Would you be more likely to join…

[The Liturgist]

I think you might be missing a "not" before "schismatic" in your first sentence, friend.

Youch! Embarassing typo! Thank you for catching that one for me brother. I have fixed it.

 

[The Liturgist]

Forgive me, I did not know you were OCA. You cite such a well-traveled history that I misunderstood your affiliation, and I had an incorrect interpretation of what you profile label of "Generic Orthodox meant."

Well I do have a well-travelled history, and there is a reason why I identify as generic Orthodox, that being that firstly, and most importantly, I recognize the Oriental Orthodox as fully and entirely Orthodox without defect, so @dzheremi is as Orthodox as I am, and secondly, I am willing to recognize Orthodoxy in Western churches where it has either survived or been restored.

In order to have Orthodoxy we must do Orthodoxy, and I see Western Christians striving to do Orthodoxy, indeed even Episcopalians who are Christologically Orthodox, for example. The case of St. Thomas Fifth Ave in New York is a particularly sad case - I love that church, I love its clergy, yet two of its very good presbyters have made the very dangerous spiritual decision of indulging in the passions which St. Paul warns against with regards to human sexuality. One is a former Benedictine monk from Italy. They are very good in terms of their knowledge of theology, yet they are engaging in a course of conduct which derails their overall Orthodoxy, but I pray for them, because in terms of their Christology and their overall love they are very good Christians, and less sinful than I am.

The reality is this - scripturally, sexuality is a means for redemption through reproduction, which is the means by which we create new loving relationships with children, who are a profound blessing from God by virtue of their existence. If we engage in sexual behaviors that are incapable of reproduction, the redemptive aspect is lost, since we cannot in such a manner naturally conceive children. Thus, there is no Christian basis to condemn, for example, inter-racial marriage, and indeed to do so is entirely wrong, and I greatly object to the discrimination experienced by children of such marriages.

Now, if, for some reason, someone cannot bring themselves to accept the criteria imposed by heterosexual monogamy, the New Testament not only provides an alternative, but a favored alternative, that being holy celibacy, in which one gives oneself entirely to the worship of God and rejects all worldly dalliances.

The problem with the Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church is that they have embraced positions which disagree with this important part of Scriptural doctrine, and this represents a departure in continuity.

But, supposing for a moment that we agreed entirely on the issue of human sexuality, it would still be the case that I would regard the Orthodox as non-schismatic. There is no possible way of interpreting the status of the Eastern Orthodox church in 1054 as schismatic, since it was one Patriarch in the West, the Pope of Rome, who unilaterally excommunicated the Orthodox for their refusal to accept Papal Supremacy, which they were not obligated to accept, but indeed were specifically exempted from under Canons 6 and 7 of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Even if I were Roman Catholic, I would be forced to disagree with the Roman church on this point, because the canons of the Council of Nicaea, and what is more, the history of the early church make it clear that the the Eastern churches were not under the control of the Pope of Rome, but indeed, on the contrary, the Roman Pope usually tended to accept the decisions of Eastern ecumenical synods without actively participating in them, or sending only a few legates. This was the case with the first, second and third ecumenical synods, indeed, the Romans were not even at the First Council of Constantinople. Leo I intervened at Chalcedon but also did not want the council to occur (and his intervention caused serious problems and contributed to the alienation of the Oriental Orthodox, who I also regard as non-schismatic, since one cannot fault them for adhering literally to what had been taught by Pope St. Cyril the Great of Alexandria and St. Celestine of Rome).

Furthermore, I would note that the functioning of the Anglican Communion depends on a model of Episcopal governance which is essentially Orthodox rather than Roman Catholic - if the Orthodox were schismatic in 1054, then that would make the Anglicans and the Lutherans and the Moravians schismatic, which I believe is wrong and in error.

Additionally, I would say that the Methodist Episcopal Church in North America was not schismatic, for this reason - the Anglican Church refused to provide it with clergy after the Revolutionary War resulted in its independence. John Wesley was not fully aware of what was going on with what would become the Protestant Episcopal Church, and I would also note there was confusion there, and there was much disagreement between the Anglicans of Virginia and those of other states over certain issues, and over the contents of the BCP and other things, in addition to the difficulty Bishop Seabury had in obtaining his ordination. So it was not unreasonable for John Wesley, who had been secretly made a bishop, uncanonically perhaps, in 1763, by Erasmus of Arcadia, to ordain Thomas Coke and Francis Asbury as superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church and to provide them with a copy of the BCP.

On the other hand I can think of no good reason for the Methodists of Great Britain to have left the Church of England after John Wesley’s death, so I would regard that as a needless schism.

However, the bottom line is that I am willing to recognize orthodoxy outside of Eastern Orthodoxy: I will accept Western Orthodoxy from Anglicans, Evangelical Catholic Lutherans, Methodists, indeed, anyone who is willing to do Orthodoxy. Because Orthodoxy means “Correct glorification.” And thus it is merely a question of correct worship.

But a problem arises when a church teaches that something obviously condemned as a sin in scripture is not a sin, because the accurate representation of Scripture is an obvious requirement of Orthodoxy. Likewise, I will say, a problem also arises when fundamentalists engage in behavior that encourages hatred towards homosexuals. This helps no one, it is unbiblical, it is wrong and it is amoral. But their abuses do not change the scriptural definition of what is acceptable sexual behavior.

Of course, the other issue is that in the Western Church, even among those which do maintain scriptural teaching on homosexuality, there are serious deficits on other issues of sexual morality. For example, far too many denominations take a relatively lenient view towards the horror that is adultery, even admitting adulterers to the clergy or permitting persons to remain in an ordained state despite divorce and remarriage. This is broadly unacceptable.

Now, humans will sin; we have all sinned; everyone has likely transgressed the list of things St. Paul warns us about in some manner, at least mentally, according to desire, by coupling with temptation, even if we have not engaged in the act literally. So because of this, the church must teach the values of humility and of repentence and of forgiveness. But the church cannot embrace sins, sexual or otherwise, neither can it tell people who are engaged in such sin that they should be proud of it, since pride is itself an extremely dangerous sin owing to the delusion of hubris that tends to accompany it. Indeed, many church fathers specifically taught that self-esteem, rather than being a virtue as our contemporary society describes it, is actually dangerous; it seems that Christian piety has traditionally been defined by a deliberate lowliness. We must decrease so that Christ may increase. Our glory must be in Christ and not in ourselves.

 

[Love365]

Do you support the Quakers?

 

[The Liturgist]

Do you support the Quakers?

Forgive me, I am not sure if this was addressed to me or not; I can’t say that I support the Quakers, I obviously don’t recommend them, especially the ones which could be called “post-Christian,” but I do find them interesting.

The Quaker movement obviously did a lot of harm with its anti-sacramental idea particularly since this idea, propagated into other denominations, for example, the Salvation Army, which is still burdened by this great error even today.

in terms of support, I can only say that I support traditional liturgical Christianity, which I think is particularly resplendent in the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions.

 

[Love365]

Women are allowed to read from the Torah.

Women are allowed to light a Menorah.

?

 

[The Liturgist]

?

Women do not count towards a Minyan (the quorum of ten required for Jewish prayer services) in traditional Rabinnical Judaism, nor do they read from the Torah in the synagogue (hence the Bar Mitzvah; the Bat Mitzvah being a more recent innovation in Conservative and Reform Judaism). Furthermore, Christianity is not Judaism; Judaism as we now know it is a family of related religions which are loosely derived from Second Temple Judaism and emerged in the chaos following the destruction of that temple around 70 AD. Specifically, Rabinnical Judaism and the Beta Israel of Ethiopia; later on we had the emergence of Karaite Judaism, which rejected the authority of the Rabbis and was possibly similar to how the Sadducees functioned, although it did not share their specific interpretation of the Tanakh, and then later on we saw Rabinnical Judaism become relaxed with regads to the Torah with the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements, and conversely made more intense with the Charedi, the Chassidim, and so on.

And the development of the mystical Kaballah really represents a profound point of departure between Judaism and Christianity, since the ideas of the Kaballah are essentially incompatible to the Christian Orthodoxy defined as broadly as possible.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Women do not count towards a Minyan (the quorum of ten required for Jewish prayer services) in traditional Rabinnical Judaism, nor do they read from the Torah in the synagogue (hence the Bar Mitzvah; the Bat Mitzvah being a more recent innovation in Conservative and Reform Judaism). Furthermore, Christianity is not Judaism; Judaism as we now know it is a family of related religions which are loosely derived from Second Temple Judaism and emerged in the chaos following the destruction of that temple around 70 AD. Specifically, Rabinnical Judaism and the Beta Israel of Ethiopia; later on we had the emergence of Karaite Judaism, which rejected the authority of the Rabbis and was possibly similar to how the Sadducees functioned, although it did not share their specific interpretation of the Tanakh, and then later on we saw Rabinnical Judaism become relaxed with regads to the Torah with the Reform, Conservative and Reconstructionist movements, and conversely made more intense with the Charedi, the Chassidim, and so on.

And the development of the mystical Kaballah really represents a profound point of departure between Judaism and Christianity, since the ideas of the Kaballah are essentially incompatible to the Christian Orthodoxy defined as broadly as possible.

I alm Likely overstepping with this post, and If I am, maybe the moderators can delete it for me.

We need to get things back on track in this tread if it is going to progress.

If persons have issues with the roles that particular persons or groups may fil in a particular Church, then they need to take it to that congregational forum. Feeding trolls just keeps them coming back for more.

 

[Love365]

I alm Likely overstepping with this post, and If I am, maybe the moderators can delete it for me.

We need to get things back on track in this tread if it is going to progress.

If persons have issues with the roles that particular persons or groups may fil in a particular Church, then they need to take it to that congregational forum. Feeding trolls just keeps them coming back for more.

I don’t think I’m allowed to support women priests,
in the Catholic forum.

 

[concretecamper]

I don’t think I’m allowed to support women priests,
in the Catholic forum.

According to Christ and His Church, there is no such thing as women priests. So give it up

 

[Love365]

According to Christ and His Church, there is no such thing as women priests. So give it up

Who was Mary of Bethany?

Who was Mary Magdalene?

 

[David Lamb]

Who was Mary of Bethany?

Who was Mary Magdalene?

What point are you making? (I only ask for clarification). Are you saying that you believe Mary of Bethany and Mary Magdalene were priests? If so, on what basis? If not, what did you mean? Thanks!

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I don’t think I’m allowed to support women priests,
in the Catholic forum.

So, you have answered your own question: If such came to be, the Catholic Church would cease to be.

 

[Love365]

So, you have answered your own question: If such came to be, the Catholic Church would cease to be.

The Catholic Church is the bridge.

It must reach out to the Church of England,
and the Eastern Orthodox Church at the same time.

 

[Paidiske]

The Catholic Church is the bridge.

It must reach out to the Church of England,
and the Eastern Orthodox Church at the same time.

I don't think either the Anglican communion, or the Orthodox, are likely to see things in the same terms.

I really have come to agree with what some others have said to you; if you want to experience the ministry of women, rather than endlessly repeating the same fruitless arguments here, just go and find an Episcopalian church near you.

 

[Tigran1245]

To experience the ministry of women, you can turn to the Armenian Church. The issue of the female priesthood in the AAC is rarely discussed and remains within the framework of traditional theology. Our official position remains steadfast: the priesthood is for men.

However, the ancient institution of deaconesses (the first of the four main degrees of the priesthood) has been preserved in the Armenian Church. Unlike the Greek Orthodox Churches, this practice has always existed in our country. The women who led this ministry could be nuns, manuscript scribes, protodeaconesses, deaconesses, and archdeaconesses.

In the Middle Ages, the institution of deaconesses in the AAC had both its supporters and opponents. Thus, Saint Nerses Shnorali opposed the institution of deaconesses. And such famous Vardapets as Poghos Taronetsi, Saint Nerses Lambronatsi and Mkhitar Gosh acted as his defenders. Thus, Vardapet Mkhitar Gosh (1136-1213) wrote that the presence of deaconesses in the Church is vital. Firstly, they can preach the word of Christ among women, incl. reading the Gospel to them. Secondly, if there is a deaconess in the monastery, then there is no need for a man to enter the nunnery, and for nuns to leave it. Thirdly, when a priest performs the Sacrament of Baptism on an adult woman, the deaconess was instructed to wash her with holy water in a font separated from those present by a curtain.

Despite the noticeable decline in the number of deaconesses in the AAC after the upheavals of 1915-21 and the atheistic policies of the Soviet period, now one deaconess Ani-Christi Manvelyan serves in the Armenian Church in the Tehran diocese. She has all the same duties and rights as a male deacon.

 

[tall73]

To experience the ministry of women, you can turn to the Armenian Church. The issue of the female priesthood in the AAC is rarely discussed and remains within the framework of traditional theology. Our official position remains steadfast: the priesthood is for men.

However, the ancient institution of deaconesses (the first of the four main degrees of the priesthood) has been preserved in the Armenian Church. Unlike the Greek Orthodox Churches, this practice has always existed in our country. The women who led this ministry could be nuns, manuscript scribes, protodeaconesses, deaconesses, and archdeaconesses.

In the Middle Ages, the institution of deaconesses in the AAC had both its supporters and opponents.

Do any of those on either side of the discussion, in preserved works, comment on 1 Timothy 3:11?

Some in modern times have variously indicated the word should be translated as wives or women, with some thinking that women in this case refers to deaconesses, rather than wives of deacons. Since you indicate the overall issue of deaconesses was discussed, I am wondering if any saw it that way. On the other hand, I am not sure whether the terms in the language/s these discussions took place in would be capable of various readings as in the Greek.

1 Timothy 3:8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 wives/women likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.​

 

[David Lamb]

Do any of those on either side of the discussion, in preserved works, comment on 1 Timothy 3:11?

Some in modern times have variously indicated the word should be translated as wives or women, with some thinking that women in this case refers to deaconesses, rather than wives of deacons. Since you indicate the overall issue of deaconesses was discussed, I am wondering if any saw it that way. On the other hand, I am not sure whether the terms in the language/s these discussions took place in would be capable of various readings as in the Greek.

1 Timothy 3:8 Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain. 9 They must hold the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them also be tested first; then let them serve as deacons if they prove themselves blameless. 11 wives/women likewise must be dignified, not slanderers, but sober-minded, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.​

I don't speak NT Greek, but the three dictionaries I have referred to all say that the Greek word "Gune" can mean "wife" or "woman". None of them mention "deaconess".

 

[Paidiske]

I don't speak NT Greek, but the three dictionaries I have referred to all say that the Greek word "Gune" can mean "wife" or "woman". None of them mention "deaconess".

The passage is discussing deacons. So the question is, when it talks (in that context) about women or wives, does it mean women who are deacons, or women who are wives of deacons?

I have no problem understanding it as women who are deacons, especially given Scripture elsewhere gives us a woman deacon, but some people who insist women can't be deacons read it as the deacons' wives.

 

[David Lamb]

The passage is discussing deacons. So the question is, when it talks (in that context) about women or wives, does it mean women who are deacons, or women who are wives of deacons?

I have no problem understanding it as women who are deacons, especially given Scripture elsewhere gives us a woman deacon, but some people who insist women can't be deacons read it as the deacons' wives.

Two points occur to me: First, the very next words in 1 Timothy are:

“Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling [their] children and their own houses well.” (1Ti 3:12 NKJV)

Second, where in Romans 16 we read of Phoebe, for whom some English translations use "deaconess", though most use "servant", a different Greek word is used - diakonos (a servant or a deacon), not gune, used in the 1 Timothy verse:

“I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea,” (Ro 16:1 NKJV)

 

[Paidiske]

Second, where in Romans 16 we read of Phoebe, for whom some English translations use "deaconess", though most use "servant", a different Greek word is used - diakonos (a servant or a deacon), not gune, used in the 1 Timothy verse:

“I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea,” (Ro 16:1 NKJV)

The 1 Timothy thought starts in verse 8, with "Deacons likewise..." So it's already discussing deacons. Then we get to verse 11 and the mention of the women/wives, and that's where it's not clear exactly what the author meant; the women deacons or the wives of deacons.