacateurs have always existed looking to sabotage and deliberately change the traditions. The fact that books are published challenging that there was a time (without evidence) that women were priests shows the desperation with which the demons attack the foundations of the church.

There are multiple reasons why as St John Chrysostom taught that all women are excluded from the priesthood and most men as well. They are practical, metaphysical and theological reasons

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Hidden History of Women's Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West: Gary Macy: 9780195189704: Amazon.com: Books

Part of the problem for moderns looking back and saying the Church never ordained women is that the definition of ordination has changed throughout the centuries as theology developed.

Greg, I actually agree with that concept of truth... I don't see how it's incompatible with anything I'm saying. If truth is a person, then it it is also relational, which means that truth will be experienced differently by different people, in different times and places.

okay, so that books synopsis says that women were ordained to several ministries back in the day. are there any facts or anything concrete that you can show to show that women had the sacramental ministries that men have? because women have a ton of ministries in Orthodoxy.

again, please something factual with some hard evidence and not just opinion.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There are multiple reasons why as St John Chrysostom taught that all women are excluded from the priesthood and most men as well. They are practical, metaphysical and theological reasons

Now this makes sense to me. As I watch the priest, and see what he does and says, and how he needs to be with the people, and there is much I have not yet seen, I can tell that most men would not make suitable priests either. I think that is an important point.

Surely it is not something just anyone could or should aspire to. For the sake of the man, as well as the people. I'm very sure it takes a certain kind of person and a certain grace.

 

[GregConstantine]

We experience the Truth and relate to the Truth within the context of the Church, which is:

The Body of Christ-ergo, Christ Himself

The family/people of God

We do not experience or relate to the Truth as separated individuals experiencing Him how we want to based on our emotions, but in the context of the Body of Christ and as members of the family of God. While each one of us experiences and relate to the Truth in a different way, it is still the One Person that is the same for all of us, who is King and Lord of our lives. As a human father would have children, each one of his children's relationship would differ from their siblings, the father of that family is the father of each one of them equally and his paternal authority is the same for all of them.
So, He has ordained that only men are ordained as priest in His body. So if you are an Orthodox Christian, that is sufficient and you move on.

 

[FireDragon76]

The wild self-contradiction of subjectivism, thoroughly smashed in CS Lewis's great essay "The Poison of Subjectivism", says that the absolute truth is that all truth is relative - which is basically the same thing as saying "the truth you should all accept is that there is no truth", which was illustrated pretty well in the old Star Trek episode, "I Mudd", where the bad robots are told that everything Mudd says is a lie, and Mudd proceeds to tell the robots that he is lying, upon which their logic circuits melt down from the self-contradiction.

I like Lewis but I think he overstated the case against modernity and the subjective too much at this point, especially because of his fondness for Asian thought, which is no secret. The sort of eclectic approach he often takes in his work is inconsistent with a rigid orthodoxy.

THe Orthodox's apophatic approach to theology should actually reconcile with what I am saying: Since none of us fully understand God, all truth statements about God are going to be provisional. And that includes statements about God's will.

We generally don't judge those who are not a member of the Church, so you're entitled to believe as you wish

I beg to differ, at times my experience of Orthodox have been contemptuous towards other Christian confessions, uncharitable to our history, and so on. Again, it's another reason I left the church, because I realized the Protestant self-understanding was so much more complex than what Orthodox apologists present, and Orthodox claims to the "One, True Church" ultimately rest on as much faith as the Methodist or Lutheran self-understanding. Frankly, there is a lot of judgementalism towards mainline Protestantism in particular. We're reduced to sodomy-loving heretics all too often, and no attempt is made at walking a mile in our shoes.

 

[ArmyMatt]

THe Orthodox's apophatic approach to theology should actually reconcile with what I am saying: Since none of us fully understand God, all truth statements about God are going to be provisional. And that includes statements about God's will.

aside from what He has revealed. has He revealed anything other than a male clergy?

I beg to differ, at times my experience of Orthodox have been contemptuous towards other Christian confessions, uncharitable to our history, and so on. Again, it's another reason I left the church, because I realized the Protestant self-understanding was so much more complex than what Orthodox apologists present, and Orthodox claims to the "One, True Church" ultimately rest on as much faith as the Methodist or Lutheran self-understanding. Frankly, there is a lot of judgementalism towards mainline Protestantism in particular. We're reduced to sodomy-loving heretics all too often, and no attempt is made at walking a mile in our shoes.

no, many of us came from those confessions. I have walked enough miles in the Episcopal world's shoes to know that something ain't right. and yes, we do make statements about theology, but not about the spiritual state of an individual.

 

[truefiction1]

I beg to differ, at times my experience of Orthodox have been contemptuous towards other Christian confessions, uncharitable to our history, and so on. Again, it's another reason I left the church, because I realized the Protestant self-understanding was so much more complex than what Orthodox apologists present, and Orthodox claims to the "One, True Church" ultimately rest on as much faith as the Methodist or Lutheran self-understanding. Frankly, there is a lot of judgementalism towards mainline Protestantism in particular. We're reduced to sodomy-loving heretics all too often, and no attempt is made at walking a mile in our shoes.

Well, whatever you are in your protestant self-understanding, that's your business and your problem. We are American, so you're free to believe however you see fit. The Orthodox Church won't be ordaining women to the priesthood anytime soon, and if you open your eyes you'll see that in the West, religion is altogether teetering on the brink of extinction. Churches are emptying and closing their doors. Then perhaps you'll understand that your focus is on the wrong things. The main attraction at a church with a woman minister is not Christ, but the woman minister, because it is more about seeking social change, or it is the religion of social change, not the religion of Christ. No matter. Ordain as many women as you like, it won't prevent the demise of faith and the general falling away that was predicted thousands of years ago, it will just make it come quicker.

Erich Fromm wasn't uncharitable nor was he lacking in complexity when he described the reformers and their audiences in his famous "Escape from Freedom". You'd do well to acquaint yourself with this work. It can give one real insight into what has happened and what is happening and what will happen, and all because of significant changes that developed at the end of the middle ages, in which the reformation has played a central role. I also recommend reading an essay by Joseph Campbell entitled "No More Horizons", which paints a pretty accurate picture of the not so pretty state of religion in our times. Though, I know you won't study these sources, still I must recommend.

 

[LilLamb219]

MOD HAT ON

Because of the debate going on, this thread has been moved to the debate sub-forum.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[FireDragon76]

aside from what He has revealed. has He revealed anything other than a male clergy?

Revealed in the Bible, or in a church tradition? It depends on what you think the priesthood is about, I suppose.

no, many of us came from those confessions. I have walked enough miles in the Episcopal world's shoes to know that something ain't right. and yes, we do make statements about theology, but not about the spiritual state of an individual.

I don't see the difference. If the church is rotten the spiritual state of the people will be rotten too.

I don't think the Episcopal Church is rotten... but you and I have very different ideas about what is, and is not, healthy spiritually. And that's the real issue.

The main attraction at a church with a woman minister is not Christ, but the woman minister, because it is more about seeking social change, or it is the religion of social change,

That's really insulting to our female clergy to reduce their service to some kind of political stunt. Especially since these things were put into motion almost 40 years ago. Female clergy is hardly a political stunt, for most mainline Protestants it is fitting and proper.

... in which the reformation has played a central role. I also recommend reading an essay by Joseph Campbell entitled "No More Horizons", which paints a pretty accurate picture of the not so pretty state of religion in our times. Though, I know you won't study these sources, still I must recommend.

Ironic because Campbell, in that essay, specifically does not seek to place blame for the demythologizing of our world. Campbell was a religious liberal, he'ld have no truck for Eastern Orthodoxy except in an academic sense.

Protestants are actually better equipped to deal with the demythologized world than the Orthodox, there are whole schools of theology that focus on the "death of God", or religion being crucified and put to death at Calvary, or Christ emptying himself into the world and abolishing the sacred. I find those better able to speak to our culture than a tradition that focuses on magical thinking, spiritual warfare, and abhorrence of bodily desires.

 

[truefiction1]

That's really insulting to our female clergy to reduce their service to some kind of political stunt. Especially since these things were put into motion almost 40 years ago. Female clergy is hardly a political stunt, for most mainline Protestants it is fitting and proper.

Nonsense. It's only insulting if I'm right. If I'm not right, then it is me who has insulted myself. But, as I've already said: what is for most mainline protestants fitting and proper, is not at all fitting and proper for Orthodox Christians. I don't care to judge those outside of the Church. They have their own judge, Who resides within their conscience.

Ironic because Campbell, in that essay, specifically does not seek to place blame for the demythologizing of our world. Campbell was a religious liberal, he'ld have no truck for Eastern Orthodoxy except in an academic sense.

Protestants are actually better equipped to deal with the demythologized world than the Orthodox, there are whole schools of theology that focus on the "death of God", or religion being crucified and put to death at Calvary, or Christ emptying himself into the world and abolishing the sacred. I find those better able to speak to our culture than a tradition that focuses on magical thinking, spiritual warfare, and abhorrence of bodily desires.

Campbell was an astute student of Jung and of many religions, especially those of the far East. Even though he did not believe in a personal God, he still knew the importance of proper religious ritual that is rich in symbolism. The protestant traditions have a strong tendency to fear, or at the very least be very suspicious of religious traditions and symbolism's, confusing these things with idolatry and the "dead traditions of men". Campbell, had he been more aware of it, would have appreciated Eastern Orthodoxy because it is the one Christian Tradition that intuitively understands the need to preserve and protect its age-old rituals and symbols, just as he recommends that we should do in one of his other essays, "The Confrontation of East and West in Religion", quoted as follows:

"And so, what now of our synagogues and our churches? Many of the latter, I note, have already been turned into theaters; others are lecture halls, where ethics, politics, and sociology are tahght on Sundays in a stentorian tone with that special theological temolo that signifies God's will. But do they have to go down this way? Can they not serve any more their proper function?

The obvious answer, it seems to me, is that of course they can serve--or rather, could, if their clerics knew wherein the magic lay of the symbols they hold in their keep... For it is the rite, the ritual and its imagery, that counts in religion, and where that is missing the words are mere carriers of concepts that may or may not make contemporary sense. A ritual is an organization of mythological symbols; and by participating in the drama of the rite one is brought directly in touch with these, not as verbal reports of historic events, either past, present, or to be, but as revelations, here and now, of what is always and forever...

... But a contemplation of the crucifix works; the odor of incense works; so do, also, hieratic attires, the tones of well-sung Gregorian chants, intoned and mumbled introits, Kyries, heard and unheard consecrations... But if the magic of the rite is gone... "

I may not be the sharpest guy around, but Orthodoxy appears to be hitting the mark pretty consistently in this "worship" regard. As far as our ascetical Tradition as referenced by you above, it is extremely supported by the Bible and by universal religious experience. I hope I don't need to defend what is obvious.

 

[prodromos]

Again, it's another reason I left the church, because I realized the Protestant self-understanding was so much more complex than what Orthodox apologists present, and Orthodox claims to the "One, True Church" ultimately rest on as much faith as the Methodist or Lutheran self-understanding. Frankly, there is a lot of judgementalism towards mainline Protestantism in particular. We're reduced to sodomy-loving heretics all too often, and no attempt is made at walking a mile in our shoes.

I walked all my early life, over 30 years, in those shoes. Never will I walk in them again.
I rarely make any comment about what protestants and the like believe, because I recognise that although I spent many years of my life there, I no longer think the way I did back then. Protestant Christianity is a completely different mindset to that of Orthodoxy and I am no longer able to put myself into that mindset and every year it becomes more alien than before.

From your posts it seems that Orthodoxy is equally alien to you, because you certainly do not paint an accurate picture of what you claim to reject.

 

[GregConstantine]

"From your posts it seems that Orthodoxy is equally alien to you, because you certainly do not paint an accurate picture of what you claim to reject."

Indeed, and this statement is very telling of that inaccurate picture Firedragon76 paints:

"Revealed in the Bible, or in a church tradition?"

If you really knew Orthodoxy, you would know Firedragon76, that that is a false dichotomy. Holy Tradition produced the Holy Scriptures. Its not an either or preposition.

For example, I tell those who take a sola scriptura approach and try to argue in favor of homosexuality that even if the Holy Scriptures said absolutely nothing about homosexuality or in this case, gender and ordination, the teaching of the Church would remain the same, meaning, sex will only be within the context of marriage, or in our case, only men are ordained to the priesthood.

Do you understand what I'm saying? the Scriptures vs Tradition is a false dichotomy established by Protestants to justify their rejection of the Church.