Re: RELIGION: intuition (OT)

[Guest guest]

>

>I thought I already did, but... I should have instead said that any

>kind of dialogue between a Christian and someone outside the Church on

>such issues would be fruitless because those approaching the issue

>from the perspective that the Church is a human institution for humans

>will necessarily come to conclusions derived from their assumptions

>that are very different from those that a Christian would come to,

>derived from their assumptions. Since anyone should have the right to

>speculate or theorize about whatever they want, I wouldn't have any

>right to say they shouldn't be able to talk about it or any such

>thing, but obviously one couldn't effect change regarding the issue

>within the Church from a standpoint conflicting with the Church's very

>idea of itself, and quite honestly it seem logically inconsistent for

>someone to advocate women priests when they in fact think the

>priesthood is a false institution anyway.

>

Many Christians *DO* think the priesthood is a false institution, but I

am not one of them. You have no idea what someone outside your brand of

Christianity might think of the institution, its leadership and nature.

Outsiders will not necessarily view the Church as a human institution.

Affirmative conclusion from negative premise fallacy.

No outsiders are Orthodox Christians

No Orthodox Christians are (your brand of) humanists

Therefore outsiders are humanist (or will have conclusions based on

humanist assumptions)

Deanna

[Guest guest]

> On 7/22/05, implode7@... <implode7@...> wrote:

>

> > Sorry - but, personally, I think that it should be

> > illegal job discrimination for the Church to ban woman priests.

>

> Well that's an irresolvable political difference between the two of

> us. You apparently believe in some standard of values that should be

> homogeneously applied universally, whereas I prefer a system that

> allows multiple value systems to coexist.

Should priests be allowed to murder people if the Church decided it was ok in

some instances?

>

> If you are going to apply this level of force to make all institutions

> adopt your own values, why wouldn't you just ban the priesthood

> alltogether?

That's quite silly and antagonistic.

>

> Chris

>

[Guest guest]

On 7/22/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> Affirmative conclusion from negative premise fallacy.

>

> No outsiders are Orthodox Christians

> No Orthodox Christians are (your brand of) humanists

> Therefore outsiders are humanist (or will have conclusions based on

> humanist assumptions)

You examine the issue with such precision that you miss the obvious

fact that most people outside the church conceive of the priesthood

and the liturgical rites of the church in a very different way than

those in the church, or else they would become members!

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris

>You examine the issue with such precision that you miss the obvious

>fact that most people outside the church conceive of the priesthood

>and the liturgical rites of the church in a very different way than

>those in the church, or else they would become members!

>

Thank you, Brother in New England. Are you then saying that no members

of the Orthodox Church disagree with the liturgical rites and the

priesthood as they now stand?

What do you think of this piece on Orthodox models of Christian women

from a RC man's perspective?

http://www.womenpriests.org/classic2/tavard07.asp

Deanna

" You teach, you teach, you teach! " ~ last words of Dr. Weston A. Price,

June 23, 1948

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>You examine the issue with such precision that you miss the obvious

>fact that most people outside the church conceive of the priesthood

>and the liturgical rites of the church in a very different way than

>those in the church, or else they would become members!

It's rather tempting to read that as you saying that if only everyone

really understood the church, they'd join...

-

[Guest guest]

>Well that's an irresolvable political difference between the two of

>us. You apparently believe in some standard of values that should be

>homogeneously applied universally, whereas I prefer a system that

>allows multiple value systems to coexist.

>

>If you are going to apply this level of force to make all institutions

>adopt your own values, why wouldn't you just ban the priesthood

>alltogether?

But even you, must believe in some degree of universal

uniformity. What else do laws against murder, for example, or slavery,

embody, if not applied universal moral uniformity? So really, it just

becomes a disagreement over where you place the threshold between universal

enforcement and tolerance for different value systems.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/22/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> But even you, must believe in some degree of universal

> uniformity. What else do laws against murder, for example, or slavery,

> embody, if not applied universal moral uniformity? So really, it just

> becomes a disagreement over where you place the threshold between universal

> enforcement and tolerance for different value systems.

Well yes, I'll concede that point, but I'm pretty sure the

disagreement is unresolvable.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/22/05, Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> >You examine the issue with such precision that you miss the obvious

> >fact that most people outside the church conceive of the priesthood

> >and the liturgical rites of the church in a very different way than

> >those in the church, or else they would become members!

> It's rather tempting to read that as you saying that if only everyone

> really understood the church, they'd join...

No, it is saying that if people's viewpoint of the significance of the

church coincided with that of the church, then they would join. I'm

trying to make a point that should be obvious on the surface: that it

is safe to assume that those who are not Christians do not hold the

same view of the liturgical rites of the church as does the church.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>I'm

>trying to make a point that should be obvious on the surface: that it

>is safe to assume that those who are not Christians do not hold the

>same view of the liturgical rites of the church as does the church.

I thought that's what you were probably saying despite your phrasing, but I

wondered, because it strikes me as a trivial point. Besides, as someone

else pointed out, there's widespread disagreement even within the Church

over doctrine.

I'm always reminded of the fact that the best Catholic priest I ever knew

told my mom to divorce my step-father.

-

[Guest guest]

On 7/22/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

>

> >

> >I thought I already did, but... I should have instead said that any

> >kind of dialogue between a Christian and someone outside the Church on

> >such issues would be fruitless because those approaching the issue

> >from the perspective that the Church is a human institution for humans

> >will necessarily come to conclusions derived from their assumptions

> >that are very different from those that a Christian would come to,

> >derived from their assumptions. Since anyone should have the right to

> >speculate or theorize about whatever they want, I wouldn't have any

> >right to say they shouldn't be able to talk about it or any such

> >thing, but obviously one couldn't effect change regarding the issue

> >within the Church from a standpoint conflicting with the Church's very

> >idea of itself, and quite honestly it seem logically inconsistent for

> >someone to advocate women priests when they in fact think the

> >priesthood is a false institution anyway.

> >

> Many Christians *DO* think the priesthood is a false institution, but I

> am not one of them. You have no idea what someone outside your brand of

> Christianity might think of the institution, its leadership and nature.

> Outsiders will not necessarily view the Church as a human institution.

> Affirmative conclusion from negative premise fallacy.

Where I refer to the Church's conception of itself, you respond with

" Christians' " view of the Church. You've repeatedly defined

Christianity in the past, and are implicitly doing so now, as the sum

of what those who call themselves Christians believe it to be. To

think that is fine, and perfectly within your rights. But as we've

discussed over and over in the past, this just reveals certain

assumptions of yours, which I am calling humanist (and I clearly

defined what I meant by the term in this context), which for some

reason you continually seem to take for granted and claim that you

aren't making. In any case, it only proves my point that due to the

different assumptions of those within and without of the Church,

dialogue is impossible (without addressing those assumptions.)

I find it amusing that you have such a great idea of what I have an

idea about. You have no idea what I know about those outside my

" brand of Christianity. " Why you would claim to know what I know is

beyond me.

> No outsiders are Orthodox Christians

> No Orthodox Christians are (your brand of) humanists

> Therefore outsiders are humanist (or will have conclusions based on

> humanist assumptions)

I don't think used this illogic at all. To the extent I may have

appeared to, I was being careless with my words.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On 7/22/05, José- s Barbosa <jcmbarbosa52@...> wrote:

>

>

> >

> > It is useless to discuss the ordination of women without

> > any familiarity with the orthodox understanding of what the priesthood

> > is and why it is done the way it is done, and from a humanist

> > perspective (in this context meaning a perspective that sees humans as

> > the center of things, and the Church as an institution by humans, of

> > humans, and for humans).

> >

> > Chris

>

> Hi Chris:

>

> I don't know if you are also referring to Deanna's question to me about

> ordaining women priests. I gave her my opinion, but I am aware that she

> asked me knowing that I am a layman and I gave her my answer as a

> layman myself. I don't pretend to know about all the intricacies

> (historical or not) that led the Catholic Church (that is the Church I

> know best) to demand manhood from her shepherds. From my layman's point

> of view, this is not a divine injunction, and as a man-made decision,

> it is probably liable to criticism or questioning.

Hi ,

I don't mean to speak for but I think what he meant is that

people get into these discussions without an adequate background, and

draw conclusions based on that inadequate background, and with no

seeming desire to shore up that background, and so, given that, it

*is* useless to debate these points with them. They don't understand

the arguments, they import often unstated and biased presuppositions

into their arguments, and then pontificate as if their argument should

have some weight or force or be taken seriously.

Of course they are free to believe what they want to believe, but such

an approach is hardly a sound basis for drawing conclusions.

And I think his bigger point is when he suggests that one group

believes the Church is divine, another thinks it is only human. Given

those conflicting presuppositions debate is probably useless UNLESS

one is debating the conflicting assumptions/presuppositions. And for

someone whose basic assumption is that the Church is a humanistic

institution, and therefore essentially a hoax, it shouldn't much

matter who gets ordained or not.

Anyway, imagine someone coming on this list telling us how wrong or

misguided Weston Price is without having done the actual spadework of

finding out what it is Weston Price teaches and why. We would dismiss

them immediately, and rightly so. It is no different when it comes to

various hot button issues regarding the Church.

When I rejected Romanism as a youngster, I did so fully aware of why

they believed what they believed. I rejected their positions on its

own merit, not passing impressions or under the guise of imported

alien presuppositions and certainly not based on the superficial

secular rhetoric of the day, which hasn't changed much over the years.

You said with (what seemed to me) great conviction that you would

labor/work to change the Roman Catholic view on the priesthood if you

were a Roman Catholic. Now you are suggesting in this response that

you are not fully familiar with the parameters of why that is so but

just from your laymen's impression you don't think its a divine

injunctive.

If that is the case why would you labor against something that you

really don't know much about? It doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps I

am missing something?

For what its worth, the ancient church didn't draw such clear

distinctions when it came to theology between laymen and

" professionals. " That is a legacy of the late medieval west. The

Orthodox Church has produced lots of highly revered and some not so

well known lay theologians over the centuries. You can read one in the

link below.

http://snipurl.com/gfvz

take care,

[Guest guest]

>

>I find it amusing that you have such a great idea of what I have an

>idea about. You have no idea what I know about those outside my

> " brand of Christianity. " Why you would claim to know what I know is

>beyond me.

>

>

Likewise, I'm sure.

>>No outsiders are Orthodox Christians

>>No Orthodox Christians are (your brand of) humanists

>>Therefore outsiders are humanist (or will have conclusions based on

>>humanist assumptions)

>>

>>

>I don't think used this illogic at all. To the extent I may have

>appeared to, I was being careless with my words.

>

Then it's time for a review of posts and/or logic. By their fruits...

Deanna

[Guest guest]

On 7/22/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

>

>

> >Well with all due respect to the outside speculators (not you), who in

> >fact do have much respect from me, I don't really see the point of

> >people outside the Church debating the theology and ecclesiology of

> >the Church. It is useless to discuss the ordination of women without

> >any familiarity with the orthodox understanding of what the priesthood

> >is and why it is done the way it is done, and from a humanist

> >perspective (in this context meaning a perspective that sees humans as

> >the center of things, and the Church as an institution by humans, of

> >humans, and for humans).

> >

> What Church? The Orthodox? Catholic? Anglican?

This must be for rhetorical effect, eh? You, perhaps more than most,

know good and well whom is referencing, and its not Romanism and

Anglicanism. You even explicitly acknowledge what he is talking about

below when you say " I have never been Orthodox. "

> So long as there

> aren't secrets kept from outsiders, there is absolutely no reason why an

> understanding can not be had and discussion about it made.

Yes, but the operative word is understanding, and even more

importantly non-Christians and Christians have some knowledge/faith

issues that aren't resolved by a bald appeal to reason, i.e.

conflicting presuppositions. And unless something has changed since

all this came up on NT_Politics...well let's just say, from what I

could gather, you could use some boning up on some of these issues.

> You and I

> had a lengthy debate about the logical soundness of the Trinity way back

> (where the logic was failed to be demonstrated), and you didn't pull out

> this cop out then.

I can't vouch for the private conversations but I do know what was

said publically. You were at odds and that went on for quite a few

posts. And then you spent a few days apparently seeing the light as to

Chris' argument (once you realized that he was arguing a different

conception of the Trinity than you were) and letting us all know about

it on the list in no uncertain terms. Now you have flipped again and

are back to telling us/him that he didn't cut the mustard. Hmmmm.....

And again, I don't think is copping out. If I am understanding

him correctly (and I might not be) he is making a very valid point -

unless one has adequate knowledge of these issues, AND unless one is

willing to debate the foundational disagreement, discussion is

basically useless.

> While I will admit I have never been an Orthodox,

> there is no reason why I can not learn and discuss basic Christian

> principles.

Well IMO the jury is still out on your understanding of " basic

Christian principles, " at least as you have presented them on NN and

NT_Politics. It is impossible to understand " basic Christian

principles " without an understanding of the Church's conception of

itself. You certainly didn't/don't understand the Church's conception

of the Trinity. And that goes for a few other issues that you jumped

into with guns ablazing only to be found wanting on some basic

understanding of what you were critiquing. I tried to point that out

once before but you seem to haved missed the point.

And none of this is really any big deal since this is a discussion

list, except that you come at some things so hard and then get all

bent out of shape (offended) when someone takes you on.

Now in all fairness, as a Protestant I thought I had a fairly good

handle on this stuff. It wasn't until I became Orthodox that I

realized what a shallow and superficial understanding I had of the

faith on very basic doctrines. In my foray through Christian college

not ONCE did we take up the debates and issues surrounding " basic

Christian doctrines " that went on the early Church, not once, although

we made a big deal about being Trinitarian, etc.

Of course I understand why now, since a good chunk of what the early

Church taught would have been an indictment of what they were trying

to teach us. So the Church Fathers in effect became the Church babies,

unless of course they said something which suited their immediate

purpose.

> Or is it that I have to agree with the dogma and doctrine

> in order to keep any cracks in the foundation from showing?

But the problem is that you have never shown any cracks by your

argumentation, only demonstrated your unfamiliarity with the subject

at hand and your thoroughly humanistic presuppositions. It is further

an issue because whenever this has been pointed out in the past (your

humanism) you take GREAT offense and then trot out some lame stuff

about how humanism is defined, even though the operative definition

being used is CLEARLY laid out for you, and which you fit to a " T " .

But again we covered all this over on NT_Politics. Perhaps we will

need to cover it again in future posts.

That doesn't mean that there aren't other uses/definition of the term

but it does mean that is not the one in use in THIS conversation. And

to try to run from the charge by citing another definition that isn't

being used is fallacious.

> By this

> logic, you can't discuss women at all (let alone women priests), because

> you will never inhabit the body of one ... without major surgeries anyway.

The problem is no one is using that logic.

[Guest guest]

,

>But the problem is that you have never shown any cracks by your

>argumentation, only demonstrated your unfamiliarity with the subject

>at hand and your thoroughly humanistic presuppositions. It is further

>an issue because whenever this has been pointed out in the past (your

>humanism) you take GREAT offense and then trot out some lame stuff

>about how humanism is defined, even though the operative definition

>being used is CLEARLY laid out for you, and which you fit to a " T " .

>But again we covered all this over on NT_Politics. Perhaps we will

>need to cover it again in future posts.

>

>That doesn't mean that there aren't other uses/definition of the term

>but it does mean that is not the one in use in THIS conversation. And

>to try to run from the charge by citing another definition that isn't

>being used is fallacious.

>

>

>

>> By this

>>logic, you can't discuss women at all (let alone women priests), because

>>you will never inhabit the body of one ... without major surgeries anyway.

>>

>>

>

>The problem is no one is using that logic.

>

No the real problem is you have the gall to tell me who I am. I am not

subject to your authority. Praise be to God.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

José- &

>>It is useless to discuss the ordination of women without

>>any familiarity with the orthodox understanding of what the priesthood

>>is and why it is done the way it is done, and from a humanist

>>perspective (in this context meaning a perspective that sees humans as

>>the center of things, and the Church as an institution by humans, of

>>humans, and for humans).

>>

>>Chris

>>

>>

>

>Hi Chris:

>

>I don't know if you are also referring to Deanna's question to me about

>ordaining women priests. I gave her my opinion, but I am aware that she

>asked me knowing that I am a layman and I gave her my answer as a

>layman myself. I don't pretend to know about all the intricacies

>(historical or not) that led the Catholic Church (that is the Church I

>know best) to demand manhood from her shepherds. From my layman's point

>of view, this is not a divine injunction, and as a man-made decision,

>it is probably liable to criticism or questioning.

>

>Cheers,

>

>

>

What if there is a history of ordaining women in the early church? What

if inside the clergy of both OC and RCC there are ordained priests and

laypersons in support of the ordination of women? Then my point of view

and JC's would be of little consequence, because then we would be

looking at the church from inside itself, whether or not we qualify to

make judgment calls as outsiders. I'll bow out here, and y'all can read

as you choose.

Deanna

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-03-042-b

" Currents in Orthodoxy have not remained stable since 1983 either.

Still, Hopko makes it clear that " no author in the present volume calls

for the ordination of women bishops and priests in the Orthodox Church. "

But at least one hierarch--Metropolitan of Sourozh--and several

prominent theologians, among them Dr. Behr-Sigel, Dr.

Ashbrook-Harvey, and Dr. Constantinos N. Giokarines, support the

ordination of women to the priesthood in the Orthodox Church. So do

contributors to periodicals such as the St. Nina Quarterly and the

Australian Martha and journal. According to Hopko, " they say,

simply speaking, that the ordination of women is compatible with, and

even demanded by, the anthropology of the Church fathers. " "

http://www.womensordination.org/pages/why.html

----------------------------------------------------------------

Early Women Priests

Those opposing the ordination of women deny any historical precedent.

However, the presence of women in the priestly ministry of the early

church has been ignored or denied. Giorgio Otranto, director of the

Institute of Classical and Christian Studies, University of Bari, Italy

believes evidence of women priests is found in an epistle of Pope

Gelasius I (late 5th c). His epistle was sent to bishops in three

regions in southern Italy. One of his decrees in this epistle states,

" Nevertheless we have heard to our annoyance that divine affairs

have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to officiate at

the sacred altars, and to take part in all matters imputed to the

offices of the male sex, to which they do not belong. "

This Pope condemns very harshly the conduct of bishops who went against

certain church canons by conferring priestly ordination on some women.

He is probably referring to canons from four councils which took place

within a 100 year span starting in the second half of the 4th century;

the councils of Nicaea, Laodicea, Nimes and the first council of Orange

(441). These church councils prohibited women from participating in the

liturgical service in any way, or from being members of the clergy.

Professor Otranto thinks these prohibitions prove just the opposite. " If

the church councils banned the ordination of women as priests or deacons

that must imply that they really were ordained. " Otherwise, why ban

them? As Otranto says, " A law is only created to prohibit a practice if

that practice is actually taking place - if only in a few communities. "

He points to the presence of women priests (presbyterae) in the area of

Tropea, in Calabria where there is an inscription from a sepulchre

referring to Leta presbytera. It is dated 40 years before Gelasius'

letter, a date and location that indicate she probably was one of the

women to whom Gelasius was referring. In the term 'presbytera' one

should see, Otranto believes, " a true and proper female priest, and not

the wife of a male priest, as other scholars have held on the impulse of

a Catholic historiographic tradition that has never made any concession

to the female priesthood. "

Another presbytera is recorded in an inscription on a sarcophagus in

Dalmatia and bears the date of 425. The inscription reads that a plot in

the cemetery of Salona was purchased from the presbytera Flavia Vitalia.

Here a presbytera (female priest) has been invested with an official

duty, which from a certain period on was appropriate to a presbyter.

So far fifteen archeological inscriptions have been found that indicate

ordained women. Rome maintains these women were ordained by heretical

groups.

However, it is known that all of the geographical regions where these

inscriptions are found were places with only orthodox Christian

communities. None of the heretical groups existed in these areas.

Dorothy Irvin, a theology professor with a doctorate in Old Testament

and ancient Near Eastern archaeology, believes she also has found

evidence that women were priests and bishops in the early Christianity.

One site she refers to is a mosaic in an ancient church, Santa Praxedis,

where four women are depicted, two saints, and a fourth woman with

the inscription Theodora Episcopa (Bishop [feminine] Theodora). The

pastor of the church says the church was built by Pope Pascal I who was

honoring his mother, who was named Theodora, with the title Episcopa

because she was the mother of a pope. However, Professor Irvin points

out that she is clearly wearing a coif, indicating that she is not married.

One Tradition Conveniently Forgotten

Rome asserts that from the beginning of Christianity women have never

been ordained as priests. Yet, women were accepted into the diaconate

which is a part of Holy Orders. The letters of speak again and

again of how Christian communities were led by women who were referred

to by the title of diakonos, or, deacon.

. " Phoebe, our sister, who is a servant (diakonos) of the church at

Cenchreae. She has often been a helper both to myself and to many

others " (Romans 16, 1-2)

. " Greet Prisca and Aquila my fellow workers in Christ Jesus " . . .

" Greet who has worked so much among you. " In the same way

" Tryphaena, Tryphosa and Persis labor in the Lord. " (Romans 16,1-16)

. " Evodia and Syntyche who have struggled together with me in the

Gospel with Clement and the rest of my fellow-workers. " (Philippians 4,2)

In the fifth century the church spelled out the distinct roles of

'deaconesses'. Councils laid down conditions for their sacramental

ordination, e.g., the Ecumenical Councils of Chalcedon and Trullo both

speak of the minimum age for the ordination of women deacons as forty.

" Let the canon of our holy God-bearing Fathers be confirmed in this

particular also; that a presbyter be not ordained before he is thirty

years of age, even if he be a very worthy man, but let him be kept back.

For our Lord Jesus Christ was baptized and began to teach when he was

thirty. In like manner let no deacon be ordained before he is

twenty-five, nor a deaconess before she is forty. " (Council of Trullo)

Ordination rituals exist confirming that women were ordained into the

diaconate. Over twenty women deacons are saints of the church. Holy

Orders consists of ordination as a bishop, priest or deacon. Therefore,

if women were validly ordained as deacons, they can, likewise, be

ordained as priests.

Women deacons existed up until the ninth century. As adult baptisms

declined so did the demand for deacons. The important role of women

deacons in the early church was gradually forgotten.

-------------------------------------------

[Guest guest]

On 7/23/05, Deanna Wagner <hl@...> wrote:

> José- &

>

> >>It is useless to discuss the ordination of women without

> >>any familiarity with the orthodox understanding of what the priesthood

> >>is and why it is done the way it is done, and from a humanist

> >>perspective (in this context meaning a perspective that sees humans as

> >>the center of things, and the Church as an institution by humans, of

> >>humans, and for humans).

> >>

> >>Chris

> >>

> >>

> >

> >Hi Chris:

> >

> >I don't know if you are also referring to Deanna's question to me about

> >ordaining women priests. I gave her my opinion, but I am aware that she

> >asked me knowing that I am a layman and I gave her my answer as a

> >layman myself. I don't pretend to know about all the intricacies

> >(historical or not) that led the Catholic Church (that is the Church I

> >know best) to demand manhood from her shepherds. From my layman's point

> >of view, this is not a divine injunction, and as a man-made decision,

> >it is probably liable to criticism or questioning.

> >

> >Cheers,

> >

> >

> >

> What if there is a history of ordaining women in the early church? What

> if inside the clergy of both OC and RCC there are ordained priests and

> laypersons in support of the ordination of women?

These are actually two separate issues with two distinct answers. The

first is of great import, the second isn't, as there have been and

probably always will be people inside the Orthodox Church who support

and hope for and wish for things that the Church does not countenance.

Everything from the priesthood, to how converts are received, the

length of services, our relations with other Christian bodies, etc.,

ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I mean given human nature, that should be

obvious, but it doesn't constitute an argument.

If they ever get to the point of being in a position to have any

significant influence they usually get deposed, and the Church moves

on. I could list numerous examples, but you can surf the web if such

information interests you.

And surely you don't think any informed Orthodox or Catholic is not

aware that there are people within their communion who are arguing for

women in the priesthood, do you? I'm mean I'm not sure your point.

Even a casual observer, especially in the RCC, is aware of such

foment. This isn't exactly news by any stretch of the imagination.

> Then my point of view

> and JC's would be of little consequence, because then we would be

> looking at the church from inside itself, whether or not we qualify to

> make judgment calls as outsiders.

Well actually no, that isn't the Church you are looking at, but only a

few stray voices. But I won't expound on the point.

> I'll bow out here, and y'all can read

> as you choose.

>

> Deanna

Actually I would suggest some further in depth reading on your part,

rather than just the feminist material you post below. I also note a

section from the article you quote below:

" The effects of women's ordination have been largely

negative—declining numbers of communicants, significant shifts in

teaching on the nature of Christian marriage, and even departures from

orthodox Trinitarian and incarnational doctrine. Despite these

actualities, there appears to be no sign of reversal (which is,

officially, still quite possible at least in Anglicanism) in these two

bodies, though Southern Baptists—the largest of the Protestant

churches—have overwhelmingly reaffirmed their decision not to ordain

women. "

> http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=14-03-042-b

> " Currents in Orthodoxy have not remained stable since 1983 either.

> Still, Hopko makes it clear that " no author in the present volume calls

> for the ordination of women bishops and priests in the Orthodox Church. "

> But at least one hierarch--Metropolitan of Sourozh--and several

> prominent theologians, among them Dr. Behr-Sigel, Dr.

> Ashbrook-Harvey, and Dr. Constantinos N. Giokarines, support the

> ordination of women to the priesthood in the Orthodox Church. So do

> contributors to periodicals such as the St. Nina Quarterly and the

> Australian Martha and journal. According to Hopko, " they say,

> simply speaking, that the ordination of women is compatible with, and

> even demanded by, the anthropology of the Church fathers. " "

Deanna, this means nothing. Do you not see the problem here? I mean

really. What is this supposed to prove, that in a communion of over

250,000,000 people you have several, nearly all in the West by the

way, calling for something at odds with the Church?

Besides, this reminds me of the way you were using resources in the

Hoff Sommers debate on her book, " Who Stole Feminism " , the

above article is DECIDELY against the women's ordination, even taking

into account the essay by Bishop Kallistos, yet you trot out a section

where the reviewer is simply pointing out that there is some dissent,

however small, as highly significant.

Not to mention that several people in that list have drunk deeply of

greek pagan thought when it comes to gender. You should ask to

send you the synaxis symposium on family and gender put out by New

Ostrag. I think you will find it quite enlightening.

But let' s see. What if some hierarchs and a few " prominent "

theologians support the idea that Christ was not God from all

eternity, that he was actually a created being who somehow became a

God? Would that speak to the truth of the matter?

But wait, what if most of the hierarchs in the Church decided that

this was actually true, along with a wide swath of " prominent "

theologians and a good chunk of the laypeople? Would that speak to the

truth of the matter?

But wait, what if some periodical or set of periodicals came out with

the following:

> But at least one hierarch--Metropolitan X--and several

> prominent theologians, among them Dr. XX, Dr. XXX,

> and Dr. XXXX, support the

> idea that Christ is a created beng in the Orthodox Church and not divine. So

do

> contributors to periodicals such as the St. Jerusalem Quarterly and the

> Antiochian Martha and journal. According to XXXXX, " they say,

> simply speaking, that the created origin of Christ is compatible with, and

> even demanded by, the anthropology of the Church fathers.Such is the genuine

doctrine > of the Fathers. The Son is not of one essence, nature, or substance

with God; He is not > consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father, and therefore

not like Him, or equal in > dignity, or co-eternal, or within the real

sphere of Deity. " "

Would that speak to the truth of the matter? I mean surely these

people found a crack and exploited it, right? Set the Church straight

in its errors, right?

Hardly, as this actually happened 17 centuries ago.

One of the classics of Christendom was written during that time, _On

The Incarnation_ by St. Athanasius. A good chunk of Christendom had

decided to follow the presbyter Arius in his heresy about Christ.

Athanasius (a very young man at the time) stood him down. He was

distinctly in the minority, except when it counted at the first

ecumenical council of the Church held at Nicea. This is where the term

" Athanasius against the world " comes from

No no, this kind of thing has never been the way the Church arrives at truth.

> http://www.womensordination.org/pages/why.html

> ----------------------------------------------------------------

> Early Women Priests

>

> Those opposing the ordination of women deny any historical precedent.

> However, the presence of women in the priestly ministry of the early

> church has been ignored or denied. Giorgio Otranto, director of the

> Institute of Classical and Christian Studies, University of Bari, Italy

> believes evidence of women priests is found in an epistle of Pope

> Gelasius I (late 5th c). His epistle was sent to bishops in three

> regions in southern Italy. One of his decrees in this epistle states,

>

> " Nevertheless we have heard to our annoyance that divine affairs

> have come to such a low state that women are encouraged to officiate at

> the sacred altars, and to take part in all matters imputed to the

> offices of the male sex, to which they do not belong. "

>

> This Pope condemns very harshly the conduct of bishops who went against

> certain church canons by conferring priestly ordination on some women.

> He is probably referring to canons from four councils which took place

> within a 100 year span starting in the second half of the 4th century;

> the councils of Nicaea, Laodicea, Nimes and the first council of Orange

> (441). These church councils prohibited women from participating in the

> liturgical service in any way, or from being members of the clergy.

>

> Professor Otranto thinks these prohibitions prove just the opposite. " If

> the church councils banned the ordination of women as priests or deacons

> that must imply that they really were ordained. " Otherwise, why ban

> them? As Otranto says, " A law is only created to prohibit a practice if

> that practice is actually taking place - if only in a few communities. "

Nearly all doctrine in the Orthodox Church was *codified* as a result

of people *going against* the Tradition of the Church. And even then

only to the extent that it needed to be. So of course people were

doing or teaching these things, that is why the councils met in the

first place. But it wasn't like they were coming up with anything new,

they were simply putting fences around what was already known to be

the truth.

The rest of the article is covered and answered quite thoroughly in

many places, so I'm not going to clutter the list with a point by

point rebuttal. The latter point of the article, concerning the

Council of Trullo is quite interesting in that it clearly speaks of

deaconnesses (not priestesses) being " ordained " but then the question

is how that is understood since it is not clear cut from the

documents.

You have the Council of Nicea clearly saying that ordained deaconneses

are *lay* people, and then you have later councils using the term

" ordained " that is normally applied only to priests, applying it to

deaconesses and even sub-orders that were NOT a part of the priesthood

(readers and singers). Which should end the argument by my way of

reckoning but of course for some it does not. Which leads us back to

the heart of the matter, how does the Church arrive at truth?

Nothing I want to cover here, but one thing is for sure, it doesn't

arrive at it by counting noses, or finding seeming exceptions to the

general patristic pattern.