The Pontificate Of Continuity
Dec 9, 2010
R.R. Reno
I’ve never met Benedict XVI, but I feel as though I have. Or at least I think I have a pretty good sense of how his mind works: clear, to the point, and earthy. OK, maybe not D. H. Lawrence earthy, but for a German university professor very direct, concrete, and capable of a memorable turn of phrase.
These qualities are very much in evidence in an extended interview of Benedict by Peter Seewald, recently published under the title Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times. Seewald is a sympathetic interlocutor, and this new book is his third published interview with Benedict, with the previous two taking place when the present pope was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for Doctrine and the Faith. The topics vary, but one theme is clear throughout. This papacy wants to italicize and underline and put into bold one word: continuity.
First, the continuity of his vocation.
As many who know him have observed, Benedict very much loved his work as a university professor. In fact, when he moved into the papal apartment, some Vatican officials were a bit taken aback when he brought along some beat up used furniture—his desk and the bookshelves that he has had since his days as a young faculty member. And of course his books, “my advisors” as he calls them. These familiar reminders of his beloved years as a professor are clearly dear to Benedict.
Bishops and cardinals and popes don’t have much time to spend communing with their books. They have memos to read and meetings to run—lots of them. Benedict doesn’t pretend that he doesn’t pine for more time with his “advisors.” And yet, he sees an essential continuity in his life.
“It is like this,” he says, “When a man says Yes during his priestly ordination, he may have some idea of what his own charism could be, but he also knows: I have placed myself into the hands of the bishops and ultimately of the Lord.” Professor, yes, but priest first. He can take along his old furniture. Popes, after all, have prerogatives. But, as Benedict points out, the continuity of his priestly vocation has always meant something both simple and fundamental: I cannot pick and choose what I want.
Second, there is what I call his ministry of continuity, which has been much (and rightly) commented upon and has a number of different dimensions.
Joseph Ratzinger was a Young Turk at the Second Vatican Council, a peritus (official advisor) to Cardinal Frings of Cologne. Ratzinger was among those who urged the rejection of the official schemas or draft documents that had been prepared by Vatican theologians in advance of the Council. These documents would have enshrined the Neo-Scholasticism then dominant. And Ratzinger subsequently participated in the preparation of the new documents, which were debated, revised, and eventually adopted.
By my reckoning, Ratzinger may have been the most “radical” of the theologians who advised the bishops, if the measure of “radical” is one’s distance from the modes and mentalities of the scholastic theology of the day. Historians can point to Karl Rahner as a powerful voice. But he was and remained a theologian out of the old mold, making very subtle interpretations of official church doctrine and expressing theological positions with recondite philosophical concepts. By contrast, Ratzinger gravitated toward biblical language and images, an evangelical mode in theology quite different from the forms that dominated prior to the Council.
However, in the aftermath of the Council, Ratzinger criticized an overly disjunctive reading of Vatican II. Again and again he has urged us to adopt a “hermeneutics of continuity,” which means an approach to Vatican II that sees it as strengthening and purifying an already vibrant Catholic witness in the modern world.
In other words, yes, of course the Church had in some respects gone off course (as she always does). And, yes, there were problems (as there always are), some very significant, which is why John XXIII called the Council in the first place. But a “hermeneutics of continuity” assumes that the fathers at Vatican II drew on the inner strengths of the Church in order address her weaknesses. It was a renewal from within.
This emphasis on continuity lay behind Benedict’s decision to regularize the use of the Tridentine Mass (so named because it was mandated by the Council of Trent in the late sixteenth century) as an extraordinary form. “My main reasons for making the [Tridentine] form more available,” Benedict explains, “was to preserve the internal continuity of Church history. We cannot say: Before, everything was wrong, but now everything is right. The issue was internal reconciliation with our own past, the intrinsic continuity of faith and prayer in the Church.”
As a Cardinal, Ratzinger endorsed and encouraged a general trend toward greater formality in worship, as well as the reintroduction of Latin into parts of the Mass (for example, the Sanctus and Agnus Dei). The spiritual rationale for these modifications corresponds to his approach to the Tridentine Mass: We need to participate in a continuous tradition of faith and prayer.
The desire to create a Catholic culture of continuity may lie behind Benedict’s support for the beatification of Pius XII, the pope most closely identified with the “bad” Church that many want to imagine was set aside by Vatican II. The same holds for Benedict’s view of the ordination of women. An all male priesthood “is not something we ourselves have produced.” The Church must remain obedient to a continuous tradition instituted by Christ.
When asked to compare himself to Karol Wojtyla, the charismatic and world-changing man who became John Paul II, Benedict declines to assign to himself a decisive role in history. “Not every pontificate has to have a brand new task,” he says. “Now it is a matter of continuing this and grasping the drama of the time, holding fast in that drama to the Word of God as the decisive word.”
“Hold fast,” St. Paul urges, to “that word which I preached to you” (1 Cor 15:2). Again: “Stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught.” (2 Thess. 2:15). This urgent exhortation echoes through the Bible: “Let us hold fast to our confession” (Heb. 4:14). In the book of Revelation, the voice of the Lord says to the churches that await his final triumph: “Behold, I am coming quickly! Hold fast what you have, that no one may take your crown.” (Rev. 3:11).
Holding fast to the faith of apostles was the key to John Paul II’s epochal pontificate. An emphasis on continuity will very likely make the papacy of Benedict XVI significant as well. Indeed, a commitment to continue in the truth—and not futile efforts to become relevant—forms the basis of a Christian witness that has the evangelical power to make a dramatic difference in the world. We believe a faith once delivered, not one renegotiated every generation. A truth powerful enough to refashion the world, not one remolded in accord with changing political or moral or cultural fashions.
R.R. Reno is a Senior Editor of First Things and Professor of Theology at Creighton University. He is the general editor of the Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible and author of the volume on Genesis. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here. Excerpts from Light of the World: The Pope, the Church, and the Signs of the Times can be found here.
Comments:
12.9.2010 | 9:01am
Bret Lythgoe says:
I read somewhere, but I'm unsure if it's true, or not, that Pope John Paul the second, as brilliant a philosopher and theologian, as he undoubtably was, he was not as sophisticated and brilliant as Pope Benedict!
The latin mass is certainly beautiful. As a (for now, conversion, is on the table) noncatholic, I believe the Pope is right on target, with his assertion, that, allowing the latin mass, is a reflection of the Church's continuity.
The latin mass is certainly beautiful. As a (for now, conversion, is on the table) noncatholic, I believe the Pope is right on target, with his assertion, that, allowing the latin mass, is a reflection of the Church's continuity.
12.9.2010 | 9:22am
Phil Swain says:
I wonder if the Young Turks at Vatican II considered whether the abandonment of neo-scholasticism might impoverish the ability of the Church to explain its moral teachings such that the members of the Church might produce works on moral theology as recently reviewed by Professor Reno in this magazine.
12.9.2010 | 11:05am
Prof. Reno: "In other words, yes, of course the Church had in some respects gone off course (as she always does)."
That would be hard to disagree with.
Also, given that the Church has no authority to ordain women, what would be the downside, if any, of Pope BXVI declaring this ex cathedra and giving it the imprimatur of papal infallibility.
That would be hard to disagree with.
Also, given that the Church has no authority to ordain women, what would be the downside, if any, of Pope BXVI declaring this ex cathedra and giving it the imprimatur of papal infallibility.
12.9.2010 | 11:37am
Stuart Koehl says:
"I wonder if the Young Turks at Vatican II considered whether the abandonment of neo-scholasticism might impoverish the ability of the Church to explain its moral teachings such that the members of the Church might produce works on moral theology as recently reviewed by Professor Reno in this magazine."
The Church did not abandon neo-scholasticism, merely acknowledged that there were other schools of theology with equal validity. The Christian East, for instance, has never been scholastic, and has no problems expounding its moral theology--not that moral theology is or ought the be the pinnacle of theology or its principal purpose. I can hear Father Alexander Schmemann now, decrying yet another example of "secularism" in the Church.
The Church did not abandon neo-scholasticism, merely acknowledged that there were other schools of theology with equal validity. The Christian East, for instance, has never been scholastic, and has no problems expounding its moral theology--not that moral theology is or ought the be the pinnacle of theology or its principal purpose. I can hear Father Alexander Schmemann now, decrying yet another example of "secularism" in the Church.
12.9.2010 | 11:57am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Also, given that the Church has no authority to ordain women, what would be the downside, if any, of Pope BXVI declaring this ex cathedra and giving it the imprimatur of papal infallibility."
The problem with nuclear weapons is if you have to use them, by definition you have failed. So it is with ex Cathedra decrees. The damage done to the cause of Christian unity would far outweigh any particular benefit that would result from an infallible declaration about women's ordination, not the least because those who favor the ordination of women to the presbyterate don't seem to have much respect for Papal authority in the first place.
In any case, I seriously doubt there will ever be another ex Cathedra decree. The ecclesiology of the post-Conciliar Church makes it almost impossible to achieve the moral unanimity needed to legitimate the decree. That's what happens when you declare the Catholic Church to be a communion of Churches, and recognize the existence of true Churches outside of communion with Rome.
The problem with nuclear weapons is if you have to use them, by definition you have failed. So it is with ex Cathedra decrees. The damage done to the cause of Christian unity would far outweigh any particular benefit that would result from an infallible declaration about women's ordination, not the least because those who favor the ordination of women to the presbyterate don't seem to have much respect for Papal authority in the first place.
In any case, I seriously doubt there will ever be another ex Cathedra decree. The ecclesiology of the post-Conciliar Church makes it almost impossible to achieve the moral unanimity needed to legitimate the decree. That's what happens when you declare the Catholic Church to be a communion of Churches, and recognize the existence of true Churches outside of communion with Rome.
12.9.2010 | 1:06pm
"Also, given that the Church has no authority to ordain women, what would be the downside, if any, of Pope BXVI declaring this ex cathedra and giving it the imprimatur of papal infallibility."
>>> The problem with nuclear weapons [ex cathedra decrees] is if you have to use them, by definition you have failed.
Not exactly. It's just that the *other* employed measures that were tried have failed.
>>> The damage done to the cause of Christian unity would far outweigh any particular benefit that would result from an infallible declaration about women's ordination.
Debatable. But since the theme of Prof. Reno's post is Continuity which is linked with Unity it would seem that banning WO ex cathedra does both for the Continuity and Unity of the Church's Doctrine and Practice.
>>> not the least because those who favor the ordination of women to the presbyterate don't seem to have much respect for Papal authority in the first place.
Who cares what these internal subversives think?
>>> The problem with nuclear weapons [ex cathedra decrees] is if you have to use them, by definition you have failed.
Not exactly. It's just that the *other* employed measures that were tried have failed.
>>> The damage done to the cause of Christian unity would far outweigh any particular benefit that would result from an infallible declaration about women's ordination.
Debatable. But since the theme of Prof. Reno's post is Continuity which is linked with Unity it would seem that banning WO ex cathedra does both for the Continuity and Unity of the Church's Doctrine and Practice.
>>> not the least because those who favor the ordination of women to the presbyterate don't seem to have much respect for Papal authority in the first place.
Who cares what these internal subversives think?
12.9.2010 | 1:22pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Who cares what these internal subversives think?"
Which, of course, obviates the need for an ex Cathedra declaration of the obvious.
Believe it or not, women's ordination is not a major issue for the Catholic Churches or the Orthodox Churches. It's a problem for Protestants, because they have neither Tradition nor an extrinsic magisterium as locus of authority, and so each ecclesial community does what it wants. I can see how, for many Protestants who at least try to hold onto the vestiges of traditional Christianity, it would seem like the salient issue of our day, but that's just an example of extrapolating the general from the particular, or, as I like to put it, "when your only tool is a hammer, every job looks like a nail".
I see the problem as self-correcting in the long run: those communities that ordain women appear to be withering on the vine (whether this is a post hoc fallacy or not, it's a valid empirical observation), whereas those Churches and communities that do not ordain women are growing. Moreover, the more traditional Churches and communities are growing, both organically (more babies) and by conversions, whereas those that are "progressive" are shrinking rapidly, so at the end of the day they will be reduced to small coteries of egalitarians sitting in an echo chamber, utterly irrelevant.
Which, of course, obviates the need for an ex Cathedra declaration of the obvious.
Believe it or not, women's ordination is not a major issue for the Catholic Churches or the Orthodox Churches. It's a problem for Protestants, because they have neither Tradition nor an extrinsic magisterium as locus of authority, and so each ecclesial community does what it wants. I can see how, for many Protestants who at least try to hold onto the vestiges of traditional Christianity, it would seem like the salient issue of our day, but that's just an example of extrapolating the general from the particular, or, as I like to put it, "when your only tool is a hammer, every job looks like a nail".
I see the problem as self-correcting in the long run: those communities that ordain women appear to be withering on the vine (whether this is a post hoc fallacy or not, it's a valid empirical observation), whereas those Churches and communities that do not ordain women are growing. Moreover, the more traditional Churches and communities are growing, both organically (more babies) and by conversions, whereas those that are "progressive" are shrinking rapidly, so at the end of the day they will be reduced to small coteries of egalitarians sitting in an echo chamber, utterly irrelevant.
12.9.2010 | 1:56pm
Stuart Koehl: "In any case, I seriously doubt there will ever be another ex Cathedra decree. The ecclesiology of the post-Conciliar Church makes it almost impossible to achieve the moral unanimity needed to legitimate the decree."
Upon second glance, your second sentence looks acutely odd. Are you saying that an ex cathedra decree by the Pope needs moral unanimity for it to be legitimate? Or that if the pope doesn't obtain "moral unanimity" then his ex cathedra decree is illegitimate? Further, how does one measure "moral unanimity"?
I thought the value of Papal ex cathedra decrees was irrespective of "moral unanimity" and actually has *more* value when there's moral and doctrinal confusion.
Upon second glance, your second sentence looks acutely odd. Are you saying that an ex cathedra decree by the Pope needs moral unanimity for it to be legitimate? Or that if the pope doesn't obtain "moral unanimity" then his ex cathedra decree is illegitimate? Further, how does one measure "moral unanimity"?
I thought the value of Papal ex cathedra decrees was irrespective of "moral unanimity" and actually has *more* value when there's moral and doctrinal confusion.
12.9.2010 | 3:03pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"The problem with 'moral unanimity' is that it is a mere codeword for 'utilitarian moral relativism'. Any church that is willing to use that criteria is on the path to secular liberalism"
No, it's not. It is a principle that extends back to the early Church, which insisted on unanimity in reaching decisions that affected the faith and the faithful. Hence, at the Council of Jerusalem (ca. AD 50), the issue of rules for admission of the Gentiles was discussed until all were in agreement.
Unanimity was seen as indication that the decisions reached by the Church were indeed informed by the Holy Spirit, witness Canon of the Holy Apostles #34 (4th century): "Let all the bishops [of a region] recognize he who is first among them, and do nothing extraordinary without his consent; but let he who is first do nothing without the advice and consent of all, that there may be unanimity in the Holy Spirit, for the greater glory of the Trinity".
The principle of unanimity was applied at the First Ecumenical Council (325), to the point that the handful of bishops who did not assent to the Symbol of Faith promulgated there were anathematized--condemned and cast out of the Church--so that unanimity could be established.
Now, understand that this moral unanimity is not a simple majority. It must be so overwhelming as to be sign of the reception of a teaching by the entire Body of Christ. This process may be extended and rather messy, but where it is established, the teaching becomes integral to the Tradition of the Church.
No, it's not. It is a principle that extends back to the early Church, which insisted on unanimity in reaching decisions that affected the faith and the faithful. Hence, at the Council of Jerusalem (ca. AD 50), the issue of rules for admission of the Gentiles was discussed until all were in agreement.
Unanimity was seen as indication that the decisions reached by the Church were indeed informed by the Holy Spirit, witness Canon of the Holy Apostles #34 (4th century): "Let all the bishops [of a region] recognize he who is first among them, and do nothing extraordinary without his consent; but let he who is first do nothing without the advice and consent of all, that there may be unanimity in the Holy Spirit, for the greater glory of the Trinity".
The principle of unanimity was applied at the First Ecumenical Council (325), to the point that the handful of bishops who did not assent to the Symbol of Faith promulgated there were anathematized--condemned and cast out of the Church--so that unanimity could be established.
Now, understand that this moral unanimity is not a simple majority. It must be so overwhelming as to be sign of the reception of a teaching by the entire Body of Christ. This process may be extended and rather messy, but where it is established, the teaching becomes integral to the Tradition of the Church.
12.9.2010 | 3:06pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Are you saying that an ex cathedra decree by the Pope needs moral unanimity for it to be legitimate?"
Short answer: yes. In the one case where an ex Cathedra decree has been issued, Pope Pius XII polled the bishops of the Catholic Church on his proposed dogmatization of the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.
Short answer: yes. In the one case where an ex Cathedra decree has been issued, Pope Pius XII polled the bishops of the Catholic Church on his proposed dogmatization of the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary.
12.9.2010 | 3:23pm
King says:
Benedict's "hermeneutics of continuity" sounds a lot like "stare decisis." Discuss.
The temperamental (and political) conservative in me rejoices!
The temperamental (and political) conservative in me rejoices!
12.9.2010 | 3:30pm
PadreOP says:
An ex cathedra declaration by a pop does NOT need any sort of moral unanimity behind it at all to be legitimate. It's legitimacy derives from gift of the Holy Spirit promised to the Church and passed along to the pope as the successor of St. Peter, the Vicar of Christ on earth, who teaches in the name of and by the authority of Christ Himself.
Now, whether it would be *prudent* for a pope to make an ex cathedra declaration without in some way assessing the mind of the rest of the Church (whether that is done by an informal polling of the bishops or by any number of other possible means) is an entirely different question. Often the universal acceptance of a doctrine by believers all over the globe is seen as strong evidence that this particular teaching is indeed "from the Holy Spirit," revealed by God and belonging to the deposit of faith. Given the atmosphere of the world today, both within and outside of the Church, it is hard to envision a scenario where a pope would simply declare something ex cathedra completely out-of-the-blue without any sort of consultation whatsoever.
But he could. And as Catholics we would have no less confidence in the truth of the dogma if it had been declared without consultation than if it had.
Now, whether it would be *prudent* for a pope to make an ex cathedra declaration without in some way assessing the mind of the rest of the Church (whether that is done by an informal polling of the bishops or by any number of other possible means) is an entirely different question. Often the universal acceptance of a doctrine by believers all over the globe is seen as strong evidence that this particular teaching is indeed "from the Holy Spirit," revealed by God and belonging to the deposit of faith. Given the atmosphere of the world today, both within and outside of the Church, it is hard to envision a scenario where a pope would simply declare something ex cathedra completely out-of-the-blue without any sort of consultation whatsoever.
But he could. And as Catholics we would have no less confidence in the truth of the dogma if it had been declared without consultation than if it had.
12.9.2010 | 3:43pm
PiusXXX says:
"those communities that ordain women appear to be withering on the vine".....really?? The Church of England ordains around 500 priests each year in the UK, that's more than ALL the Catholic ordinations in the USA.
12.9.2010 | 4:07pm
Stuart: "The principle of unanimity was applied at the First Ecumenical Council (325), to the point that the handful of bishops who did not assent to the Symbol of Faith promulgated there were anathematized--condemned and cast out of the Church--so that unanimity could be established."
What to do about the secularist charge of "groupthink" and "political pressure" by which to arrive at doctrinal teachings?
Q: Was there "moral unanimity" at Vatican I when the dogma of Papal Infallibility was declared?
What to do about the secularist charge of "groupthink" and "political pressure" by which to arrive at doctrinal teachings?
Q: Was there "moral unanimity" at Vatican I when the dogma of Papal Infallibility was declared?
12.9.2010 | 6:32pm
Stuart Koehl says:
""those communities that ordain women appear to be withering on the vine".....really?? The Church of England ordains around 500 priests each year in the UK, that's more than ALL the Catholic ordinations in the USA."
I am reminded of a conversation between John Henry Newman and his great adversary, Cardinal Manning. They were discussing the role of the laity, and Manning sniffed, drew himself up, and said, "The laity? Who, pray tell, are they?"
And Newman responded, "They are those, my lord, without whom the Church would look silly".
So it is with the CofE (and here in the States, with The Episcopal Church (TEC), formerly the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA). They may be ordaining people left and right, but all those ministers are ministering to fewer and fewer people. The same is true of all the mainline denominations, as well as those more liberal communities such as the Evangelical Lutherans. All of them have seen the number of registered adherents fall for the last three decades, with no end in sight. If anything, the trend will likely accelerate with the ordination of women and homosexuals to the episcopate driving more traditional Anglicans into the continuing communities (which do not ordain women) or into the new Anglican ordinariates being established within the Catholic Church.
So, yes, they are withering on the vine, and pretty soon one of their Sunday services will consist of an archbishop, a couple of bishops, a dean and a handful of priests, plus a few deacons, all standing around the altar reciting prayers answered only by the echoes of their own voices off the high ceilings. And then the truth of Newman's observation will be plain for all to see.
I am reminded of a conversation between John Henry Newman and his great adversary, Cardinal Manning. They were discussing the role of the laity, and Manning sniffed, drew himself up, and said, "The laity? Who, pray tell, are they?"
And Newman responded, "They are those, my lord, without whom the Church would look silly".
So it is with the CofE (and here in the States, with The Episcopal Church (TEC), formerly the Episcopal Church of the United States of America (ECUSA). They may be ordaining people left and right, but all those ministers are ministering to fewer and fewer people. The same is true of all the mainline denominations, as well as those more liberal communities such as the Evangelical Lutherans. All of them have seen the number of registered adherents fall for the last three decades, with no end in sight. If anything, the trend will likely accelerate with the ordination of women and homosexuals to the episcopate driving more traditional Anglicans into the continuing communities (which do not ordain women) or into the new Anglican ordinariates being established within the Catholic Church.
So, yes, they are withering on the vine, and pretty soon one of their Sunday services will consist of an archbishop, a couple of bishops, a dean and a handful of priests, plus a few deacons, all standing around the altar reciting prayers answered only by the echoes of their own voices off the high ceilings. And then the truth of Newman's observation will be plain for all to see.
12.9.2010 | 6:36pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"How is one to establish "True" traditions from "False" traditions?"
The answer is the test of time, prayerful discernment, and patient study of the history of the Church. Know the mind of the Fathers, know the acts of the Councils, know the liturgy and the inner life of the Church. There is no other way, and those who demand certitude are barking up the wrong tree. God does not promise us certitude, but he does demand from us faith and trust. He sent us the Paraclete to guide us into all truth, and as long as we listen in faith and trust for the voice of the Spirit, the Church will continue to live in truth.
The answer is the test of time, prayerful discernment, and patient study of the history of the Church. Know the mind of the Fathers, know the acts of the Councils, know the liturgy and the inner life of the Church. There is no other way, and those who demand certitude are barking up the wrong tree. God does not promise us certitude, but he does demand from us faith and trust. He sent us the Paraclete to guide us into all truth, and as long as we listen in faith and trust for the voice of the Spirit, the Church will continue to live in truth.
12.9.2010 | 6:39pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"An ex cathedra declaration by a pop does NOT need any sort of moral unanimity behind it at all to be legitimate. "
Then, I suppose, Pius IX was dissembling in the letters he wrote to the German bishops in 1875?
"And as Catholics we would have no less confidence in the truth of the dogma if it had been declared without consultation than if it had."
Reception is the only criterion for determining whether any statement is true. Nothing is true a priori. I believe the Pope is infallible when he speaks the truth. But just because he says something is infallible does not mean it is.
Then, I suppose, Pius IX was dissembling in the letters he wrote to the German bishops in 1875?
"And as Catholics we would have no less confidence in the truth of the dogma if it had been declared without consultation than if it had."
Reception is the only criterion for determining whether any statement is true. Nothing is true a priori. I believe the Pope is infallible when he speaks the truth. But just because he says something is infallible does not mean it is.
12.9.2010 | 6:41pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Q: Was there "moral unanimity" at Vatican I when the dogma of Papal Infallibility was declared?"
Increasingly, it would appear not. But then, I have always thought Vatican I bore all the hallmarks of a latrocinium. I have a hard time getting around the way in which Pope Pius IX treated Melkite Patriarch Gregorios I Yousef
Increasingly, it would appear not. But then, I have always thought Vatican I bore all the hallmarks of a latrocinium. I have a hard time getting around the way in which Pope Pius IX treated Melkite Patriarch Gregorios I Yousef
12.9.2010 | 9:20pm
Lewis says:
“If anything, the trend will likely accelerate with the ordination of women and homosexuals to the episcopate driving more traditional Anglicans into the continuing communities (which do not ordain women) or into the new Anglican ordinariates being established within the Catholic Church.”
Thank God for the people, who know exactly where women and gays belong.
“The answer is the test of time.”
And nothing has stood the test of time so well as prejudice, the knowledge that women are not fit for positions of power or the certainty that gays are just icky.
“God does not promise us certitude [except the certitude that women and gays would profane the administration of the sacraments], but he does demand from us faith and trust [that only men can administer the sacraments].”
Thank God for the people, who know exactly where women and gays belong.
“The answer is the test of time.”
And nothing has stood the test of time so well as prejudice, the knowledge that women are not fit for positions of power or the certainty that gays are just icky.
“God does not promise us certitude [except the certitude that women and gays would profane the administration of the sacraments], but he does demand from us faith and trust [that only men can administer the sacraments].”
12.9.2010 | 10:25pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Lewis is yet another unserious person. He also has a peculiarly medieval clericalist understanding of the Church.
12.9.2010 | 10:27pm
Peter M. says:
Stuart, I would question your account of the Council of Jerusalem. It seems to me from reading Acts that the issue was discussed not until a consensus was reached, but rather until Peter spoke definitively, after which the debate ceased. All were then in agreement, not because of discussion, but because of pronouncement.
I very much appreciate your point about Newman's remark on the laity.
I very much appreciate your point about Newman's remark on the laity.
12.10.2010 | 12:21am
patricksarsfield says:
Peter M notes:
"Stuart, I would question your account of the Council of Jerusalem. It seems to me from reading Acts that the issue was discussed not until a consensus was reached, but rather until Peter spoke definitively, after which the debate ceased. All were then in agreement, not because of discussion, but because of pronouncement."
The "Conciliar record" (Acts 15:1-16:5) indicates that the delegates from Antioch (Paul and Barnabas) presented the issue and after much debate (Acts 15:1-7) Peter pronounced his authoritative position--as the person charged by God with the Mission to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7-9)--that circumcision should not be expected of the Gentiles (Acts 15: 9-11). At that point the council went silent and Paul and Barnabas described the success of their efforts among the Gentiles.
When they finished, James--the Judaizing proponent of the pro-circumcision position (Galatians 2:12)--surrendered his maximalist position and admitted that Peter ("Simeon") was right. James thereupon proposed a much more restrictive set of limitations on what the Gentiles needed to do (Acts 15:13-19). The Church then adopted that much more limited set of restrictions (Acts 15:20-22) which was codified in a letter (Acts 15:22--30) sent to Antioch and as a circular letter to many other cities (Acts 15:31-16:5).
Clearly, Peter's role was key. After he spoke the Council 's debate was over and Paul and Barnabas spoke openly about what they were doing among the Gentiles. James, who previously had sent Judaizers to Antioch backed off his position. Simply put, James backed down when he ended up in the same room as Peter and the whole church could witness their interaction.
That, I believe, is precisely why Peter returned to Jerusalem even though he was on the lam from Herod's Jail (Acts 12:3-18). Clearly, he was not free to travel to and fro from Jerusalem, yet this issue was so important that it was worth his risking further imprisonment to get the Church's mission to the Gentiles back on the right track. Remember, God had entrusted the Mission to the Gentiles to Peter, the Shepherd of His People (John 21:15 et seq), through a direct command of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10: 9-20). Peter's authority on the issue of the Gentiles could not be challenged by anybody: not by James, the Judaizer nor by Paul who said nothing even though Peter expressly claimed authority over the Gentile Mission in Paul's presence (Acts 15:7-9). Peter's authoritative word spoken in the presence of both Paul and James carried the day and the Church could get on with its Great Commission! Thank God for the Petrine Mission!!
"Stuart, I would question your account of the Council of Jerusalem. It seems to me from reading Acts that the issue was discussed not until a consensus was reached, but rather until Peter spoke definitively, after which the debate ceased. All were then in agreement, not because of discussion, but because of pronouncement."
The "Conciliar record" (Acts 15:1-16:5) indicates that the delegates from Antioch (Paul and Barnabas) presented the issue and after much debate (Acts 15:1-7) Peter pronounced his authoritative position--as the person charged by God with the Mission to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7-9)--that circumcision should not be expected of the Gentiles (Acts 15: 9-11). At that point the council went silent and Paul and Barnabas described the success of their efforts among the Gentiles.
When they finished, James--the Judaizing proponent of the pro-circumcision position (Galatians 2:12)--surrendered his maximalist position and admitted that Peter ("Simeon") was right. James thereupon proposed a much more restrictive set of limitations on what the Gentiles needed to do (Acts 15:13-19). The Church then adopted that much more limited set of restrictions (Acts 15:20-22) which was codified in a letter (Acts 15:22--30) sent to Antioch and as a circular letter to many other cities (Acts 15:31-16:5).
Clearly, Peter's role was key. After he spoke the Council 's debate was over and Paul and Barnabas spoke openly about what they were doing among the Gentiles. James, who previously had sent Judaizers to Antioch backed off his position. Simply put, James backed down when he ended up in the same room as Peter and the whole church could witness their interaction.
That, I believe, is precisely why Peter returned to Jerusalem even though he was on the lam from Herod's Jail (Acts 12:3-18). Clearly, he was not free to travel to and fro from Jerusalem, yet this issue was so important that it was worth his risking further imprisonment to get the Church's mission to the Gentiles back on the right track. Remember, God had entrusted the Mission to the Gentiles to Peter, the Shepherd of His People (John 21:15 et seq), through a direct command of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10: 9-20). Peter's authority on the issue of the Gentiles could not be challenged by anybody: not by James, the Judaizer nor by Paul who said nothing even though Peter expressly claimed authority over the Gentile Mission in Paul's presence (Acts 15:7-9). Peter's authoritative word spoken in the presence of both Paul and James carried the day and the Church could get on with its Great Commission! Thank God for the Petrine Mission!!
12.10.2010 | 5:33am
Stuart Koehl says:
Patrick,
James presided, James summarized, and in the end, James pronounced the formula adopted by the Council. James was Bishop of Jerusalem, and while Peter may have been first among the Apostles, it is clear he did not wield the plena potestas later claimed on his behalf. In fact, he defers to James, and accepted the Church's decision to make him the Apostle to Circumcision, and Paul to the Gentiles.
Also, Peter had nothing to fear from Herod Agrippa, since he was safely dead at the time of the Council (in fact, he died in AD 44), Rome then governing Judaea as a province under a procurator (not a praefect, as was the case under Pontius Pilate) subordinated to the governor of Syria. At the time of the Council of Jerusalem, that procurator was Ventidius Cumanus, predecessor of Marcus Antonius Felix, freedman of Claudius who heard the case of Paul in Caesarea.
James presided, James summarized, and in the end, James pronounced the formula adopted by the Council. James was Bishop of Jerusalem, and while Peter may have been first among the Apostles, it is clear he did not wield the plena potestas later claimed on his behalf. In fact, he defers to James, and accepted the Church's decision to make him the Apostle to Circumcision, and Paul to the Gentiles.
Also, Peter had nothing to fear from Herod Agrippa, since he was safely dead at the time of the Council (in fact, he died in AD 44), Rome then governing Judaea as a province under a procurator (not a praefect, as was the case under Pontius Pilate) subordinated to the governor of Syria. At the time of the Council of Jerusalem, that procurator was Ventidius Cumanus, predecessor of Marcus Antonius Felix, freedman of Claudius who heard the case of Paul in Caesarea.
12.10.2010 | 8:20am
"Q: Was there "moral unanimity" at Vatican I when the dogma of Papal Infallibility was declared?"
A: "Increasingly, it would appear not. But then, I have always thought Vatican I bore all the hallmarks of a latrocinium. I have a hard time getting around the way in which Pope Pius IX treated Melkite Patriarch Gregorios I Yousef."
-------------
I had to look up what "latrocinium" meant. This is what I found at Wikipedia:
"Latrocinium in ecclesiastical Latin means 'rebel or hostile council'. It literally means 'robber council' and was used as a term of abuse to suggest such a council was not canonical.
The third Council of Sirmium in 357, second Council of Ephesus in 449, Council of Hieria in 754 and Synod of Pistoia in 1786 were each described by their opponents as a latrocinium.
Some conservative Catholics, including sedevacantists and conclavists, regard the Vatican II as a Latrocinium, given its alleged role in a fundamental revision of Roman Catholic rituals and (they claim) belief, notably the replacement of the Tridentine Mass by the Mass of Paul VI (the vernacular Mass, which sedevacantists describe as the Novus Ordo Missæ or "New Order Mass" and thus refer to the post-Vatican II Catholic Church as the "Novus Ordo Church") with the resulting greater participation of the laity in the ceremony and the reordering of church sanctuaries. They argue that many of the fundamental documents of Vatican II contradict earlier Church dicta and papal bulls, including the Quo Primum Papal Bull of 1570 and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX in 1864.
However few mainstream members of the Roman Catholic Church, no senior members of the hierarchy and none of the popes during or after the Council (Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) accept the belief that Vatican II was a Latrocinium. Vatican II, its documents and the Mass of Paul VI remain central to modern day Roman Catholicism."
Then I went back and re-read your statement: "But then, I have always thought Vatican I bore all the hallmarks of a latrocinium."
"Wow," I thought. Such a statement has implications for the dogma of Papal Infallibility.
A: "Increasingly, it would appear not. But then, I have always thought Vatican I bore all the hallmarks of a latrocinium. I have a hard time getting around the way in which Pope Pius IX treated Melkite Patriarch Gregorios I Yousef."
-------------
I had to look up what "latrocinium" meant. This is what I found at Wikipedia:
"Latrocinium in ecclesiastical Latin means 'rebel or hostile council'. It literally means 'robber council' and was used as a term of abuse to suggest such a council was not canonical.
The third Council of Sirmium in 357, second Council of Ephesus in 449, Council of Hieria in 754 and Synod of Pistoia in 1786 were each described by their opponents as a latrocinium.
Some conservative Catholics, including sedevacantists and conclavists, regard the Vatican II as a Latrocinium, given its alleged role in a fundamental revision of Roman Catholic rituals and (they claim) belief, notably the replacement of the Tridentine Mass by the Mass of Paul VI (the vernacular Mass, which sedevacantists describe as the Novus Ordo Missæ or "New Order Mass" and thus refer to the post-Vatican II Catholic Church as the "Novus Ordo Church") with the resulting greater participation of the laity in the ceremony and the reordering of church sanctuaries. They argue that many of the fundamental documents of Vatican II contradict earlier Church dicta and papal bulls, including the Quo Primum Papal Bull of 1570 and the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX in 1864.
However few mainstream members of the Roman Catholic Church, no senior members of the hierarchy and none of the popes during or after the Council (Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI) accept the belief that Vatican II was a Latrocinium. Vatican II, its documents and the Mass of Paul VI remain central to modern day Roman Catholicism."
Then I went back and re-read your statement: "But then, I have always thought Vatican I bore all the hallmarks of a latrocinium."
"Wow," I thought. Such a statement has implications for the dogma of Papal Infallibility.
12.10.2010 | 10:53am
Lewis says:
“Lewis is yet another unserious person.”
Oh, I’m serious. Where have I misunderstood your position?
“He also has a peculiarly medieval clericalist understanding of the Church.”
I’m quoting your words. So it must be your understanding that is medieval.
“those communities that ordain women appear to be withering on the vine”
Nanny nanny poo poo. You silly mainline churches are losing members faster than we are.
“Moreover, the more traditional Churches and communities are growing, both organically (more babies) and by conversions, whereas those that are "progressive" are shrinking rapidly”
Wrong. Pew reports: “Of the nation's 25 largest denominations, only four are growing, according to the yearbook: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (up 1.6 percent to 5.9 million); the Assemblies of God (up 1 percent to 2.9 million); Jehovah's Witnesses (up 2 percent to 1.1 million) and the Church of God of Cleveland, Tenn. (up 2 percent to 1 million).”
“small coteries of egalitarians”
Heavens, let’s not be egalitarian because, God knows, Jesus placed men above women and heterosexuals above homosexuals.
Oh, I’m serious. Where have I misunderstood your position?
“He also has a peculiarly medieval clericalist understanding of the Church.”
I’m quoting your words. So it must be your understanding that is medieval.
“those communities that ordain women appear to be withering on the vine”
Nanny nanny poo poo. You silly mainline churches are losing members faster than we are.
“Moreover, the more traditional Churches and communities are growing, both organically (more babies) and by conversions, whereas those that are "progressive" are shrinking rapidly”
Wrong. Pew reports: “Of the nation's 25 largest denominations, only four are growing, according to the yearbook: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (up 1.6 percent to 5.9 million); the Assemblies of God (up 1 percent to 2.9 million); Jehovah's Witnesses (up 2 percent to 1.1 million) and the Church of God of Cleveland, Tenn. (up 2 percent to 1 million).”
“small coteries of egalitarians”
Heavens, let’s not be egalitarian because, God knows, Jesus placed men above women and heterosexuals above homosexuals.
12.10.2010 | 11:34am
Stuart Koehl says:
"I’m quoting your words. So it must be your understanding that is medieval. "
Lewis,
Your own words indicate that you believe power and true holiness within the Church are open only to those who administer the sacraments. That's precisely what medieval clericalism is.
"Nanny nanny poo poo. You silly mainline churches are losing members faster than we are."
The mainline denominations (sometimes called the Seven Sisters) are:
American Baptist Church
Disciples of Christ
Congregationalist/United Church of Christ
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church
Methodist Church
Presbyterian Church
All of these have been bleeding members at a furious rate for the last three decades. Numbering 31 million in 1960, today they have fewer than 20 million adherents.
“Of the nation's 25 largest denominations, only four are growing, according to the yearbook: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (up 1.6 percent to 5.9 million); the Assemblies of God (up 1 percent to 2.9 million); Jehovah's Witnesses (up 2 percent to 1.1 million) and the Church of God of Cleveland, Tenn. (up 2 percent to 1 million).”
Never go to Pew if you want accurate figures about religion. Let's start with a definitional issue: the Mormons are not a Christian denomination, no matter what they say. Neither are the Jehovah's Witnesses. Note what is not listed by Pew: the Catholic Church, because it is not a denomination. But it most assuredly IS growing, and is today the largest single Christian community in the country. Now will will finish up by looking at the rule of small numbers: when your church is miniscule, any gain will seem proportionally large. There are today in the United States about 5000 Romanian Greek Catholics. If, over the next year, they were to add 500 new members (which could happen, through immigration, marriage and childbirth), then we would have to say, with a 10% annual growth rate, it was by far the fastest growing Church in the U.S. The Romanians happen to have a monastery in California. It grew by 25% last year, when it added a fifth monk. Small numbers are deceptive and subject to massive fluctuations.
"Heavens, let’s not be egalitarian because, God knows, Jesus placed men above women and heterosexuals above homosexuals."
It's not about "over" or "under". It's about hierarchy and order (taxis). And above all, it is seeking perfection in Christ. But until you accept that, it's pointless arguing with you, because you just don't get it. Or you really aren't that serious.
Lewis,
Your own words indicate that you believe power and true holiness within the Church are open only to those who administer the sacraments. That's precisely what medieval clericalism is.
"Nanny nanny poo poo. You silly mainline churches are losing members faster than we are."
The mainline denominations (sometimes called the Seven Sisters) are:
American Baptist Church
Disciples of Christ
Congregationalist/United Church of Christ
The Episcopal Church
Evangelical Lutheran Church
Methodist Church
Presbyterian Church
All of these have been bleeding members at a furious rate for the last three decades. Numbering 31 million in 1960, today they have fewer than 20 million adherents.
“Of the nation's 25 largest denominations, only four are growing, according to the yearbook: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (up 1.6 percent to 5.9 million); the Assemblies of God (up 1 percent to 2.9 million); Jehovah's Witnesses (up 2 percent to 1.1 million) and the Church of God of Cleveland, Tenn. (up 2 percent to 1 million).”
Never go to Pew if you want accurate figures about religion. Let's start with a definitional issue: the Mormons are not a Christian denomination, no matter what they say. Neither are the Jehovah's Witnesses. Note what is not listed by Pew: the Catholic Church, because it is not a denomination. But it most assuredly IS growing, and is today the largest single Christian community in the country. Now will will finish up by looking at the rule of small numbers: when your church is miniscule, any gain will seem proportionally large. There are today in the United States about 5000 Romanian Greek Catholics. If, over the next year, they were to add 500 new members (which could happen, through immigration, marriage and childbirth), then we would have to say, with a 10% annual growth rate, it was by far the fastest growing Church in the U.S. The Romanians happen to have a monastery in California. It grew by 25% last year, when it added a fifth monk. Small numbers are deceptive and subject to massive fluctuations.
"Heavens, let’s not be egalitarian because, God knows, Jesus placed men above women and heterosexuals above homosexuals."
It's not about "over" or "under". It's about hierarchy and order (taxis). And above all, it is seeking perfection in Christ. But until you accept that, it's pointless arguing with you, because you just don't get it. Or you really aren't that serious.
12.10.2010 | 11:36am
Stuart Koehl says:
""Wow," I thought. Such a statement has implications for the dogma of Papal Infallibility."
Don't it, though? However, of more significance are paragraphs 35-39 of the Ravenna Statement issued by the Joint International Orthodox-Catholic Theological Commission, which talks about the role and nature of ecumenical councils. I recommend it to you.
Don't it, though? However, of more significance are paragraphs 35-39 of the Ravenna Statement issued by the Joint International Orthodox-Catholic Theological Commission, which talks about the role and nature of ecumenical councils. I recommend it to you.
12.10.2010 | 12:16pm
Lewis says:
“power and true holiness within the Church are open only to those who administer the sacraments”
Ok. You tell me which positions in Catholicism are open only to men and which are open only to women and why this discrimination is not discriminatory.
“Never go to Pew if you want accurate figures about religion”
Where do you go?
“Note what is not listed by Pew: the Catholic Church, because it is not a denomination. But it most assuredly IS growing, and is today the largest single Christian community in the country”
Wrong. It is listed by Pew, and it isn’t growing: “With more than 67 million members, the Catholic Church continues to far outnumber other American denominations. But Catholics lost nearly 400,000 members between 2006 and 2007, according to the yearbook.”
“It's not about "over" or "under". It's about hierarchy and order (taxis)”
Explain what hierarchy (literally, rule by priests) is if it isn’t about placing some people over others.
“above all, it is seeking perfection in Christ. But until you accept that, it's pointless arguing with you, because you just don't get it”
My mainline church seeks perfection in Christ, and genitalia is not one of the criteria for belonging to the hierarchy.
Ok. You tell me which positions in Catholicism are open only to men and which are open only to women and why this discrimination is not discriminatory.
“Never go to Pew if you want accurate figures about religion”
Where do you go?
“Note what is not listed by Pew: the Catholic Church, because it is not a denomination. But it most assuredly IS growing, and is today the largest single Christian community in the country”
Wrong. It is listed by Pew, and it isn’t growing: “With more than 67 million members, the Catholic Church continues to far outnumber other American denominations. But Catholics lost nearly 400,000 members between 2006 and 2007, according to the yearbook.”
“It's not about "over" or "under". It's about hierarchy and order (taxis)”
Explain what hierarchy (literally, rule by priests) is if it isn’t about placing some people over others.
“above all, it is seeking perfection in Christ. But until you accept that, it's pointless arguing with you, because you just don't get it”
My mainline church seeks perfection in Christ, and genitalia is not one of the criteria for belonging to the hierarchy.
12.10.2010 | 1:00pm
Stuart Koehl says:
""Wow," I thought. Such a statement has implications for the dogma of Papal Infallibility."
No matter how much I try, I can never be a mother. Neither can you. There are many gifts within the Church, and only a small handful are reserved specifically for men. I would say they are not even the most important ones. Throughout its history, the Church has upheld the ontological equality of men and women, even while reserving the sacerdotal ministry for men. One cannot point to the "sexism" of the classical world, since at the time of Christ and the Apostles, the world was full of cults with priestesses--including a number of cults exclusively for women. Only the Jews had an exclusively male priesthood, but then, only the Jews were exclusively monotheist.
Christians don't even have a "priesthood" in the sense of an elite that serves as intermediaries between God and man. Christ is the one true high priest, and all who have been baptized share in his priesthood. That is why the titles given to the sacerdotal ministers of the Church do not include "hieros". Instead, we have diakonoi (servants), prebyteroi (elders) and episcopoi (stewards), all of which are adopted from Jewish synagogue offices, all of which are exclusively ministries of service. It is you who elevates them to a position over and above the laity of which they are an integral part--which is why you are a clericalist.
Now, if you look at the history of the Church, you will see that women have always held positions of great influence and authority in the Church, without ever being bishops or presbyters. Among the most influential women have been monastics--a vocation open to all men and women, and (as an Eastern Christian) one which I see as absolutely critical to the life of the Church, since monastics are the spiritual exemplars whom all of us are called to emulate.
Other women have influenced the Church simply as ordinary laywomen--as teachers, as preachers, as evangelists. For examples, you can look to such women as Saint Nino (evangelist of Georgia), called Isapostolos (Equal to the Apostles); St. Macrina (the "Fourth Cappodocian"); St. Olympios (Protodeaconess of Constantinople and friend of John Chrysostom); and St. Olhia (Evangelist of the Kyivan Rus). I could find more examples, in addition to the countless anonymous women who have maintained and taught the true faith through the ages in their sacred roles as wives and mothers.
"Explain what hierarchy (literally, rule by priests) is if it isn’t about placing some people over others."
There is hierarchy in the Holy Trinity, but there is no subordination. The Father is the Father, the Archos Anarche; the Son is the Only-Begotten Logos; the Spirit is the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father. All are equally God, therefore none is inferior to the others, yet the Father remains the Father. The Trinity is the model of the Church, and also the model of all human relations (man being created in the image and likeness of God. The Trinity is a perfect communion, in which each member knows the other as He knows himself, and each defers to the other according to his nature and his gifts. So it is for us. Your main issue is an inability to recognize that men and women are complementary aspects of the divine nature, and that they are not interchangeable pieces.
"My mainline church seeks perfection in Christ, and genitalia is not one of the criteria for belonging to the hierarchy."
Good luck with that.
No matter how much I try, I can never be a mother. Neither can you. There are many gifts within the Church, and only a small handful are reserved specifically for men. I would say they are not even the most important ones. Throughout its history, the Church has upheld the ontological equality of men and women, even while reserving the sacerdotal ministry for men. One cannot point to the "sexism" of the classical world, since at the time of Christ and the Apostles, the world was full of cults with priestesses--including a number of cults exclusively for women. Only the Jews had an exclusively male priesthood, but then, only the Jews were exclusively monotheist.
Christians don't even have a "priesthood" in the sense of an elite that serves as intermediaries between God and man. Christ is the one true high priest, and all who have been baptized share in his priesthood. That is why the titles given to the sacerdotal ministers of the Church do not include "hieros". Instead, we have diakonoi (servants), prebyteroi (elders) and episcopoi (stewards), all of which are adopted from Jewish synagogue offices, all of which are exclusively ministries of service. It is you who elevates them to a position over and above the laity of which they are an integral part--which is why you are a clericalist.
Now, if you look at the history of the Church, you will see that women have always held positions of great influence and authority in the Church, without ever being bishops or presbyters. Among the most influential women have been monastics--a vocation open to all men and women, and (as an Eastern Christian) one which I see as absolutely critical to the life of the Church, since monastics are the spiritual exemplars whom all of us are called to emulate.
Other women have influenced the Church simply as ordinary laywomen--as teachers, as preachers, as evangelists. For examples, you can look to such women as Saint Nino (evangelist of Georgia), called Isapostolos (Equal to the Apostles); St. Macrina (the "Fourth Cappodocian"); St. Olympios (Protodeaconess of Constantinople and friend of John Chrysostom); and St. Olhia (Evangelist of the Kyivan Rus). I could find more examples, in addition to the countless anonymous women who have maintained and taught the true faith through the ages in their sacred roles as wives and mothers.
"Explain what hierarchy (literally, rule by priests) is if it isn’t about placing some people over others."
There is hierarchy in the Holy Trinity, but there is no subordination. The Father is the Father, the Archos Anarche; the Son is the Only-Begotten Logos; the Spirit is the Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father. All are equally God, therefore none is inferior to the others, yet the Father remains the Father. The Trinity is the model of the Church, and also the model of all human relations (man being created in the image and likeness of God. The Trinity is a perfect communion, in which each member knows the other as He knows himself, and each defers to the other according to his nature and his gifts. So it is for us. Your main issue is an inability to recognize that men and women are complementary aspects of the divine nature, and that they are not interchangeable pieces.
"My mainline church seeks perfection in Christ, and genitalia is not one of the criteria for belonging to the hierarchy."
Good luck with that.
12.10.2010 | 1:48pm
PadreOP says:
Stuart,
Regarding your reply to my comment, where you said:
"Reception is the only criterion for determining whether any statement is true. Nothing is true a priori. I believe the Pope is infallible when he speaks the truth. But just because he says something is infallible does not mean it is."
I'm sorry, but that is not a correct understanding of the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. Reception has NOTHING to do with papal infallibility whatsoever. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Rather, what we believe about papal infallibility as Catholics can be best summarized from this critical passage from Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, n. 25):
"And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*)"
That says it as plainly as possible. When the pope, acting under the specific conditions outlined, pronounces definitively a doctrine regarding faith or morals, that doctrine is infallibly true. Such a pronouncement needs no approval of others, does not require the consent of anyone else in the Church (or outside of it, for that matter), and cannot be appealed to any other authority.
"Reception" is, quite frankly, irrelevant.
However, I agree with you on one important point. It is NOT infallibly true just because the pope says it is; rather, it is infallibly true because the Holy Spirit *guarantees* that it is. In other words, when the pope definitively pronounces a doctrine under the requisite conditions, it is not that the pope is somehow *making* that doctrine true by means of his words. Rather, by his office he is confirming and declaring for all the world to know, without any doubt, by the authority of the Holy Spirit, that such-and-such a doctrine is revealed truth. It is not true because the man (who happens to be pope) has declared it so; it is true because the power of the Holy Spirit bestows the charism of infallibility upon one holding the office of pope in a singular way.
Regarding your reply to my comment, where you said:
"Reception is the only criterion for determining whether any statement is true. Nothing is true a priori. I believe the Pope is infallible when he speaks the truth. But just because he says something is infallible does not mean it is."
I'm sorry, but that is not a correct understanding of the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. Reception has NOTHING to do with papal infallibility whatsoever. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Rather, what we believe about papal infallibility as Catholics can be best summarized from this critical passage from Vatican II (Lumen Gentium, n. 25):
"And this infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be endowed in defining doctrine of faith and morals, extends as far as the deposit of Revelation extends, which must be religiously guarded and faithfully expounded. And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*)"
That says it as plainly as possible. When the pope, acting under the specific conditions outlined, pronounces definitively a doctrine regarding faith or morals, that doctrine is infallibly true. Such a pronouncement needs no approval of others, does not require the consent of anyone else in the Church (or outside of it, for that matter), and cannot be appealed to any other authority.
"Reception" is, quite frankly, irrelevant.
However, I agree with you on one important point. It is NOT infallibly true just because the pope says it is; rather, it is infallibly true because the Holy Spirit *guarantees* that it is. In other words, when the pope definitively pronounces a doctrine under the requisite conditions, it is not that the pope is somehow *making* that doctrine true by means of his words. Rather, by his office he is confirming and declaring for all the world to know, without any doubt, by the authority of the Holy Spirit, that such-and-such a doctrine is revealed truth. It is not true because the man (who happens to be pope) has declared it so; it is true because the power of the Holy Spirit bestows the charism of infallibility upon one holding the office of pope in a singular way.
12.10.2010 | 2:33pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"I'm sorry, but that is not a correct understanding of the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. Reception has NOTHING to do with papal infallibility whatsoever. Nothing. "
I am reminded of a comment by the Ukrainian canonist, Fr. Victor Popshistil, who said, "According to the canons, the Pope is an absolute monarch--except when he chooses not to be".
The truth is, the Pope almost never chooses to be, and those Popes throughout history who tried came to sticky ends. The Pope, in reality, is a constitutional monarch whose principal job is to mediate within a consensus. He cannot force the bishops to do anything if they do not wish to do it (just look at the way in which the U.S. bishops regularly circumvent the pontifical will), and so he must bring them along with him.
As a practical matter, and regardless of what Pastor aeternus might say, reception is everything. And no pope will ever speak ex Cathedra, unless he has the kind of moral unanimity behind him that will guarantee reception. Which is why, quite frankly, the whole issue of papal infallibility is moot: the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church has changed so dramatically since 1871 that the requisite moral unanimity could never be mustered, particularly as both Lumen gentium and Unitatis redintegratio imply that the views of the other Apostolic Churches must be considered at all times.
"That says it as plainly as possible. When the pope, acting under the specific conditions outlined, pronounces definitively a doctrine regarding faith or morals, that doctrine is infallibly true."
I rather think that Patriarch Gregorios I Yousef was right and Pius IX was wrong, and things seem to be moving towards my point of view.
"Rather, by his office he is confirming and declaring for all the world to know, without any doubt, by the authority of the Holy Spirit, that such-and-such a doctrine is revealed truth. It is not true because the man (who happens to be pope) has declared it so; it is true because the power of the Holy Spirit bestows the charism of infallibility upon one holding the office of pope in a singular way."
I am glad you have such faith in the controversial formulation of a rather dubious general council of the Western Church. As an Eastern Catholic, I really don't. I doubt my Patriarch does, either. In the end, the imperative of Christian unity will result in all of Pastor aeternus being "clarified" in a manner that renders it moot, even if it does not strike it from the books.
To paraphrase something often said about the CIA, "The Catholic Church might not always be right, but it is NEVER wrong".
I am reminded of a comment by the Ukrainian canonist, Fr. Victor Popshistil, who said, "According to the canons, the Pope is an absolute monarch--except when he chooses not to be".
The truth is, the Pope almost never chooses to be, and those Popes throughout history who tried came to sticky ends. The Pope, in reality, is a constitutional monarch whose principal job is to mediate within a consensus. He cannot force the bishops to do anything if they do not wish to do it (just look at the way in which the U.S. bishops regularly circumvent the pontifical will), and so he must bring them along with him.
As a practical matter, and regardless of what Pastor aeternus might say, reception is everything. And no pope will ever speak ex Cathedra, unless he has the kind of moral unanimity behind him that will guarantee reception. Which is why, quite frankly, the whole issue of papal infallibility is moot: the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church has changed so dramatically since 1871 that the requisite moral unanimity could never be mustered, particularly as both Lumen gentium and Unitatis redintegratio imply that the views of the other Apostolic Churches must be considered at all times.
"That says it as plainly as possible. When the pope, acting under the specific conditions outlined, pronounces definitively a doctrine regarding faith or morals, that doctrine is infallibly true."
I rather think that Patriarch Gregorios I Yousef was right and Pius IX was wrong, and things seem to be moving towards my point of view.
"Rather, by his office he is confirming and declaring for all the world to know, without any doubt, by the authority of the Holy Spirit, that such-and-such a doctrine is revealed truth. It is not true because the man (who happens to be pope) has declared it so; it is true because the power of the Holy Spirit bestows the charism of infallibility upon one holding the office of pope in a singular way."
I am glad you have such faith in the controversial formulation of a rather dubious general council of the Western Church. As an Eastern Catholic, I really don't. I doubt my Patriarch does, either. In the end, the imperative of Christian unity will result in all of Pastor aeternus being "clarified" in a manner that renders it moot, even if it does not strike it from the books.
To paraphrase something often said about the CIA, "The Catholic Church might not always be right, but it is NEVER wrong".
12.10.2010 | 2:42pm
Lewis says:
""Wow," I thought. Such a statement has implications for the dogma of Papal Infallibility."
I didn’t say that.
“No matter how much I try, I can never be a mother. Neither can you. There are many gifts within the Church, and only a small handful are reserved specifically for men.”
The Church doesn’t “reserve” motherhood for women; biology does.
“reserving the sacerdotal ministry for men”
On what basis is it reserved for men?
“That is why the titles given to the sacerdotal ministers of the Church do not include "hieros".”
So now you’re telling me that the sacerdotal structure is not hierarchical when before you said, “It's about hierarchy and order.” Please clarify.
“if you look at the history of the Church, you will see that women have always held positions of great influence and authority in the Church, without ever being bishops or presbyters”
As I read through the comments in this column, I see people citing popes, patriarchs, theologians, and councils, but not a single woman. Exactly how did women wield their “great influence and authority”?
“Among the most influential women have been monastics--a vocation open to all men and women”
Is it just coincidence that the “positions of great influence” that women hold are also “open to all”?
“Other women have influenced the Church simply as ordinary laywomen”
But that’s the point, isn’t it? They’ve been “ordinary laywomen.” They’ve had to achieve influence through means outside holding positions of influence.
“Your main issue is an inability to recognize that men and women are complementary aspects of the divine nature, and that they are not interchangeable pieces.”
Yes, I agree that people are not “interchangeable pieces.” We each have gifts to offer. But after procreation and birth, they’re not tied to biology.
“men and women are complementary aspects of the divine nature”
And yet in Christ there is neither male nor female.
“Good luck with that.”
Thanks. You, too.
I didn’t say that.
“No matter how much I try, I can never be a mother. Neither can you. There are many gifts within the Church, and only a small handful are reserved specifically for men.”
The Church doesn’t “reserve” motherhood for women; biology does.
“reserving the sacerdotal ministry for men”
On what basis is it reserved for men?
“That is why the titles given to the sacerdotal ministers of the Church do not include "hieros".”
So now you’re telling me that the sacerdotal structure is not hierarchical when before you said, “It's about hierarchy and order.” Please clarify.
“if you look at the history of the Church, you will see that women have always held positions of great influence and authority in the Church, without ever being bishops or presbyters”
As I read through the comments in this column, I see people citing popes, patriarchs, theologians, and councils, but not a single woman. Exactly how did women wield their “great influence and authority”?
“Among the most influential women have been monastics--a vocation open to all men and women”
Is it just coincidence that the “positions of great influence” that women hold are also “open to all”?
“Other women have influenced the Church simply as ordinary laywomen”
But that’s the point, isn’t it? They’ve been “ordinary laywomen.” They’ve had to achieve influence through means outside holding positions of influence.
“Your main issue is an inability to recognize that men and women are complementary aspects of the divine nature, and that they are not interchangeable pieces.”
Yes, I agree that people are not “interchangeable pieces.” We each have gifts to offer. But after procreation and birth, they’re not tied to biology.
“men and women are complementary aspects of the divine nature”
And yet in Christ there is neither male nor female.
“Good luck with that.”
Thanks. You, too.
12.10.2010 | 3:06pm
"reception is everything. And no pope will ever speak ex Cathedra, unless he has the kind of moral unanimity behind him that will guarantee reception."
It would be quite surprising if Pope BXVI did not have a reception of "moral unanimity" among the senior hierarchy of Rome to declare ex cathedra the banning of WO.
Finito. End of discussion. Case closed. Nuke dropped. Internal subversives and agitators of WO can either be disciplined or become Anglicans.
Continuity. Unity. Moral Unanimity. Reception. Ex Cathedra "Papal Infallibility." No WO, No Woe.
It would be quite surprising if Pope BXVI did not have a reception of "moral unanimity" among the senior hierarchy of Rome to declare ex cathedra the banning of WO.
Finito. End of discussion. Case closed. Nuke dropped. Internal subversives and agitators of WO can either be disciplined or become Anglicans.
Continuity. Unity. Moral Unanimity. Reception. Ex Cathedra "Papal Infallibility." No WO, No Woe.
12.10.2010 | 3:49pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"It would be quite surprising if Pope BXVI did not have a reception of "moral unanimity" among the senior hierarchy of Rome to declare ex cathedra the banning of WO."
It's not simply a matter of the senior hierarchy of Rome, it's all the Apostolic Churches. The Orthodox, and most Eastern Catholics, simply would not support any ex Cathedra declaration on general principle (i.e., they simply don't think the Pope has that kind of authority).
Moreover, and contrary to your subsequent conclusion: "Finito. End of discussion. Case closed. Nuke dropped. Internal subversives and agitators of WO can either be disciplined or become Anglicans.", the subject would not be closed, simply because such appeals to authority are neither spiritually nor intellectually convincing.
What is really needed, as Metropolitan Kallistos has suggested, is the development of a coherent doctrinal reason WHY women cannot be ordained (since most of the ones being put forward now are either weak or contradict other arguments put forth against women's ordination). This would require some prayerful discernment and deep scholarship on the part of the best minds of the Church, who could then put forth their reasoning before a general council (hopefully one that involves all the Churches), and which, if adopted with the kind of unanimity required for a council to be ecumenically binding, finally will put the issue to rest.
It's not simply a matter of the senior hierarchy of Rome, it's all the Apostolic Churches. The Orthodox, and most Eastern Catholics, simply would not support any ex Cathedra declaration on general principle (i.e., they simply don't think the Pope has that kind of authority).
Moreover, and contrary to your subsequent conclusion: "Finito. End of discussion. Case closed. Nuke dropped. Internal subversives and agitators of WO can either be disciplined or become Anglicans.", the subject would not be closed, simply because such appeals to authority are neither spiritually nor intellectually convincing.
What is really needed, as Metropolitan Kallistos has suggested, is the development of a coherent doctrinal reason WHY women cannot be ordained (since most of the ones being put forward now are either weak or contradict other arguments put forth against women's ordination). This would require some prayerful discernment and deep scholarship on the part of the best minds of the Church, who could then put forth their reasoning before a general council (hopefully one that involves all the Churches), and which, if adopted with the kind of unanimity required for a council to be ecumenically binding, finally will put the issue to rest.
12.10.2010 | 4:13pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"I didn’t say that."
No, you didn't. I pasted the wrong snippet. Sorry.
"The Church doesn’t “reserve” motherhood for women; biology does. "
The Church takes cognizance of biology, since man is a psychosomatic entity.
"On what basis is it reserved for men? "
Good question. At the most fundamental level, because it always has, and the Church passes down (paradoke) that which it receives in unbroken line back to the Apostles. For those of us who follow the Byzantine-Orthodox Tradition (even in communion with Rome), there is an inherent inclination to give the benefit of the doubt to those who came before us--what Chesterton called extending the franchise to our ancestors, and what Pelikan called the living faith of the dead. The Church never ordained women, and it would be an innovation to begin now. As Metropolitan Kallistos of Deiocleia has analogized, the Church is like a house we want to redecorate. In the middle of the living room, there is an inconvenient pillar, and it would be a much nicer room, we think, if we could knock it down. But it would be foolish to do so, until we have ascertained that the pillar is not in fact holding up the roof. The male presbyterate is much like that inconvenient pillar. And Kyr Kallistos is not unsympathetic to the idea of ordaining women.
Myself, I have no problem with the notion of restoring the order of the Deaconess, because there is an historical precedent for it, canons regulating it, and texts indicating how it is to be done. Deaconesses were never suppressed; the office was never abolished, it simply fell into desuetude. On the other hand, the Church never ordained women to the presbyterate.
There are many theological reasons for this, and I will not go into all of them. As Kyr Kallistos points out, many of them are rather weak, others are mutually contradictory. I am willing to wait until the Church formulates a coherent rationale, which may take time, just as it took something like fifty years to formulate a coherent doctrine of the Trinity, and something like two centuries to synthesize a coherent Christology.
"Exactly how did women wield their “great influence and authority”?"
The way women always do and always will. I recommend you read the lives of some of the women I posited as examples, to which you might want to add St. Bridget, St. Catherine of Siena, Hildegard von Bingen and others from the Western Church. I also recommend to you the exhortation of St. Francis of Assisi to his followers: "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words, if you must".
"And yet in Christ there is neither male nor female. "
Indeed. Yet Christ was very much a man. I suggest you suffer from the scandal of particularity. Meditate more on what Paul meant than on a facile exegesis of the words.
"So now you’re telling me that the sacerdotal structure is not hierarchical when before you said, “It's about hierarchy and order.” Please clarify. "
Certainly. In a very narrow and technical sense, the word hierarchy literally means "rule of priests". More generally, it means a structure of authority, an order by which any society, even a heavenly one, must function. The Church has a hierarchy, because even the Trinity, which is the model of the Church, has a hierarchy. But the hierarchy of the Church is not one of power, but of service, which is why there are no order of "hieros" within the Church. As I said, the orders established by the Apostles are those of service: diakonos, presbyteros, episkopos. Christ is our one true High Priest, and we are all members of his royal priesthood. Which is why it does not bother me (or my wife, or my two daughters) that women cannot stand at the Holy Table to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, or administer the sacraments. These are just ministries which we, the Laos tou Theou, depute to men we have selected to serve in our place. As Christ says, he who would be the ruler of all must first become the slave of all. And that is what Holy Orders is really about--not power, not authority, not pomp, not perquisites. John Chrysostom, in fact, wrote that the person who wants to be a priest is the last person who should be allowed to become one. I think he had an excellent point. He, himself, did not seek out the priesthood, calling it "a burden from which a sane man will flee"--which he actually did. That's a rather paradoxical form of hierarchy, isn't it, where those notionally on top are in fact at the beck and call of everyone else?
No, you didn't. I pasted the wrong snippet. Sorry.
"The Church doesn’t “reserve” motherhood for women; biology does. "
The Church takes cognizance of biology, since man is a psychosomatic entity.
"On what basis is it reserved for men? "
Good question. At the most fundamental level, because it always has, and the Church passes down (paradoke) that which it receives in unbroken line back to the Apostles. For those of us who follow the Byzantine-Orthodox Tradition (even in communion with Rome), there is an inherent inclination to give the benefit of the doubt to those who came before us--what Chesterton called extending the franchise to our ancestors, and what Pelikan called the living faith of the dead. The Church never ordained women, and it would be an innovation to begin now. As Metropolitan Kallistos of Deiocleia has analogized, the Church is like a house we want to redecorate. In the middle of the living room, there is an inconvenient pillar, and it would be a much nicer room, we think, if we could knock it down. But it would be foolish to do so, until we have ascertained that the pillar is not in fact holding up the roof. The male presbyterate is much like that inconvenient pillar. And Kyr Kallistos is not unsympathetic to the idea of ordaining women.
Myself, I have no problem with the notion of restoring the order of the Deaconess, because there is an historical precedent for it, canons regulating it, and texts indicating how it is to be done. Deaconesses were never suppressed; the office was never abolished, it simply fell into desuetude. On the other hand, the Church never ordained women to the presbyterate.
There are many theological reasons for this, and I will not go into all of them. As Kyr Kallistos points out, many of them are rather weak, others are mutually contradictory. I am willing to wait until the Church formulates a coherent rationale, which may take time, just as it took something like fifty years to formulate a coherent doctrine of the Trinity, and something like two centuries to synthesize a coherent Christology.
"Exactly how did women wield their “great influence and authority”?"
The way women always do and always will. I recommend you read the lives of some of the women I posited as examples, to which you might want to add St. Bridget, St. Catherine of Siena, Hildegard von Bingen and others from the Western Church. I also recommend to you the exhortation of St. Francis of Assisi to his followers: "Preach the Gospel at all times. Use words, if you must".
"And yet in Christ there is neither male nor female. "
Indeed. Yet Christ was very much a man. I suggest you suffer from the scandal of particularity. Meditate more on what Paul meant than on a facile exegesis of the words.
"So now you’re telling me that the sacerdotal structure is not hierarchical when before you said, “It's about hierarchy and order.” Please clarify. "
Certainly. In a very narrow and technical sense, the word hierarchy literally means "rule of priests". More generally, it means a structure of authority, an order by which any society, even a heavenly one, must function. The Church has a hierarchy, because even the Trinity, which is the model of the Church, has a hierarchy. But the hierarchy of the Church is not one of power, but of service, which is why there are no order of "hieros" within the Church. As I said, the orders established by the Apostles are those of service: diakonos, presbyteros, episkopos. Christ is our one true High Priest, and we are all members of his royal priesthood. Which is why it does not bother me (or my wife, or my two daughters) that women cannot stand at the Holy Table to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, or administer the sacraments. These are just ministries which we, the Laos tou Theou, depute to men we have selected to serve in our place. As Christ says, he who would be the ruler of all must first become the slave of all. And that is what Holy Orders is really about--not power, not authority, not pomp, not perquisites. John Chrysostom, in fact, wrote that the person who wants to be a priest is the last person who should be allowed to become one. I think he had an excellent point. He, himself, did not seek out the priesthood, calling it "a burden from which a sane man will flee"--which he actually did. That's a rather paradoxical form of hierarchy, isn't it, where those notionally on top are in fact at the beck and call of everyone else?
12.11.2010 | 12:43am
patricksarsfield says:
After I carefully showed that Peter pronounced the definitive ruling on circumcision at the Council of Jerusalem and supported my position with quotation of chapter and verse, Stuart issued this ipse dixit without any support at all:
"James presided, James summarized, and in the end, James pronounced the formula adopted by the Council. James was Bishop of Jerusalem, and while Peter may have been first among the Apostles, it is clear he did not wield the plena potestas later claimed on his behalf. In fact, he defers to James, and accepted the Church's decision to make him the Apostle to Circumcision, and Paul to the Gentiles."
Where does Acts say that James presided at the Council? C&V?? In fact, Acts never talks about James's presiding. Where does Acts talk about Peter "deferring" to James. In fact, it doesn't. James, in truth, backed down from the position his people had taken before Peter's return to Jerusalem and Peter's ruling on the question before the Council as the head of the Mission to the Gentiles.
As to James's being the bishop of Jerusalem that is mentioned nowhere in the account of Acts. However, even if one accepts that as a fact, that was a function of Peter's going on the lam when he escaped Herod's Jail. Prior to Peter's going on the lam, though, it was Peter who ran the Church in Jerusalem. Acts 1:15-12:18. James is not mentioned by name once in Acts until 12:18 when Peter tells the servant to let James know Peter was going on the lam. And as to Stuart's point on whether Peter could openly go back to the city from which he escaped prison, it makes little sense at all:
"Also, Peter had nothing to fear from Herod Agrippa, since he was safely dead at the time of the Council (in fact, he died in AD 44), Rome then governing Judaea as a province under a procurator (not a praefect, as was the case under Pontius Pilate) subordinated to the governor of Syria."
This is like saying that Willy Sutton (the bank robber who famously escaped prison in 1950 during Tom Dewey's Governorship of NY and is still well known because he supposedly uttered the bon mot "I rob banks because that is where the money is"), would have been able to travel freely about Manhattan--where he was captured in Feb. 1952--had he only managed to stay at large until Averell Harriman's governorship started.
"James presided, James summarized, and in the end, James pronounced the formula adopted by the Council. James was Bishop of Jerusalem, and while Peter may have been first among the Apostles, it is clear he did not wield the plena potestas later claimed on his behalf. In fact, he defers to James, and accepted the Church's decision to make him the Apostle to Circumcision, and Paul to the Gentiles."
Where does Acts say that James presided at the Council? C&V?? In fact, Acts never talks about James's presiding. Where does Acts talk about Peter "deferring" to James. In fact, it doesn't. James, in truth, backed down from the position his people had taken before Peter's return to Jerusalem and Peter's ruling on the question before the Council as the head of the Mission to the Gentiles.
As to James's being the bishop of Jerusalem that is mentioned nowhere in the account of Acts. However, even if one accepts that as a fact, that was a function of Peter's going on the lam when he escaped Herod's Jail. Prior to Peter's going on the lam, though, it was Peter who ran the Church in Jerusalem. Acts 1:15-12:18. James is not mentioned by name once in Acts until 12:18 when Peter tells the servant to let James know Peter was going on the lam. And as to Stuart's point on whether Peter could openly go back to the city from which he escaped prison, it makes little sense at all:
"Also, Peter had nothing to fear from Herod Agrippa, since he was safely dead at the time of the Council (in fact, he died in AD 44), Rome then governing Judaea as a province under a procurator (not a praefect, as was the case under Pontius Pilate) subordinated to the governor of Syria."
This is like saying that Willy Sutton (the bank robber who famously escaped prison in 1950 during Tom Dewey's Governorship of NY and is still well known because he supposedly uttered the bon mot "I rob banks because that is where the money is"), would have been able to travel freely about Manhattan--where he was captured in Feb. 1952--had he only managed to stay at large until Averell Harriman's governorship started.
12.11.2010 | 8:25am
Stuart Koehl says:
Patrick,
Your attempt at New Testament history does not sway me. When Paul first returned to Jerusalem after his conversion, he met with the "Pillars of the Church"--James, John and Kephas. As Acts recounts, both Peter (Kephas) and John had to depart from Jerusalem because of Herod I Agrippa's persecution (not of the whole Church, mind you--just John and Peter). That leaves James as the one remaining pillar of the Church in Jerusalem. He is, in short, the bishop. Josephus confirms his position, as does Acts later on, when Paul returns at the end of third mission (which ends with his arrest). The man who heads a local Church is its bishop, and when he lists the bishops of Jerusalem, Eusebius starts with James.
On who presided at the Council, an objective (as opposed to apologetic) examination can only conclude it's James--particularly if you know anything about how such meeting were conducted in the first century. The person with primacy speaks first and last, whether it is the Emperor or consuls before the Roman Senate, or the presiding bishop before a synod of the Church. So what does Acts say?
When the Council begins, "there had been much dispute" (Acts 7). Peter rises and speaks (Acts 8-11), giving his position. Then Barnabas and Paul address the synod, telling of their work among the Gentiles (Acts 12).
"Then James answered, saying, 'Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord.
Even the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the Lord who does all these things.
'Known to God from eternity are all his works. THEREFORE I JUDGE that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.' (Acts 13-21)
Gee, sure sounds like James not only presides, but rules. He interprets the testimony given by others, including Peter, Paul and Barnabas in the light of Scripture; he determines that Peter's testimony is in agreement with the Prophets of the Old Testament; and he decides on the solution by recognizing the consensus of the Apostles in the light of Scripture. And when James says "I judge", he does not mean, "I think" or "In my humble opinion", he is making the final decision, which is not his alone, but the summary of the Council as a whole--the moral unanimity required for the reception of such a decision.
Furthermore, the Council then drafts a letter (Acts 22-29), which is considered the first piece of canon law, that codifies the decision made by James in the name of the Council, and entrusts it to Paul, Barnabas and Silas to deliver to the Church in Antioch.
Was Peter considered first among the Twelve? Yes. Did he have a special position of leadership because of that? Yes. Was he the "first Pope"? Certainly not--the very notion of a first century papacy is a rank anachronism, as is the notion of Peter being "bishop", whether in Jerusalem, or Rome or anywhere else. First of all, the rank of Apostle is sui generis--they were commissioned by Christ himself, and a such had a unique and never-to-be-repeated position within the Church; while the position of bishop is derivative of the authority of the Apostles, who selected and ordained the first bishops. Second, it was well into the second century that there was a unified Church in Rome with a unified episcopate, and Peter most certainly was not sole head of the Churches in Rome. In fact, he was probably a relative latecomer to Rome, given Claudius' expulsion of the Jews in AD 48-49 and could not go there until the accession of Nero in AD 54. Given Peter was in Jerusalem until about AD 43-44, and then goes to Caesarea (outside of Herod Agrippa's realm) and runs into Paul in Antioch, he would have had very little opportunity to get to Rome before the ban, let alone return from it in time for the Council. At best Peter got to Rome during the reign of Nero, and found a number of thriving Christian communities there.
It should be significant, if Peter were indeed in Rome from an early date, that neither Acts nor any of the Pauline Epistles (particularly Romans) makes any mention of this fact. All we do know is Peter was in Rome by the early 60s, and was crucified on or near the Vatican Hill outside the city after the Great Fire. The testimony of the early Church, not to mention the archaeology of St. Peters Basilica all point in that direction. Contrary to legend, Peter and Paul did not die at the same time. Early Church tradition is equally unanimous that Paul was acquitted at his first trial (probably because no witnesses came forward against him), and that, on his release, he went on to Spain and preached there. Returning to Rome, he was probably caught up in the hysteria that marked the tail end of Nero's reign, was rearrested and executed by beheading some time around the year 66.
Your attempt at New Testament history does not sway me. When Paul first returned to Jerusalem after his conversion, he met with the "Pillars of the Church"--James, John and Kephas. As Acts recounts, both Peter (Kephas) and John had to depart from Jerusalem because of Herod I Agrippa's persecution (not of the whole Church, mind you--just John and Peter). That leaves James as the one remaining pillar of the Church in Jerusalem. He is, in short, the bishop. Josephus confirms his position, as does Acts later on, when Paul returns at the end of third mission (which ends with his arrest). The man who heads a local Church is its bishop, and when he lists the bishops of Jerusalem, Eusebius starts with James.
On who presided at the Council, an objective (as opposed to apologetic) examination can only conclude it's James--particularly if you know anything about how such meeting were conducted in the first century. The person with primacy speaks first and last, whether it is the Emperor or consuls before the Roman Senate, or the presiding bishop before a synod of the Church. So what does Acts say?
When the Council begins, "there had been much dispute" (Acts 7). Peter rises and speaks (Acts 8-11), giving his position. Then Barnabas and Paul address the synod, telling of their work among the Gentiles (Acts 12).
"Then James answered, saying, 'Men and brethren, listen to me: Simon has declared how God first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord.
Even the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the Lord who does all these things.
'Known to God from eternity are all his works. THEREFORE I JUDGE that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we should write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.' (Acts 13-21)
Gee, sure sounds like James not only presides, but rules. He interprets the testimony given by others, including Peter, Paul and Barnabas in the light of Scripture; he determines that Peter's testimony is in agreement with the Prophets of the Old Testament; and he decides on the solution by recognizing the consensus of the Apostles in the light of Scripture. And when James says "I judge", he does not mean, "I think" or "In my humble opinion", he is making the final decision, which is not his alone, but the summary of the Council as a whole--the moral unanimity required for the reception of such a decision.
Furthermore, the Council then drafts a letter (Acts 22-29), which is considered the first piece of canon law, that codifies the decision made by James in the name of the Council, and entrusts it to Paul, Barnabas and Silas to deliver to the Church in Antioch.
Was Peter considered first among the Twelve? Yes. Did he have a special position of leadership because of that? Yes. Was he the "first Pope"? Certainly not--the very notion of a first century papacy is a rank anachronism, as is the notion of Peter being "bishop", whether in Jerusalem, or Rome or anywhere else. First of all, the rank of Apostle is sui generis--they were commissioned by Christ himself, and a such had a unique and never-to-be-repeated position within the Church; while the position of bishop is derivative of the authority of the Apostles, who selected and ordained the first bishops. Second, it was well into the second century that there was a unified Church in Rome with a unified episcopate, and Peter most certainly was not sole head of the Churches in Rome. In fact, he was probably a relative latecomer to Rome, given Claudius' expulsion of the Jews in AD 48-49 and could not go there until the accession of Nero in AD 54. Given Peter was in Jerusalem until about AD 43-44, and then goes to Caesarea (outside of Herod Agrippa's realm) and runs into Paul in Antioch, he would have had very little opportunity to get to Rome before the ban, let alone return from it in time for the Council. At best Peter got to Rome during the reign of Nero, and found a number of thriving Christian communities there.
It should be significant, if Peter were indeed in Rome from an early date, that neither Acts nor any of the Pauline Epistles (particularly Romans) makes any mention of this fact. All we do know is Peter was in Rome by the early 60s, and was crucified on or near the Vatican Hill outside the city after the Great Fire. The testimony of the early Church, not to mention the archaeology of St. Peters Basilica all point in that direction. Contrary to legend, Peter and Paul did not die at the same time. Early Church tradition is equally unanimous that Paul was acquitted at his first trial (probably because no witnesses came forward against him), and that, on his release, he went on to Spain and preached there. Returning to Rome, he was probably caught up in the hysteria that marked the tail end of Nero's reign, was rearrested and executed by beheading some time around the year 66.
12.11.2010 | 8:34am
Stuart Koehl says:
"This is like saying that Willy Sutton (the bank robber who famously escaped prison in 1950 during Tom Dewey's Governorship of NY and is still well known because he supposedly uttered the bon mot "I rob banks because that is where the money is"), would have been able to travel freely about Manhattan--where he was captured in Feb. 1952--had he only managed to stay at large until Averell Harriman's governorship started."
A false analogy, Peter. Bank robbery was a crime in New York before Harriman, during Harriman, and, as far as I know, remains a crime to this day. So Willy Sutton would derive no benefit from any change in the governor of New York.
On the other hand, Herod Agrippa was made a sovereign (albeit client) king by the Emperor Claudius, and thus ruled absolutely over Judea and his other territories. When he died, Rome reassumed direct rule of all Agrippa's domain, which placed it under Roman--not Herodian--law. It was not illegal to be a Christian under Roman law. Neither was it illegal to be a Jewish heretic--such things were beyond the purview or interest of Rome, unless it caused disorder or sedition. Herod did not go after all Christians in any case: other than John, his brother James, and Peter, he does not seem to have bothered the Church at all. James Brother of the Lord remained at large, openly head of the community, and widely respected by pious Jews who did not follow Christ (his judicial murder by the high priest Annas in AD 62 was widely deplored, leading to a Jewish delegation to Rome demanding--and getting--Annas' removal from office). Paul, Barnabas, Silas and the rest of the visiting delegates to the Council of Jerusalem seem to have had no problems with the Roman authorities at that time, and even Paul, on his last visit to Jerusalem, was not bothered by the Romans, but was almost lynched by a Jewish mob. Of course, by the late 50s, the environment in Judaea and Jerusalem had changed significantly, becoming far more radicalized, violent, and hostile to diverse Jewish sects.
A false analogy, Peter. Bank robbery was a crime in New York before Harriman, during Harriman, and, as far as I know, remains a crime to this day. So Willy Sutton would derive no benefit from any change in the governor of New York.
On the other hand, Herod Agrippa was made a sovereign (albeit client) king by the Emperor Claudius, and thus ruled absolutely over Judea and his other territories. When he died, Rome reassumed direct rule of all Agrippa's domain, which placed it under Roman--not Herodian--law. It was not illegal to be a Christian under Roman law. Neither was it illegal to be a Jewish heretic--such things were beyond the purview or interest of Rome, unless it caused disorder or sedition. Herod did not go after all Christians in any case: other than John, his brother James, and Peter, he does not seem to have bothered the Church at all. James Brother of the Lord remained at large, openly head of the community, and widely respected by pious Jews who did not follow Christ (his judicial murder by the high priest Annas in AD 62 was widely deplored, leading to a Jewish delegation to Rome demanding--and getting--Annas' removal from office). Paul, Barnabas, Silas and the rest of the visiting delegates to the Council of Jerusalem seem to have had no problems with the Roman authorities at that time, and even Paul, on his last visit to Jerusalem, was not bothered by the Romans, but was almost lynched by a Jewish mob. Of course, by the late 50s, the environment in Judaea and Jerusalem had changed significantly, becoming far more radicalized, violent, and hostile to diverse Jewish sects.
12.11.2010 | 9:52am
"Was Peter considered first among the Twelve? Yes. Did he have a special position of leadership because of that? Yes. Was he the "first Pope"? Certainly not--the very notion of a first century papacy is a rank anachronism, as is the notion of Peter being "bishop", whether in Jerusalem, or Rome or anywhere else."
Stuart, your analysis is fascinating. Are there reputable Catholic historians and scholars who would agree and affirm your analysis? If any, can you cite them? They would be interesting to read.
Stuart, your analysis is fascinating. Are there reputable Catholic historians and scholars who would agree and affirm your analysis? If any, can you cite them? They would be interesting to read.
12.11.2010 | 9:30pm
The Sheepcat says:
I commend the essay "Ordination: Reviewing the 'Fundamental Reasons'" by Sister Sara Butler, MSBT, to readers seeking a cogent explanation of the reservation of priestly ordination to men. It may be noted that the author was once an advocate of the ordination of women.
http://www.wf-f.org/04-3-Ordination.html
@TUAD: Instead of wholesale defection to the Anglicans, a schismatic Catholic-lite sect with valid orders could easily result from any dropping of the "bomb." Far safer to wait out the subversives.
http://www.wf-f.org/04-3-Ordination.html
@TUAD: Instead of wholesale defection to the Anglicans, a schismatic Catholic-lite sect with valid orders could easily result from any dropping of the "bomb." Far safer to wait out the subversives.
12.12.2010 | 1:37am
Lewis says:
“I pasted the wrong snippet. Sorry.”
That’s ok. Thanks.
“As Kyr Kallistos points out, many of them are rather weak, others are mutually contradictory.”
I agree with Kallistos, then. And I find your answers either contradictory or ambivalent. You seem to think both that there are good reasons to prevent women from occupying most offices and that there are no good reasons. Being of two minds on an issue is fine, but I don’t see how it leads you to say things that seem absolutely opposed to women’s ordination like, “If anything, the trend will likely accelerate with the ordination of women and homosexuals to the episcopate driving more traditional Anglicans into the continuing communities (which do not ordain women) or into the new Anglican ordinariates being established within the Catholic Church.”
“I am willing to wait until the Church formulates a coherent rationale, which may take time, just as it took something like fifty years to formulate a coherent doctrine of the Trinity, and something like two centuries to synthesize a coherent Christology.”
Seems unlikely when there are no women at the table.
“I recommend you read the lives of some of the women I posited as examples, to which you might want to add St. Bridget, St. Catherine of Siena, Hildegard von Bingen and others from the Western Church.”
Given your allegiances, I’m surprised you didn’t mention Thecla. And where is Junia?
“I suggest you suffer from the scandal of particularity. Meditate more on what Paul meant than on a facile exegesis of the words”
No, I don’t think I either suffer or am facile. It’s as clear what Paul means by saying there is neither Jew nor Greek as it is that there is neither male nor female. The distinctions that matter to us don’t matter in Christ.
“Which is why it does not bother me (or my wife, or my two daughters) that women cannot stand at the Holy Table to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, or administer the sacraments”
Whether it bothers you, your wife, or your daughters is hardly the point. Lots of men are not called to ordination. But for those women who are, they are prevented by the Catholic Church from serving, and that’s wrong.
“that is what Holy Orders is really about--not power, not authority, not pomp, not perquisites. John Chrysostom, in fact, wrote that the person who wants to be a priest is the last person who should be allowed to become one. I think he had an excellent point. He, himself, did not seek out the priesthood, calling it "a burden from which a sane man will flee"--which he actually did. That's a rather paradoxical form of hierarchy, isn't it, where those notionally on top are in fact at the beck and call of everyone else”
Well, that’s what everybody likes to say, especially “public servants.” I serve my children 24/7, fixing meals, driving them hither and yon, and educating them, but the practical meaning of my “service” is that I set the rules and the bounds and they had better obey or else. Their obedience will eventually lead to greater independence for them, yada yada yada, but my service still means their obedience. The same is true when the doctor serves me and I must obey by giving up ice cream. The same is true when the men who are popes, bishops, and priests serve their parishioners by telling them what to do. Which is why all the influence you find that women have is indirect and not direct. You can point to saints and devotional writers but not to leaders and theologians.
“At the most fundamental level, because it always has, and the Church passes down (paradoke) that which it receives in unbroken line back to the Apostles”
In other words, habit.
“The Church never ordained women, and it would be an innovation to begin now.”
And yet it innovates in all kinds of ways over the centuries. As you point out, it innovated in creating the papacy and in creating infallibility. And I would add, in the West, mandatory clerical celibacy. So what makes women’s ordination so completely impossible?
That’s ok. Thanks.
“As Kyr Kallistos points out, many of them are rather weak, others are mutually contradictory.”
I agree with Kallistos, then. And I find your answers either contradictory or ambivalent. You seem to think both that there are good reasons to prevent women from occupying most offices and that there are no good reasons. Being of two minds on an issue is fine, but I don’t see how it leads you to say things that seem absolutely opposed to women’s ordination like, “If anything, the trend will likely accelerate with the ordination of women and homosexuals to the episcopate driving more traditional Anglicans into the continuing communities (which do not ordain women) or into the new Anglican ordinariates being established within the Catholic Church.”
“I am willing to wait until the Church formulates a coherent rationale, which may take time, just as it took something like fifty years to formulate a coherent doctrine of the Trinity, and something like two centuries to synthesize a coherent Christology.”
Seems unlikely when there are no women at the table.
“I recommend you read the lives of some of the women I posited as examples, to which you might want to add St. Bridget, St. Catherine of Siena, Hildegard von Bingen and others from the Western Church.”
Given your allegiances, I’m surprised you didn’t mention Thecla. And where is Junia?
“I suggest you suffer from the scandal of particularity. Meditate more on what Paul meant than on a facile exegesis of the words”
No, I don’t think I either suffer or am facile. It’s as clear what Paul means by saying there is neither Jew nor Greek as it is that there is neither male nor female. The distinctions that matter to us don’t matter in Christ.
“Which is why it does not bother me (or my wife, or my two daughters) that women cannot stand at the Holy Table to celebrate the Divine Liturgy, or administer the sacraments”
Whether it bothers you, your wife, or your daughters is hardly the point. Lots of men are not called to ordination. But for those women who are, they are prevented by the Catholic Church from serving, and that’s wrong.
“that is what Holy Orders is really about--not power, not authority, not pomp, not perquisites. John Chrysostom, in fact, wrote that the person who wants to be a priest is the last person who should be allowed to become one. I think he had an excellent point. He, himself, did not seek out the priesthood, calling it "a burden from which a sane man will flee"--which he actually did. That's a rather paradoxical form of hierarchy, isn't it, where those notionally on top are in fact at the beck and call of everyone else”
Well, that’s what everybody likes to say, especially “public servants.” I serve my children 24/7, fixing meals, driving them hither and yon, and educating them, but the practical meaning of my “service” is that I set the rules and the bounds and they had better obey or else. Their obedience will eventually lead to greater independence for them, yada yada yada, but my service still means their obedience. The same is true when the doctor serves me and I must obey by giving up ice cream. The same is true when the men who are popes, bishops, and priests serve their parishioners by telling them what to do. Which is why all the influence you find that women have is indirect and not direct. You can point to saints and devotional writers but not to leaders and theologians.
“At the most fundamental level, because it always has, and the Church passes down (paradoke) that which it receives in unbroken line back to the Apostles”
In other words, habit.
“The Church never ordained women, and it would be an innovation to begin now.”
And yet it innovates in all kinds of ways over the centuries. As you point out, it innovated in creating the papacy and in creating infallibility. And I would add, in the West, mandatory clerical celibacy. So what makes women’s ordination so completely impossible?
12.12.2010 | 7:34am
Stuart Koehl says:
I never inquire into the confessional affiliation of any author, unless he is writing in that capacity. There is good history and bad history, and the Church to which the historian belongs is irrelevant. Most of the best work in the field, as it turns out, is being done by Protestant theologians and historians--which does not stop Catholic historians and theologians from relying upon their work. Two works that I find particularly useful are Paul Barnett's "Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity" and H.H. Frend's "The Rise of Christianity". And there is always Henry Chadwick's classic
"The Early Church" from the Oxford History of Christianity series.
The earliest versions of the Liber Pontificalis, by the way, begin the list of the list of the Bishops of Rome with Linus, not Peter.
"The Early Church" from the Oxford History of Christianity series.
The earliest versions of the Liber Pontificalis, by the way, begin the list of the list of the Bishops of Rome with Linus, not Peter.
12.12.2010 | 7:54am
Stuart Koehl says:
"Given your allegiances, I’m surprised you didn’t mention Thecla. And where is Junia? "
Neither Thecla nor Junia were presbyters or bishops. Both were, according to the Byzantine Tradition, deaconesses. The Byzantine Church ordained deaconesses down t the thirteenth century, at which point the order just petered out (the Byzantines had rather larger issues with which to contend). It was never suppressed or abolished. From time to time, an Orthodox bishop ordains a deaconess, usually to serve in a female monastery. The Orthodox have been considering more widespread restoration of the order since the 1980s. Note also that the Eastern Churches use the term "apostle" (as it applies to Junia and elsewhere) in a rather broader sense than just the Twelve. The word in Greek means, simply, "those sent out", and it is applied to the Seventy, as well as to later missionaries. That Junia was an apostle is not particularly noteworthy to the East. After all, we venerate Mary Magdalene as "Apostle to the Apostles", yet she was never a presbyter or bishop.
Your fundamental problem, as I must continually remind you, is thinking of the Church as an earthly institution based on power; therefore, you cannot conceive of equality within the Church unless it involves sexual egalitarianism in the sacerdotal ministry. And, as I said, that's positively medieval.
"Lots of men are not called to ordination. But for those women who are, they are prevented by the Catholic Church from serving, and that’s wrong. "
Let me be quite clear: NOBODY is called to ordination. The idea that being a priest is a personal vocation is hogwash, unknown to the early Church, and deeply suspect in it. Ordination is an ecclesial act. The CHURCH calls out men from the laity to serve at the altar, men do not suddenly get smacked upside the head by God who tells them, "Hey, bud! Go be a priest". John Chrysostom, in his work "On the Priesthood", explicitly writes that the man who wants to be a priest is the worst person to be one. "The sane man will flee from it", he wrote, and, as I said, he practiced what he preached, having to be dragged to the altar for ordination.
Much of the mischief that has afflicted the Church for the past thousand years or so has arisen from the mistaken notion that priesthood is a personal, rather than an ecclesial calling. And, though they may have fallen into the trap, too, the Orthodox at least retain vestiges of the earlier practice: all those who are ordained, whether to the diaconate or the presbyterate or episcopate, must still receive the acclamation of the people, who sing "Axios"! ("He is worthy!") three times. In ancient times, "Anaxios!" (Unworthy!) sometimes greeted candidates of whom the people disapproved.
In the Eastern Churches, ordained ministry is still not seen as a persona vocation. The choice for men is not between priesthood and marriage (the other personal vocation), but between marriage and monasticism. No one can force a person to be a monastic, and no one can be a monastic without having a true calling. That's the real choice.
"And yet it innovates in all kinds of ways over the centuries. As you point out, it innovated in creating the papacy and in creating infallibility. And I would add, in the West, mandatory clerical celibacy. So what makes women’s ordination so completely impossible?"
Your summation is both simplistic and erroneous. The papacy was not created. Nobody sat down and said, "Let's have a Pope"--it happened gradually, over centuries, through an organic process. As for infallibility, as Chou En-Lai said of the impact of the French Revolution, "It is too early to tell". The Eastern Churches, as well as the Protestants, do not accept it, and probably never will. Whether it remains in place with its present understanding remains to be determined.
But, basically, I have to say your understanding of Christianity, the Church and its role in the world is fundamentally secular, not sacramental, and therefore we do not share the same frame of reference or even the same vocabulary, which means we will not be able to reach any agreement on this matter.
Neither Thecla nor Junia were presbyters or bishops. Both were, according to the Byzantine Tradition, deaconesses. The Byzantine Church ordained deaconesses down t the thirteenth century, at which point the order just petered out (the Byzantines had rather larger issues with which to contend). It was never suppressed or abolished. From time to time, an Orthodox bishop ordains a deaconess, usually to serve in a female monastery. The Orthodox have been considering more widespread restoration of the order since the 1980s. Note also that the Eastern Churches use the term "apostle" (as it applies to Junia and elsewhere) in a rather broader sense than just the Twelve. The word in Greek means, simply, "those sent out", and it is applied to the Seventy, as well as to later missionaries. That Junia was an apostle is not particularly noteworthy to the East. After all, we venerate Mary Magdalene as "Apostle to the Apostles", yet she was never a presbyter or bishop.
Your fundamental problem, as I must continually remind you, is thinking of the Church as an earthly institution based on power; therefore, you cannot conceive of equality within the Church unless it involves sexual egalitarianism in the sacerdotal ministry. And, as I said, that's positively medieval.
"Lots of men are not called to ordination. But for those women who are, they are prevented by the Catholic Church from serving, and that’s wrong. "
Let me be quite clear: NOBODY is called to ordination. The idea that being a priest is a personal vocation is hogwash, unknown to the early Church, and deeply suspect in it. Ordination is an ecclesial act. The CHURCH calls out men from the laity to serve at the altar, men do not suddenly get smacked upside the head by God who tells them, "Hey, bud! Go be a priest". John Chrysostom, in his work "On the Priesthood", explicitly writes that the man who wants to be a priest is the worst person to be one. "The sane man will flee from it", he wrote, and, as I said, he practiced what he preached, having to be dragged to the altar for ordination.
Much of the mischief that has afflicted the Church for the past thousand years or so has arisen from the mistaken notion that priesthood is a personal, rather than an ecclesial calling. And, though they may have fallen into the trap, too, the Orthodox at least retain vestiges of the earlier practice: all those who are ordained, whether to the diaconate or the presbyterate or episcopate, must still receive the acclamation of the people, who sing "Axios"! ("He is worthy!") three times. In ancient times, "Anaxios!" (Unworthy!) sometimes greeted candidates of whom the people disapproved.
In the Eastern Churches, ordained ministry is still not seen as a persona vocation. The choice for men is not between priesthood and marriage (the other personal vocation), but between marriage and monasticism. No one can force a person to be a monastic, and no one can be a monastic without having a true calling. That's the real choice.
"And yet it innovates in all kinds of ways over the centuries. As you point out, it innovated in creating the papacy and in creating infallibility. And I would add, in the West, mandatory clerical celibacy. So what makes women’s ordination so completely impossible?"
Your summation is both simplistic and erroneous. The papacy was not created. Nobody sat down and said, "Let's have a Pope"--it happened gradually, over centuries, through an organic process. As for infallibility, as Chou En-Lai said of the impact of the French Revolution, "It is too early to tell". The Eastern Churches, as well as the Protestants, do not accept it, and probably never will. Whether it remains in place with its present understanding remains to be determined.
But, basically, I have to say your understanding of Christianity, the Church and its role in the world is fundamentally secular, not sacramental, and therefore we do not share the same frame of reference or even the same vocabulary, which means we will not be able to reach any agreement on this matter.
12.12.2010 | 10:43pm
Jerry Heavey says:
Did Stuart Koehl write, "Believe it or not, women's ordination is not a major issue for the Catholic Churches"? If he means that ordination is not a major issue for the bishops, well, yes, of course, it is a non-issue for the bishops, because they are forbidden to discuss it. But if he means that it is a non-issue for Catholics, then I say that he is wrong. Much more could be said, but let us begin with the question, how might we have discussion between bishops and Catholic laity on this issue?
12.13.2010 | 1:33am
The Sheepcat: "Instead of wholesale defection to the Anglicans, a schismatic Catholic-lite sect with valid orders could easily result from any dropping of the "bomb." Far safer to wait out the subversives."
Except for one thing: Your analysis is faulty.
#1. There's already a "schismatic Catholic-lite sect with valid orders" right now without the "bomb" being dropped. The womenpriests.org movement have already claimed to have valid orders, and the name of the ordaining bishop will be released after he dies.
#2. It's ridiculous to hope that there's any chance of waiting out the subversives. Just ludicrous. This cancer will just grow and grow.
Eliminate all hope by the subversives by declaring no WO via ex cathedra papal declaration. No future pope will ever reverse a previous pope's ex cathedra declaration. Slam the door shut, unmistakably, forever, and always. Furthermore, this brings the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholics along the Latin Rite's coattails. No way would any senior clergy in the EOC criticize the doctrinal content of forbidding WO via papal infallibility.
P.S. Thanks Stuart for the references. And I have heard it declared so often and so vigorously that Apostle Peter was the first Pope, that it's literally jarring to read that Linus might actually be the first Pope. Whoa!
Except for one thing: Your analysis is faulty.
#1. There's already a "schismatic Catholic-lite sect with valid orders" right now without the "bomb" being dropped. The womenpriests.org movement have already claimed to have valid orders, and the name of the ordaining bishop will be released after he dies.
#2. It's ridiculous to hope that there's any chance of waiting out the subversives. Just ludicrous. This cancer will just grow and grow.
Eliminate all hope by the subversives by declaring no WO via ex cathedra papal declaration. No future pope will ever reverse a previous pope's ex cathedra declaration. Slam the door shut, unmistakably, forever, and always. Furthermore, this brings the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Eastern Catholics along the Latin Rite's coattails. No way would any senior clergy in the EOC criticize the doctrinal content of forbidding WO via papal infallibility.
P.S. Thanks Stuart for the references. And I have heard it declared so often and so vigorously that Apostle Peter was the first Pope, that it's literally jarring to read that Linus might actually be the first Pope. Whoa!
12.13.2010 | 5:49am
Stuart Koehl says:
"But if he means that it is a non-issue for Catholics, then I say that he is wrong. Much more could be said, but let us begin with the question, how might we have discussion between bishops and Catholic laity on this issue?"
What is to discuss? It is an issue only to a very small (albeit vociferously loud and obnoxious) segment of the laity, but to the average pew-duster, it's not on the radar. It certainly does not rise to the same level of significance as mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Church. Among us Eastern Catholics, the very idea of female priests is ludicrous. The situation was summed up nicely by a feisty Baba, who remarked, "Why would a woman want to be a priest, when she can't even go behind the iconostasis?"
What is to discuss? It is an issue only to a very small (albeit vociferously loud and obnoxious) segment of the laity, but to the average pew-duster, it's not on the radar. It certainly does not rise to the same level of significance as mandatory priestly celibacy in the Latin Church. Among us Eastern Catholics, the very idea of female priests is ludicrous. The situation was summed up nicely by a feisty Baba, who remarked, "Why would a woman want to be a priest, when she can't even go behind the iconostasis?"
12.13.2010 | 6:04am
Stuart Koehl says:
TUAD,
An ex Cathedra declaration prohibiting women's ordination may or may not lead to a schism in the Latin Church, but it would drive a major wedge between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It's not that the Orthodox would disagree with the content of the statement (for the Orthodox, ordaining women to the presbyterate is a non-starter), but with the statement per se: Papal infallibility is one of two substantive issues dividing the Orthodox and the Catholics (the other being the Pope's universal, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction), and hopes for Christian unity rise and fall on those issues. No Pope in his right mind is going to torpedo the ecumenical dialogue with the East over the antics of a handful of rambunctious, middle-aged harridans playing church. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
In any case, I think you overestimate the viability of the women's ordination movement. It does not have widespread support in Catholic circles, it's practically non-existent in Orthodox circles (I can count the number of Orthodox who support the idea on one hand--literally), and even in Protestant circles, those denominations that ordain women are in serious difficulties. But where you sit determines where you stand, and, as a Protestant, I understand that you see women's ordination as a serious problem. But for us, it just isn't.
Regarding Linus as first Pope: The Pope by definition is the Bishop of Rome. The early Church understood that Apostles are over and above bishops. Peter, like Paul and the rest of the Twelve, was never a bishop because the Apostolic commission came directly from Christ. Now, it's not clear that Rome even had a unified, monarchical episcopate in the first century; the First Epistle of Clement sort of implies that Clement is writing as the senior bishop in Rome, head of one specific Christian community in that sprawling city (there may have been at least two, one consisting of Jewish Christians, the other of Gentiles, and possibly even further divisions based on geography, since at the time, the bishop alone presided at the Eucharistic liturgy). But even if there was a council of bishops in Rome, someone had to be head of the Council, and likely that was Linus after the execution of Peter. Why did the mantle not fall on Paul? Most likely because Paul was not in Rome when Peter was killed, but had moved on to Spain. Also, Paul was peripatetic, a missionary at heart. He would set up Churches, appoint bishops and move on. So, discounting Peter as being sui generis, the Liber Pontificalis identifies Linus as first bishop of Rome. It's no big deal. Scholars have known this for ages.
An ex Cathedra declaration prohibiting women's ordination may or may not lead to a schism in the Latin Church, but it would drive a major wedge between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. It's not that the Orthodox would disagree with the content of the statement (for the Orthodox, ordaining women to the presbyterate is a non-starter), but with the statement per se: Papal infallibility is one of two substantive issues dividing the Orthodox and the Catholics (the other being the Pope's universal, immediate and ordinary jurisdiction), and hopes for Christian unity rise and fall on those issues. No Pope in his right mind is going to torpedo the ecumenical dialogue with the East over the antics of a handful of rambunctious, middle-aged harridans playing church. Ain't. Gonna. Happen.
In any case, I think you overestimate the viability of the women's ordination movement. It does not have widespread support in Catholic circles, it's practically non-existent in Orthodox circles (I can count the number of Orthodox who support the idea on one hand--literally), and even in Protestant circles, those denominations that ordain women are in serious difficulties. But where you sit determines where you stand, and, as a Protestant, I understand that you see women's ordination as a serious problem. But for us, it just isn't.
Regarding Linus as first Pope: The Pope by definition is the Bishop of Rome. The early Church understood that Apostles are over and above bishops. Peter, like Paul and the rest of the Twelve, was never a bishop because the Apostolic commission came directly from Christ. Now, it's not clear that Rome even had a unified, monarchical episcopate in the first century; the First Epistle of Clement sort of implies that Clement is writing as the senior bishop in Rome, head of one specific Christian community in that sprawling city (there may have been at least two, one consisting of Jewish Christians, the other of Gentiles, and possibly even further divisions based on geography, since at the time, the bishop alone presided at the Eucharistic liturgy). But even if there was a council of bishops in Rome, someone had to be head of the Council, and likely that was Linus after the execution of Peter. Why did the mantle not fall on Paul? Most likely because Paul was not in Rome when Peter was killed, but had moved on to Spain. Also, Paul was peripatetic, a missionary at heart. He would set up Churches, appoint bishops and move on. So, discounting Peter as being sui generis, the Liber Pontificalis identifies Linus as first bishop of Rome. It's no big deal. Scholars have known this for ages.
12.13.2010 | 1:30pm
Lewis says:
Koehl,
Please square up these two comments, which appear contradictory.
“Among us Eastern Catholics, the very idea of female priests is ludicrous. The situation was summed up nicely by a feisty Baba, who remarked, "Why would a woman want to be a priest, when she can't even go behind the iconostasis?"”
“The male presbyterate is much like that inconvenient pillar. And Kyr Kallistos is not unsympathetic to the idea of ordaining women.”
Please square up these two comments, which appear contradictory.
“Among us Eastern Catholics, the very idea of female priests is ludicrous. The situation was summed up nicely by a feisty Baba, who remarked, "Why would a woman want to be a priest, when she can't even go behind the iconostasis?"”
“The male presbyterate is much like that inconvenient pillar. And Kyr Kallistos is not unsympathetic to the idea of ordaining women.”
12.13.2010 | 1:53pm
Stuart Koehl says:
I see no contradiction, actual or apparent. A learned bishop and monastic who feels the Tradition regarding the ordination of women to the presbyterate is not adequately supported opposes abolishing the prohibition because he understands the Tradition is built on two millennia of collective wisdom, which one should not blithely overturn to meet secular whims, while an older female lay person who has no doubts about the validity of the Tradition points out the incongruity of a woman wanting to be a priest against all the weight of the Tradition.
12.13.2010 | 2:05pm
Lewis says:
“Neither Thecla nor Junia were presbyters or bishops.”
That wasn’t my point. My point was that when you think of influential women you don’t think of leaders. The notion of female leadership is that withered in your mind.
“The Byzantine Church ordained deaconesses down t the thirteenth century, at which point the order just petered out (the Byzantines had rather larger issues with which to contend). It was never suppressed or abolished.”
Are these leaders remembered and quoted the way you quote so many male leaders?
“Let me be quite clear: NOBODY is called to ordination. The idea that being a priest is a personal vocation is hogwash, unknown to the early Church, and deeply suspect in it. Ordination is an ecclesial act. The CHURCH calls out men from the laity to serve at the altar, men do not suddenly get smacked upside the head by God who tells them, "Hey, bud! Go be a priest".”
You keep sidelining this discussion with semantics, but I’ll play along and rephrase the question. Is there some reason that the Catholic Church has never called women who would be as reluctant as John Chrysostom to be dragged to serve at the altar?
“The papacy was not created. Nobody sat down and said, "Let's have a Pope"--it happened gradually, over centuries, through an organic process. As for infallibility, as Chou En-Lai said of the impact of the French Revolution, "It is too early to tell". The Eastern Churches, as well as the Protestants, do not accept it, and probably never will. Whether it remains in place with its present understanding remains to be determined”
Another sidelining of the issue through semantics, but again I’ll play along. You say the Catholic Church once ordained deaconesses such as Junia and Thecla but stopped because the practice “just petered out” without “suppression” or “abolition.” Is there some reason that the ordination of women can’t trace the same path as the papacy and “happen gradually, over centuries, through an organic process”?
“I have to say your understanding of Christianity, the Church and its role in the world is fundamentally secular”
No, it’s not.
That wasn’t my point. My point was that when you think of influential women you don’t think of leaders. The notion of female leadership is that withered in your mind.
“The Byzantine Church ordained deaconesses down t the thirteenth century, at which point the order just petered out (the Byzantines had rather larger issues with which to contend). It was never suppressed or abolished.”
Are these leaders remembered and quoted the way you quote so many male leaders?
“Let me be quite clear: NOBODY is called to ordination. The idea that being a priest is a personal vocation is hogwash, unknown to the early Church, and deeply suspect in it. Ordination is an ecclesial act. The CHURCH calls out men from the laity to serve at the altar, men do not suddenly get smacked upside the head by God who tells them, "Hey, bud! Go be a priest".”
You keep sidelining this discussion with semantics, but I’ll play along and rephrase the question. Is there some reason that the Catholic Church has never called women who would be as reluctant as John Chrysostom to be dragged to serve at the altar?
“The papacy was not created. Nobody sat down and said, "Let's have a Pope"--it happened gradually, over centuries, through an organic process. As for infallibility, as Chou En-Lai said of the impact of the French Revolution, "It is too early to tell". The Eastern Churches, as well as the Protestants, do not accept it, and probably never will. Whether it remains in place with its present understanding remains to be determined”
Another sidelining of the issue through semantics, but again I’ll play along. You say the Catholic Church once ordained deaconesses such as Junia and Thecla but stopped because the practice “just petered out” without “suppression” or “abolition.” Is there some reason that the ordination of women can’t trace the same path as the papacy and “happen gradually, over centuries, through an organic process”?
“I have to say your understanding of Christianity, the Church and its role in the world is fundamentally secular”
No, it’s not.
12.13.2010 | 2:19pm
Lewis says:
Here's the apparent contradiction: When you said that “Kyr Kallistos is not unsympathetic to the idea of ordaining women,” you implied that he could see their ordination as a possibility. But then you stated quite plainly that the idea is “ludicrous.” So which is it, a possibility or simply ludicrous?
Does that “two millennia of collective wisdom” include what you describe as the “petering out” of the service of deaconesses? Or is the petering out something that was forgotten and needs to be restored?
How long does an idea need to be around before it is no longer seen as a “blitheful overturning”?
How does one go about discerning whether something is a movement by the Holy Spirit or a “secular whim”?
Does that “two millennia of collective wisdom” include what you describe as the “petering out” of the service of deaconesses? Or is the petering out something that was forgotten and needs to be restored?
How long does an idea need to be around before it is no longer seen as a “blitheful overturning”?
How does one go about discerning whether something is a movement by the Holy Spirit or a “secular whim”?
12.13.2010 | 4:17pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"So which is it, a possibility or simply ludicrous? "
I fail to see why you believe Orthodox and Greek Catholic opinion should be monolithic. Kyr Kallistos stands at one end of the spectrum (which would still put him very far from your position), while the Baba stands at the other end of the spectrum. The center of gravity is much closer to the Baba than to Kyr Kallistos. The important point is Kyr Kallistos would never dream of circumventing the Tradition and going off on his own to ordain a woman. Being Orthodox (and Greek Catholic) means living in the Tradition and deferring to it. After all, the Tradition is nothing less than the action of the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ, and for it to change in such a vital matter, an entirely new consensus would have to emerge. I do not expect that to happen short of the eschaton, because, while the rationale for reserving the presbyterate to men may be, as Kyr Kallistos says, incoherent and intellectually unsatisfying, the burden of proof that it should change falls on the shoulders of those who advocate ordaining women, and their position is far more incoherent and intellectually unsatisfying (based as it is on nothing more than the current western liberal penchant for both functional and ontological equality between the sexes). So, if the Tradition is to change, we would have to be convinced the Tradition has been wrong for 2000 years--and so far nothing I have seen has convinced me (or just about anyone else) that it is.
"Does that “two millennia of collective wisdom” include what you describe as the “petering out” of the service of deaconesses? Or is the petering out something that was forgotten and needs to be restored? "
The order of deaconesses fell into disuse for historical, not theological reasons. Put briefly, the main purpose of the order was to assist at the baptism of adult female catechumens (typically naked, by full immersion), as well as to look after the welfare of widows and orphans. The Protodeaconess of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople had some 400 deaconesses under her guidance in the fifth century. And they were truly ordained major clergy, ordained by the rite of Cheirotoneia according to the same formula used to ordain deacons, and receiving communion at the altar in the same manner as deacons and immediately after them.
Gradually, however, the need for so many deaconesses faded, as the number of adult catechumens declined. In the later years of the Byzantine Empire, the Church simply did not have the wealth to maintain the establishment it had in its heyday, and the number of clergy of all types tended to decline. At some point, without actually thinking about it, bishops just stopped ordaining women to the diaconate, except, as noted, to assist in the liturgy at some remote female monasteries (note I do not say convent, nor do I use the term "nun", because, in Byzantine monasticism there is only one order, identical for men and women, and no distinctive word for a female monastic other than the feminine form of monk, so technically there are no nuns and no convents, only female monks and female monasteries).
Whether the order should be restored is being debated in Orthodox circles. Opinion is divided, though a statement issued in the 1980s tended to look favorably upon it and asked that the matter be given further study. Since only thirty years or so has passed, the jury is still out. My own personal view is a restored order of deaconesses could do much good, so long as the office is defined and constrained as it was in the patristic period.
"How long does an idea need to be around before it is no longer seen as a “blitheful overturning”? "
In the Greek Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Anything less than 500 years old is "new".
"How does one go about discerning whether something is a movement by the Holy Spirit or a “secular whim”?"
The first thing to do is achieve silence. One cannot hear the voice of the Spirit if one is not listening. Kyr Kallistos likes to quote a skit on the old BBC "Goon Show", in which the phone rings, and a man picks it up. "Hello, hello! Who is speaking please?", he says into the hand piece. "It is you who are speaking", replies the voice on the other end. "Oh", says the man. "I thought I recognized the voice". And he hangs up.
I fail to see why you believe Orthodox and Greek Catholic opinion should be monolithic. Kyr Kallistos stands at one end of the spectrum (which would still put him very far from your position), while the Baba stands at the other end of the spectrum. The center of gravity is much closer to the Baba than to Kyr Kallistos. The important point is Kyr Kallistos would never dream of circumventing the Tradition and going off on his own to ordain a woman. Being Orthodox (and Greek Catholic) means living in the Tradition and deferring to it. After all, the Tradition is nothing less than the action of the Holy Spirit within the Body of Christ, and for it to change in such a vital matter, an entirely new consensus would have to emerge. I do not expect that to happen short of the eschaton, because, while the rationale for reserving the presbyterate to men may be, as Kyr Kallistos says, incoherent and intellectually unsatisfying, the burden of proof that it should change falls on the shoulders of those who advocate ordaining women, and their position is far more incoherent and intellectually unsatisfying (based as it is on nothing more than the current western liberal penchant for both functional and ontological equality between the sexes). So, if the Tradition is to change, we would have to be convinced the Tradition has been wrong for 2000 years--and so far nothing I have seen has convinced me (or just about anyone else) that it is.
"Does that “two millennia of collective wisdom” include what you describe as the “petering out” of the service of deaconesses? Or is the petering out something that was forgotten and needs to be restored? "
The order of deaconesses fell into disuse for historical, not theological reasons. Put briefly, the main purpose of the order was to assist at the baptism of adult female catechumens (typically naked, by full immersion), as well as to look after the welfare of widows and orphans. The Protodeaconess of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople had some 400 deaconesses under her guidance in the fifth century. And they were truly ordained major clergy, ordained by the rite of Cheirotoneia according to the same formula used to ordain deacons, and receiving communion at the altar in the same manner as deacons and immediately after them.
Gradually, however, the need for so many deaconesses faded, as the number of adult catechumens declined. In the later years of the Byzantine Empire, the Church simply did not have the wealth to maintain the establishment it had in its heyday, and the number of clergy of all types tended to decline. At some point, without actually thinking about it, bishops just stopped ordaining women to the diaconate, except, as noted, to assist in the liturgy at some remote female monasteries (note I do not say convent, nor do I use the term "nun", because, in Byzantine monasticism there is only one order, identical for men and women, and no distinctive word for a female monastic other than the feminine form of monk, so technically there are no nuns and no convents, only female monks and female monasteries).
Whether the order should be restored is being debated in Orthodox circles. Opinion is divided, though a statement issued in the 1980s tended to look favorably upon it and asked that the matter be given further study. Since only thirty years or so has passed, the jury is still out. My own personal view is a restored order of deaconesses could do much good, so long as the office is defined and constrained as it was in the patristic period.
"How long does an idea need to be around before it is no longer seen as a “blitheful overturning”? "
In the Greek Catholic and Orthodox Churches? Anything less than 500 years old is "new".
"How does one go about discerning whether something is a movement by the Holy Spirit or a “secular whim”?"
The first thing to do is achieve silence. One cannot hear the voice of the Spirit if one is not listening. Kyr Kallistos likes to quote a skit on the old BBC "Goon Show", in which the phone rings, and a man picks it up. "Hello, hello! Who is speaking please?", he says into the hand piece. "It is you who are speaking", replies the voice on the other end. "Oh", says the man. "I thought I recognized the voice". And he hangs up.
12.13.2010 | 4:44pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"That wasn’t my point. My point was that when you think of influential women you don’t think of leaders. The notion of female leadership is that withered in your mind. "
Well, I could have started with Mary Theotokos, whom we call our "Champion Leader". And many of the women I identified were indeed leaders. St. Nino, for instance, was a slave girl who converted the entire nation of Georgia in the fourth century, using no more than a cross made from two sticks bound together with her own hair. Georgia thus became the first nation converted to Christianity--something for which the Russians have never forgiven them. But I was not giving a comprehensive list, just some exemplars, which included St. Olimpias, the Protodeaconess of Constantinople and protege of John Chrysostom. How much more prominent do you want my examples to be? Junia and Thecla were, at best, deaconesses and patronesses of local Churches, as well as friends and confidants of St. Paul in his missionary activities. Neither was a presbyter or a bishop, so what's your point here? Apparently they did not see the male presbyterate to be an impediment to their faith.
"Are these leaders remembered and quoted the way you quote so many male leaders?"
Most certainly. Most of them are canonized. St. Macrina, a great scholar in her own right, is known as the "Fourth Cappodocian", a reference to the three Cappodocian Fathers, who included her brothers St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend, St. Gregory Nanzianzen. St. Gregory Nanzianzen's sister, St. Gorgonia, was a deaconess and an ascetic of some note. St. Olympias, the Protodeaconess of Hagia Sophia, was responsible for some 400 deaconesses in the Archdiocese of Constantinople; she was also a friend and confidante of St. John Crysostom. Down through the ages, innumerable women have been canonized for their role as spiritual leaders of the Orthodox Church. Some were monastics, others were deaconesses, yet others were laywomen.
You see, the Eastern Churches are not particularly clericalized, and spiritual leadership comes from the laity as often as it does from the clergy. Most of us have a spiritual father or mother, who usually is not an ordained priest or deacon, but usually a monastic (most monastics are not ordained), but occasionally a person in the world who is simply recognized as a paragon of holiness. For us, the Spirit passes where He wills, and true holiness is not the exclusive preserve of clergy and religious. As Chrysostom said, "The nuptial chamber can be just as holy as the monk's cell". You need to stop thinking of us in Western categories.
"Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church has ever called women to serve as presbyters. From the Apostles down to the present, that office and its function have been the preserve of men. Just because men and women have ontological equality in Christ does not mean they have functional equality as well.
"You say the Catholic Church once ordained deaconesses such as Junia and Thecla but stopped because the practice “just petered out” without “suppression” or “abolition.”"
The Catholic Church in the East--which is now called the Eastern Orthodox Church--ordained women to be deaconesses, ranking them among the higher clergy who are ordained by a rite called Cheirotoneia; this distinguishes them from the lower clergy (readers, acolytes, and subdeacons) who are ordained by a different rite called Cheirothesia. The Catholic Church in the West--what is today known as the Latin Church, or the Roman Catholic Church--seems not to have had deaconesses (the evidence is divided), but if it did, it numbered them among the minor clergy. It was and is not unusual for the Church to develop different practices in the East and in the West. For instance, the West has since the 4th century proclaimed the ideal of clerical celibacy, and has imposed it from the 11th-12th century. The Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, have always allowed for the ordination of married men to the diaconate, presbyterate and episcopate. Note, however, that they have never allowed ordained men to marry or remarry. That's a legitimate element of the diversity of the Church.
"Is there some reason that the ordination of women can’t trace the same path as the papacy and “happen gradually, over centuries, through an organic process”? "
Anything is possible, but an element of Tradition upheld uniformly in both the East and the West is most unlikely to change. Note that the Montanists, an heretical sect of the early Church that was highly charismatic and believed in "new prophesy", did ordain women to the presbyterate; i.e., it had priestesses. When the Montanists were reconciled with the Catholic Church (meaning the unified Church of the East and the West), male Montanist presbyters were allowed to retain their clerical rank by making an orthodox profession of faith. On the other hand, Montanist priestesses were returned to lay status.
If you really are interested, I can recommend two books that give an Eastern perspective on the subject. One is "Women in the Priesthood", an anthology edited by Father Thomas Hopko, rector of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary. Another is called "Women Deaconesses in the Orthodox Church", by Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald. You will find them enlightening.
"No, it’s not."
For my definition of "secularism", please read Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann's book, "For the Life of the World", particularly the two appendices which deal with secularism and the Church. You will find the book transformational.
Well, I could have started with Mary Theotokos, whom we call our "Champion Leader". And many of the women I identified were indeed leaders. St. Nino, for instance, was a slave girl who converted the entire nation of Georgia in the fourth century, using no more than a cross made from two sticks bound together with her own hair. Georgia thus became the first nation converted to Christianity--something for which the Russians have never forgiven them. But I was not giving a comprehensive list, just some exemplars, which included St. Olimpias, the Protodeaconess of Constantinople and protege of John Chrysostom. How much more prominent do you want my examples to be? Junia and Thecla were, at best, deaconesses and patronesses of local Churches, as well as friends and confidants of St. Paul in his missionary activities. Neither was a presbyter or a bishop, so what's your point here? Apparently they did not see the male presbyterate to be an impediment to their faith.
"Are these leaders remembered and quoted the way you quote so many male leaders?"
Most certainly. Most of them are canonized. St. Macrina, a great scholar in her own right, is known as the "Fourth Cappodocian", a reference to the three Cappodocian Fathers, who included her brothers St. Basil the Great and St. Gregory of Nyssa, and their friend, St. Gregory Nanzianzen. St. Gregory Nanzianzen's sister, St. Gorgonia, was a deaconess and an ascetic of some note. St. Olympias, the Protodeaconess of Hagia Sophia, was responsible for some 400 deaconesses in the Archdiocese of Constantinople; she was also a friend and confidante of St. John Crysostom. Down through the ages, innumerable women have been canonized for their role as spiritual leaders of the Orthodox Church. Some were monastics, others were deaconesses, yet others were laywomen.
You see, the Eastern Churches are not particularly clericalized, and spiritual leadership comes from the laity as often as it does from the clergy. Most of us have a spiritual father or mother, who usually is not an ordained priest or deacon, but usually a monastic (most monastics are not ordained), but occasionally a person in the world who is simply recognized as a paragon of holiness. For us, the Spirit passes where He wills, and true holiness is not the exclusive preserve of clergy and religious. As Chrysostom said, "The nuptial chamber can be just as holy as the monk's cell". You need to stop thinking of us in Western categories.
"Neither the Catholic Church nor the Orthodox Church has ever called women to serve as presbyters. From the Apostles down to the present, that office and its function have been the preserve of men. Just because men and women have ontological equality in Christ does not mean they have functional equality as well.
"You say the Catholic Church once ordained deaconesses such as Junia and Thecla but stopped because the practice “just petered out” without “suppression” or “abolition.”"
The Catholic Church in the East--which is now called the Eastern Orthodox Church--ordained women to be deaconesses, ranking them among the higher clergy who are ordained by a rite called Cheirotoneia; this distinguishes them from the lower clergy (readers, acolytes, and subdeacons) who are ordained by a different rite called Cheirothesia. The Catholic Church in the West--what is today known as the Latin Church, or the Roman Catholic Church--seems not to have had deaconesses (the evidence is divided), but if it did, it numbered them among the minor clergy. It was and is not unusual for the Church to develop different practices in the East and in the West. For instance, the West has since the 4th century proclaimed the ideal of clerical celibacy, and has imposed it from the 11th-12th century. The Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, have always allowed for the ordination of married men to the diaconate, presbyterate and episcopate. Note, however, that they have never allowed ordained men to marry or remarry. That's a legitimate element of the diversity of the Church.
"Is there some reason that the ordination of women can’t trace the same path as the papacy and “happen gradually, over centuries, through an organic process”? "
Anything is possible, but an element of Tradition upheld uniformly in both the East and the West is most unlikely to change. Note that the Montanists, an heretical sect of the early Church that was highly charismatic and believed in "new prophesy", did ordain women to the presbyterate; i.e., it had priestesses. When the Montanists were reconciled with the Catholic Church (meaning the unified Church of the East and the West), male Montanist presbyters were allowed to retain their clerical rank by making an orthodox profession of faith. On the other hand, Montanist priestesses were returned to lay status.
If you really are interested, I can recommend two books that give an Eastern perspective on the subject. One is "Women in the Priesthood", an anthology edited by Father Thomas Hopko, rector of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary. Another is called "Women Deaconesses in the Orthodox Church", by Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald. You will find them enlightening.
"No, it’s not."
For my definition of "secularism", please read Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann's book, "For the Life of the World", particularly the two appendices which deal with secularism and the Church. You will find the book transformational.
12.13.2010 | 7:53pm
The Sheepcat says:
@TUAD,
To supplement what Stuart has said, take a look at this photo of a putative ordination of a woman to the Catholic priesthood.
http://cleansingfiredor.com/2010/05/how-diverse-is-spiritus-christi
To call most of the congregants "middle-aged" would be a compliment. How many active Catholic bishops sympathetic to WO are there now compared with at the height of the Jadot era? The social movement is already fizzling out without the need for the kind of dramatic intervention that would, as Stuart says, only harm the cause of unity with the Orthodox Churches. The WO movement is still causing trouble within the Catholic Church, but on the global stage it's a small player.
To supplement what Stuart has said, take a look at this photo of a putative ordination of a woman to the Catholic priesthood.
http://cleansingfiredor.com/2010/05/how-diverse-is-spiritus-christi
To call most of the congregants "middle-aged" would be a compliment. How many active Catholic bishops sympathetic to WO are there now compared with at the height of the Jadot era? The social movement is already fizzling out without the need for the kind of dramatic intervention that would, as Stuart says, only harm the cause of unity with the Orthodox Churches. The WO movement is still causing trouble within the Catholic Church, but on the global stage it's a small player.
12.14.2010 | 1:05am
Lewis says:
“I fail to see why you believe Orthodox and Greek Catholic opinion should be monolithic.”
I don’t. You have been presenting it as monolithic. You speak categorically when you say things like “Among us Eastern Catholics, the very idea of female priests is ludicrous.” Does Kyr Kallistos also laugh at the idea? He seems to be considering it with some seriousness.
“for it to change in such a vital matter”
But how are male genitalia vital to the service of the many offices restricted to men?
“I do not expect that to happen short of the eschaton, because, while the rationale for reserving the presbyterate to men may be, as Kyr Kallistos says, incoherent and intellectually unsatisfying, the burden of proof that it should change falls on the shoulders of those who advocate ordaining women, and their position is far more incoherent and intellectually unsatisfying (based as it is on nothing more than the current western liberal penchant for both functional and ontological equality between the sexes).”
Sounds like a catch 22.
“if the Tradition is to change, we would have to be convinced the Tradition has been wrong for 2000 years”
You don’t have to think of the tradition as wrong, just as not fully realized. As you say, women have always wielded influence (or service as you prefer to say), but the church can become more fully itself.
“The order of deaconesses fell into disuse for historical, not theological reasons. Put briefly, the main purpose of the order was to assist at the baptism of adult female catechumens (typically naked, by full immersion), as well as to look after the welfare of widows and orphans.”
Who baptizes adult female catechumens now? Who looks after the welfare of widows and orphans? Was the latter restricted to deaconesses?
“receiving communion at the altar in the same manner as deacons and immediately after them”
Why after them?
“At some point, without actually thinking about it, bishops just stopped ordaining women to the diaconate”
I’m surprised to hear that the bishops forget tradition so cavalierly and without thought. Perhaps they didn’t think some forms of service were all that valuable after all.
“My own personal view is a restored order of deaconesses could do much good, so long as the office is defined and constrained as it was in the patristic period”
Must the constraints be exact? Has nothing changed? It is abundantly clear that women’s capabilities and limits have been subject to the wildest sorts of speculation across history and across cultures, wilder than found on any other subject. It is reasonable to assume that faulty theories were at work when the church restricted women’s service to particular areas and thoughtlessly forgot about some of the services they were allowed to perform. Am I right in remembering that at one time Eastern churches gave menstruating women the boot from receiving the Eucharist and attending church? Perhaps attitudes like this had some effect on attitudes towards women’s service.
“The first thing to do is achieve silence.”
A non-serious answer to a serious question. How do you all decide what part of tradition is essential and what part is accidental?
“And many of the women I identified were indeed leaders.”
I’m talking about women who lead by virtue of their position as a leader or theologian. Your first list was Nino, who struck out on her own and left no writings behind. Admirable but without a position. Macrina was a female monastic, but she didn’t write and held no position. Olympios held a position as deaconess and did good works, but no writings. Olhia’s position of influence as regent was independent and prior to her conversion. Her bloodiness doesn’t recommend her to me. In this first list, Olympios comes closest but still far from great influence by virtue of position.
Your second list is better. Bridget is like Olympios, but founded an order and left behind some mystical writings, but the cream of the crop is Catherine of Siena, who attracted both men and women, who worked on reform and as a diplomat, and whose writings have had wide influence. Hildegard von Bingen is a close second. While so many women have been mystics, Hildegard’s genius included science and music, and she preached widely and talked to other church leaders.
Three points here: Despite their accomplishments, especially of Catherine and Hildegard, these women have not been quoted in this discussion or in many others on this site. They remain minor figures in the minds of most people on this site. Second, these women, especially Catherine and Hildegard, demonstrate that women can serve in positions that have not been open to them. Third, as you noted, Catherine and Hildegard come from the West.
“You see, the Eastern Churches are not particularly clericalized, and spiritual leadership comes from the laity as often as it does from the clergy.”
That may be true, but the above women suggest that the Catholic Church, East and West, is impoverishing itself.
“true holiness is not the exclusive preserve of clergy and religious”
Nobody thinks that it is. The question is why some churches prevent women from serving in the full range of ways available to men.
“Just because men and women have ontological equality in Christ does not mean they have functional equality as well”
Why not? Outside procreation and childbearing, men and women function the same.
“ranking them among the higher clergy”
But this higher clergy is not a hierarchy, right?
“It was and is not unusual for the Church to develop different practices in the East and in the West.”
These differing practices suggest that more might be created or resumed and expanded. Perhaps the difference suggests that women’s capabilities and limits are not as fixed as one church or another has believed.
“male Montanist presbyters were allowed to retain their clerical rank by making an orthodox profession of faith. On the other hand, Montanist priestesses were returned to lay status”
One wonders whether the experiment with priestesses was a kind of guilt by association. Given the mystical writings of so many women religious, perhaps the church cut out a rich vein of mysticism in the priesthood when it threw out Montanism without retaining women priests. Again, this variety of approaches suggests that restrictions are not so set in stone.
“That's a legitimate element of the diversity of the Church”
Which begs the question of what makes some changes legitimate and others not.
“Anything is possible, but an element of Tradition upheld uniformly in both the East and the West is most unlikely to change.”
This just sounds like a willful closing of the mind, grounded only in habit. As you say, there are no good reasons for preventing women’s ordination. It’s just habit.
“For my definition of "secularism"”
When using a personal definition, say so beforehand. It creates less confusion and misunderstanding.
I don’t. You have been presenting it as monolithic. You speak categorically when you say things like “Among us Eastern Catholics, the very idea of female priests is ludicrous.” Does Kyr Kallistos also laugh at the idea? He seems to be considering it with some seriousness.
“for it to change in such a vital matter”
But how are male genitalia vital to the service of the many offices restricted to men?
“I do not expect that to happen short of the eschaton, because, while the rationale for reserving the presbyterate to men may be, as Kyr Kallistos says, incoherent and intellectually unsatisfying, the burden of proof that it should change falls on the shoulders of those who advocate ordaining women, and their position is far more incoherent and intellectually unsatisfying (based as it is on nothing more than the current western liberal penchant for both functional and ontological equality between the sexes).”
Sounds like a catch 22.
“if the Tradition is to change, we would have to be convinced the Tradition has been wrong for 2000 years”
You don’t have to think of the tradition as wrong, just as not fully realized. As you say, women have always wielded influence (or service as you prefer to say), but the church can become more fully itself.
“The order of deaconesses fell into disuse for historical, not theological reasons. Put briefly, the main purpose of the order was to assist at the baptism of adult female catechumens (typically naked, by full immersion), as well as to look after the welfare of widows and orphans.”
Who baptizes adult female catechumens now? Who looks after the welfare of widows and orphans? Was the latter restricted to deaconesses?
“receiving communion at the altar in the same manner as deacons and immediately after them”
Why after them?
“At some point, without actually thinking about it, bishops just stopped ordaining women to the diaconate”
I’m surprised to hear that the bishops forget tradition so cavalierly and without thought. Perhaps they didn’t think some forms of service were all that valuable after all.
“My own personal view is a restored order of deaconesses could do much good, so long as the office is defined and constrained as it was in the patristic period”
Must the constraints be exact? Has nothing changed? It is abundantly clear that women’s capabilities and limits have been subject to the wildest sorts of speculation across history and across cultures, wilder than found on any other subject. It is reasonable to assume that faulty theories were at work when the church restricted women’s service to particular areas and thoughtlessly forgot about some of the services they were allowed to perform. Am I right in remembering that at one time Eastern churches gave menstruating women the boot from receiving the Eucharist and attending church? Perhaps attitudes like this had some effect on attitudes towards women’s service.
“The first thing to do is achieve silence.”
A non-serious answer to a serious question. How do you all decide what part of tradition is essential and what part is accidental?
“And many of the women I identified were indeed leaders.”
I’m talking about women who lead by virtue of their position as a leader or theologian. Your first list was Nino, who struck out on her own and left no writings behind. Admirable but without a position. Macrina was a female monastic, but she didn’t write and held no position. Olympios held a position as deaconess and did good works, but no writings. Olhia’s position of influence as regent was independent and prior to her conversion. Her bloodiness doesn’t recommend her to me. In this first list, Olympios comes closest but still far from great influence by virtue of position.
Your second list is better. Bridget is like Olympios, but founded an order and left behind some mystical writings, but the cream of the crop is Catherine of Siena, who attracted both men and women, who worked on reform and as a diplomat, and whose writings have had wide influence. Hildegard von Bingen is a close second. While so many women have been mystics, Hildegard’s genius included science and music, and she preached widely and talked to other church leaders.
Three points here: Despite their accomplishments, especially of Catherine and Hildegard, these women have not been quoted in this discussion or in many others on this site. They remain minor figures in the minds of most people on this site. Second, these women, especially Catherine and Hildegard, demonstrate that women can serve in positions that have not been open to them. Third, as you noted, Catherine and Hildegard come from the West.
“You see, the Eastern Churches are not particularly clericalized, and spiritual leadership comes from the laity as often as it does from the clergy.”
That may be true, but the above women suggest that the Catholic Church, East and West, is impoverishing itself.
“true holiness is not the exclusive preserve of clergy and religious”
Nobody thinks that it is. The question is why some churches prevent women from serving in the full range of ways available to men.
“Just because men and women have ontological equality in Christ does not mean they have functional equality as well”
Why not? Outside procreation and childbearing, men and women function the same.
“ranking them among the higher clergy”
But this higher clergy is not a hierarchy, right?
“It was and is not unusual for the Church to develop different practices in the East and in the West.”
These differing practices suggest that more might be created or resumed and expanded. Perhaps the difference suggests that women’s capabilities and limits are not as fixed as one church or another has believed.
“male Montanist presbyters were allowed to retain their clerical rank by making an orthodox profession of faith. On the other hand, Montanist priestesses were returned to lay status”
One wonders whether the experiment with priestesses was a kind of guilt by association. Given the mystical writings of so many women religious, perhaps the church cut out a rich vein of mysticism in the priesthood when it threw out Montanism without retaining women priests. Again, this variety of approaches suggests that restrictions are not so set in stone.
“That's a legitimate element of the diversity of the Church”
Which begs the question of what makes some changes legitimate and others not.
“Anything is possible, but an element of Tradition upheld uniformly in both the East and the West is most unlikely to change.”
This just sounds like a willful closing of the mind, grounded only in habit. As you say, there are no good reasons for preventing women’s ordination. It’s just habit.
“For my definition of "secularism"”
When using a personal definition, say so beforehand. It creates less confusion and misunderstanding.
12.14.2010 | 7:44am
Stuart Koehl says:
"But how are male genitalia vital to the service of the many offices restricted to men? "
Sex is more than a matter of genitalia. Again, you conflate ontological with functional equality.
"Sounds like a catch 22."
Christianity is full of paradoxical logic: "The last shall be first and the first shall be last", "He who would be ruler of all must first become slave of all", and "He who would save his life must lose it". The very notion that God could become man and die in the flesh is paradoxical, which is why it remains "a scandal to the Jews and a folly to the Gentiles".
"You don’t have to think of the tradition as wrong, just as not fully realized. As you say, women have always wielded influence (or service as you prefer to say), but the church can become more fully itself."
The depends on what you think more fully itself means. Do not assume that your vision is normative, let alone correct.
"I’m talking about women who lead by virtue of their position as a leader or theologian. Your first list was Nino, who struck out on her own and left no writings behind."
Jesus struck out on his own and left no writings behind. I guess he had no real power, then?
" Macrina was a female monastic, but she didn’t write and held no position."
Macrina left plenty of writings--you just don't know any of them. Moreover, if you read the "Life of Macrina" by Gregory of Nyssa, you will see that she did not need to hold office to change the Church. Her influence over her brothers, whose understanding of the Holy Trinity, together with that of Gregory Nanzianzen, is the foundation of Nicene Christianity. You seem enamored of the trappings of power.
"Olympios held a position as deaconess and did good works, but no writings. "
So far, all I see is a total unfamiliarity with Eastern Christianity, its theology, its saints and their works. You remind me of Pauline Kael, who famously remarked after Richard Nixon's election in 1972, "How could he win? Nobody I know voted for him?"
"That may be true, but the above women suggest that the Catholic Church, East and West, is impoverishing itself. "
Orthodox women seem not to think so, and not the least because the object of Eastern Christian spirituality is not to accumulate power but to achieve holiness--something that is open to everyone. We take the Royal Priesthood of the baptized seriously. And while we respect our bishops and presbyters, we do not see them as in any way ontologically superior to the laity, for they are still part of the laity. Since the Christian East does not believe the celebrant of the Eucharist stands "in persona Christi", but merely lends his hands and his mouth to Christ who is "the offeror and the offering, the priest and the sacrifice", there is no awesome vertical separation between us; neither do we impute to them some mystical power that we lack. As I said, you really do not understand.
"But this higher clergy is not a hierarchy, right? "
Only in the broad sense of an order of precedence. In Eastern Christian theology, each order has its own unique role, which is essential and independent of the others. In a very ancient typos, the bishop was said to represent God the Father, the presbyters the hosts of angels, while the deacons (!) represented Christ, "who came to serve, not to be served".
"Given the mystical writings of so many women religious, perhaps the church cut out a rich vein of mysticism in the priesthood when it threw out Montanism without retaining women priests. Again, this variety of approaches suggests that restrictions are not so set in stone."
Plenty of mystics in the Eastern Church, many of them women. We tend to glorify our mystics, while the Western Church is frequently suspicious of them. The Holy Spirit is, after all, the anarchist member of the Trinity. You don't understand that, either. In Eastern Christianity, monastics are almost all mystics of one sort of another, and they wield an authority independent of, frequently opposed to, and often superior to that of the bishops. In Eastern Christianity, the monastics (the vast majority of whom were not and are not ordained) have usually been the originators of spiritual and theological movements, and the ultimate defenders of the faith against heresy.
"Which begs the question of what makes some changes legitimate and others not. "
For a change to be legitimate, it (a) has to be consistent with the Tradition handed down from the Apostles; and (b) stand the test of time. The ordination of women to the presbyterate does not and has not met either criterion.
"This just sounds like a willful closing of the mind, grounded only in habit. As you say, there are no good reasons for preventing women’s ordination. It’s just habit. "
The trouble with an open mind is it frequently allows all wisdom and common sense to spill out.
"When using a personal definition, say so beforehand. It creates less confusion and misunderstanding."
It's not a "personal" definition, it's a technical one. I used Schmemann's definition because it is apposite in your case. Schmemann defines secularism as defining the Church in terms of the world, rather than seeing the Church as a sacrament that is in but not of the world, a manifestation of the Kindgom of God in this world. Secularism is not necessarily hostile to religion, but seeks to tame religion and bend it to worldly purposes--in your case, the pursuit of egalitarianism and social justice. Christianity is tolerated because it is "good for you", makes you a better person, and causes people to do good deeds. But that's not what Christianity is about. Any number of philosophical systems or pagan cults can do that for you. Christianity is about eternal life in Christ, nothing more and nothing less.
Read the books I recommended.
Sex is more than a matter of genitalia. Again, you conflate ontological with functional equality.
"Sounds like a catch 22."
Christianity is full of paradoxical logic: "The last shall be first and the first shall be last", "He who would be ruler of all must first become slave of all", and "He who would save his life must lose it". The very notion that God could become man and die in the flesh is paradoxical, which is why it remains "a scandal to the Jews and a folly to the Gentiles".
"You don’t have to think of the tradition as wrong, just as not fully realized. As you say, women have always wielded influence (or service as you prefer to say), but the church can become more fully itself."
The depends on what you think more fully itself means. Do not assume that your vision is normative, let alone correct.
"I’m talking about women who lead by virtue of their position as a leader or theologian. Your first list was Nino, who struck out on her own and left no writings behind."
Jesus struck out on his own and left no writings behind. I guess he had no real power, then?
" Macrina was a female monastic, but she didn’t write and held no position."
Macrina left plenty of writings--you just don't know any of them. Moreover, if you read the "Life of Macrina" by Gregory of Nyssa, you will see that she did not need to hold office to change the Church. Her influence over her brothers, whose understanding of the Holy Trinity, together with that of Gregory Nanzianzen, is the foundation of Nicene Christianity. You seem enamored of the trappings of power.
"Olympios held a position as deaconess and did good works, but no writings. "
So far, all I see is a total unfamiliarity with Eastern Christianity, its theology, its saints and their works. You remind me of Pauline Kael, who famously remarked after Richard Nixon's election in 1972, "How could he win? Nobody I know voted for him?"
"That may be true, but the above women suggest that the Catholic Church, East and West, is impoverishing itself. "
Orthodox women seem not to think so, and not the least because the object of Eastern Christian spirituality is not to accumulate power but to achieve holiness--something that is open to everyone. We take the Royal Priesthood of the baptized seriously. And while we respect our bishops and presbyters, we do not see them as in any way ontologically superior to the laity, for they are still part of the laity. Since the Christian East does not believe the celebrant of the Eucharist stands "in persona Christi", but merely lends his hands and his mouth to Christ who is "the offeror and the offering, the priest and the sacrifice", there is no awesome vertical separation between us; neither do we impute to them some mystical power that we lack. As I said, you really do not understand.
"But this higher clergy is not a hierarchy, right? "
Only in the broad sense of an order of precedence. In Eastern Christian theology, each order has its own unique role, which is essential and independent of the others. In a very ancient typos, the bishop was said to represent God the Father, the presbyters the hosts of angels, while the deacons (!) represented Christ, "who came to serve, not to be served".
"Given the mystical writings of so many women religious, perhaps the church cut out a rich vein of mysticism in the priesthood when it threw out Montanism without retaining women priests. Again, this variety of approaches suggests that restrictions are not so set in stone."
Plenty of mystics in the Eastern Church, many of them women. We tend to glorify our mystics, while the Western Church is frequently suspicious of them. The Holy Spirit is, after all, the anarchist member of the Trinity. You don't understand that, either. In Eastern Christianity, monastics are almost all mystics of one sort of another, and they wield an authority independent of, frequently opposed to, and often superior to that of the bishops. In Eastern Christianity, the monastics (the vast majority of whom were not and are not ordained) have usually been the originators of spiritual and theological movements, and the ultimate defenders of the faith against heresy.
"Which begs the question of what makes some changes legitimate and others not. "
For a change to be legitimate, it (a) has to be consistent with the Tradition handed down from the Apostles; and (b) stand the test of time. The ordination of women to the presbyterate does not and has not met either criterion.
"This just sounds like a willful closing of the mind, grounded only in habit. As you say, there are no good reasons for preventing women’s ordination. It’s just habit. "
The trouble with an open mind is it frequently allows all wisdom and common sense to spill out.
"When using a personal definition, say so beforehand. It creates less confusion and misunderstanding."
It's not a "personal" definition, it's a technical one. I used Schmemann's definition because it is apposite in your case. Schmemann defines secularism as defining the Church in terms of the world, rather than seeing the Church as a sacrament that is in but not of the world, a manifestation of the Kindgom of God in this world. Secularism is not necessarily hostile to religion, but seeks to tame religion and bend it to worldly purposes--in your case, the pursuit of egalitarianism and social justice. Christianity is tolerated because it is "good for you", makes you a better person, and causes people to do good deeds. But that's not what Christianity is about. Any number of philosophical systems or pagan cults can do that for you. Christianity is about eternal life in Christ, nothing more and nothing less.
Read the books I recommended.
12.14.2010 | 1:27pm
Lewis says:
“Sex is more than a matter of genitalia. Again, you conflate ontological with functional equality.”
Name one that affects one’s ability to fulfill a church office.
“Christianity is full of paradoxical logic”
A catch-22 names a specific kind of paradox in which a system pretends it is open to you but isn’t.
“The depends on what you think more fully itself means. Do not assume that your vision is normative, let alone correct.”
I agree completely and would ask you the same.
“Jesus struck out on his own and left no writings behind. I guess he had no real power, then?”
This is a silly and unserious suggestion. The subject of the debate is not who has “real power.” It is what restrictions the church places on its offices.
“Macrina left plenty of writings--you just don't know any of them.” “So far, all I see is a total unfamiliarity with Eastern Christianity, its theology, its saints and their works.”
True. My ignorance of Eastern Christianity is vast, and I’ve learned from you. But my question remains, if they’re so influential, why aren’t you quoting them?
“the object of Eastern Christian spirituality is not to accumulate power but to achieve holiness--something that is open to everyone.”
That’s true everywhere in Christianity. It also dodges the question of why some people should be denied some church offices based solely on their genitalia.
“the bishop was said to represent God the Father, the presbyters the hosts of angels, while the deacons (!) represented Christ, "who came to serve, not to be served".”
So women can be said to represent Christ but not angels or God the Father. And that restriction is based on what?
“The Holy Spirit is, after all, the anarchist member of the Trinity. You don't understand that, either.”
I think I do. The question is why women are restricted from playing other, less anarchic roles, even if those roles are somehow seen as “often superior to that of the bishops.”
“For a change to be legitimate, it (a) has to be consistent with the Tradition handed down from the Apostles”
I would argue that changes that are consistent with tradition must retain the essential elements of tradition and discard those elements that are accidental. There are many qualities required to be an effective bishop or priest. Their genitalia are accidental to that effectiveness.
“The trouble with an open mind is it frequently allows all wisdom and common sense to spill out”
That’s true, but it’s not an argument since the opposite is also true. The question is whether an open mind is justified on the issue of women’s ordination.
“It's not a "personal" definition, it's a technical one.”
Well, you said “my definition,” but I’ll amend: “When using a technical definition, say so beforehand. It creates less confusion and misunderstanding.”
“Read the books I recommended”
Thanks for the suggestions. If I ever find Eastern Catholicism enticing, I will. It seems to have some advantages over Western Catholicism. In the meantime, I continue to be challenged and brought into worship by deacons, ministers, and bishops who have various genitalia.
Name one that affects one’s ability to fulfill a church office.
“Christianity is full of paradoxical logic”
A catch-22 names a specific kind of paradox in which a system pretends it is open to you but isn’t.
“The depends on what you think more fully itself means. Do not assume that your vision is normative, let alone correct.”
I agree completely and would ask you the same.
“Jesus struck out on his own and left no writings behind. I guess he had no real power, then?”
This is a silly and unserious suggestion. The subject of the debate is not who has “real power.” It is what restrictions the church places on its offices.
“Macrina left plenty of writings--you just don't know any of them.” “So far, all I see is a total unfamiliarity with Eastern Christianity, its theology, its saints and their works.”
True. My ignorance of Eastern Christianity is vast, and I’ve learned from you. But my question remains, if they’re so influential, why aren’t you quoting them?
“the object of Eastern Christian spirituality is not to accumulate power but to achieve holiness--something that is open to everyone.”
That’s true everywhere in Christianity. It also dodges the question of why some people should be denied some church offices based solely on their genitalia.
“the bishop was said to represent God the Father, the presbyters the hosts of angels, while the deacons (!) represented Christ, "who came to serve, not to be served".”
So women can be said to represent Christ but not angels or God the Father. And that restriction is based on what?
“The Holy Spirit is, after all, the anarchist member of the Trinity. You don't understand that, either.”
I think I do. The question is why women are restricted from playing other, less anarchic roles, even if those roles are somehow seen as “often superior to that of the bishops.”
“For a change to be legitimate, it (a) has to be consistent with the Tradition handed down from the Apostles”
I would argue that changes that are consistent with tradition must retain the essential elements of tradition and discard those elements that are accidental. There are many qualities required to be an effective bishop or priest. Their genitalia are accidental to that effectiveness.
“The trouble with an open mind is it frequently allows all wisdom and common sense to spill out”
That’s true, but it’s not an argument since the opposite is also true. The question is whether an open mind is justified on the issue of women’s ordination.
“It's not a "personal" definition, it's a technical one.”
Well, you said “my definition,” but I’ll amend: “When using a technical definition, say so beforehand. It creates less confusion and misunderstanding.”
“Read the books I recommended”
Thanks for the suggestions. If I ever find Eastern Catholicism enticing, I will. It seems to have some advantages over Western Catholicism. In the meantime, I continue to be challenged and brought into worship by deacons, ministers, and bishops who have various genitalia.
12.14.2010 | 4:19pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Name one that affects one’s ability to fulfill a church office."
As a bishop or a presbyter is specifically called upon to be a father to his people, a woman could not fulfill that function. She might be a mother, but a mother is not a father, and those who think parenthood is not sexually differentiated have not raised children--biological or spiritual.
"A catch-22 names a specific kind of paradox in which a system pretends it is open to you but isn’t."
But the paradox is only apparent, because you have set a series of criteria about what it means to participate fully in the life of the Church. If your only tool is a hammer, every job looks like a nail. The paradox here is one achieves significance in the Church not through domination but through submission.
"True. My ignorance of Eastern Christianity is vast, and I’ve learned from you. But my question remains, if they’re so influential, why aren’t you quoting them? "
Because they are not germaine to our discussion. Marcrina was extremely interested in the fundamentals: Who is God, what is his nature, and how do we know Him? Like all mystics, like all good Eastern Christian theologians, she pursued the answers apophatically, and through contemplation not scholarship. Matters of Church governance, or the role of women in the Church, did not interest her. She, as a woman, felt quite fulfilled, body, soul, intellect and spirit, in the place she had. To know more about St. Macrina's influence on Cappodocian Theology, try Jaroslav Pelikan's "Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism" (1993). Surprising how influential a "mere woman" can be, not being ordained and all that rubbish.
"That’s true everywhere in Christianity. It also dodges the question of why some people should be denied some church offices based solely on their genitalia."
For the same reason that sex (which is more than genitalia--you can get rid of or swap out those, but not change your sex) affects every aspect of our lives: while God embodies both male and female, man--who is made in the image and likeness of God--incarnates either one or the other, a differentiation God made deliberately, so that through the sacrament of marriage, the two might become one flesh, thereby replicating in microcosm the relationship between the hypostases of the Trinity. It strikes me that egalitarians such as yourself, who cannot differentiate between ontological and functional equality, have trouble discerning the difference between "essence" or "nature" (ousion) and identity or persona (hypostasis). God has a single ousion (so the Creed tells us), but possesses three distinct hypostases-Father, Son, and Spirit. Man has a single nature (ousion), but being sexually dimorphic has two distinct hypostases--male and female. These differ not just physically, but emotionally, psychically and spiritually. Neither is inferior to the other, but their differences render them unique, and permit some to do things that the other cannot do. The most fundamental of these are the roles in parenthood: a woman can be a mother (something that goes well beyond giving birth), but not a father (something that goes well beyond impregnating a woman), and vice versa. As I noted, the typos of the bishop is fatherhood. And to the extent that the presbyter is a minister of the sacraments, he does so as a deputed representative of the bishop, who is the only ordinary minister of ALL the sacraments. A man can be a father; a woman cannot, in the same sense that a bird cannot become a cow, even if you could train it to moo
"I think I do. The question is why women are restricted from playing other, less anarchic roles, even if those roles are somehow seen as “often superior to that of the bishops.” "
There are many gifts, and God does not distribute them equally. That the presbyterate and episcopate are reserved for men is significant only if you somehow believe these ministries set those who hold them above other Christians. I don't, but I get the impression you do--which is, as I keep reminding you, the very essence of medieval clericalism.
"I would argue that changes that are consistent with tradition must retain the essential elements of tradition and discard those elements that are accidental. There are many qualities required to be an effective bishop or priest. Their genitalia are accidental to that effectiveness. "
That's your take. An alternative one was God granting the power to bind and loose to his Apostles, and assigning them the authority to ordain deacons, presbyters and bishops. The very first ordination, which took place within a week or so of the Resurrection, saw the selection of a replacement for Judas Iscariot. There were many women in that upper room, including some of Christ's closest followers--Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Joses, and of course, his own Mother. Why, with all these women so close to the master, did the Disciples not choose one of them, but instead a relative unknown from outside the inner circle? Why, for that matter, did Jesus, known for his radically egalitarian approach to women, only choose men to be numbered among the Twelve? Are you saying that Christ himself was swayed by "accidents" or social constructs? Guys who respect social constructs don't get nailed to trees.
"That’s true, but it’s not an argument since the opposite is also true. The question is whether an open mind is justified on the issue of women’s ordination. "
Make an argument that is convincing, then. Truth is self-affirming: something is true, whether everybody believes it or nobody believes it. And Christ sent us the Spirit to lead us into all truth. So, if what you preach is true, it will be believed. Alas, it does not seem to be the case so far.
"Thanks for the suggestions. If I ever find Eastern Catholicism enticing, I will. It seems to have some advantages over Western Catholicism. In the meantime, I continue to be challenged and brought into worship by deacons, ministers, and bishops who have various genitalia."
Your faith seems so fixated on the pipes that you lead me to think your Christ was a plumber, not a carpenter.
As a bishop or a presbyter is specifically called upon to be a father to his people, a woman could not fulfill that function. She might be a mother, but a mother is not a father, and those who think parenthood is not sexually differentiated have not raised children--biological or spiritual.
"A catch-22 names a specific kind of paradox in which a system pretends it is open to you but isn’t."
But the paradox is only apparent, because you have set a series of criteria about what it means to participate fully in the life of the Church. If your only tool is a hammer, every job looks like a nail. The paradox here is one achieves significance in the Church not through domination but through submission.
"True. My ignorance of Eastern Christianity is vast, and I’ve learned from you. But my question remains, if they’re so influential, why aren’t you quoting them? "
Because they are not germaine to our discussion. Marcrina was extremely interested in the fundamentals: Who is God, what is his nature, and how do we know Him? Like all mystics, like all good Eastern Christian theologians, she pursued the answers apophatically, and through contemplation not scholarship. Matters of Church governance, or the role of women in the Church, did not interest her. She, as a woman, felt quite fulfilled, body, soul, intellect and spirit, in the place she had. To know more about St. Macrina's influence on Cappodocian Theology, try Jaroslav Pelikan's "Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism" (1993). Surprising how influential a "mere woman" can be, not being ordained and all that rubbish.
"That’s true everywhere in Christianity. It also dodges the question of why some people should be denied some church offices based solely on their genitalia."
For the same reason that sex (which is more than genitalia--you can get rid of or swap out those, but not change your sex) affects every aspect of our lives: while God embodies both male and female, man--who is made in the image and likeness of God--incarnates either one or the other, a differentiation God made deliberately, so that through the sacrament of marriage, the two might become one flesh, thereby replicating in microcosm the relationship between the hypostases of the Trinity. It strikes me that egalitarians such as yourself, who cannot differentiate between ontological and functional equality, have trouble discerning the difference between "essence" or "nature" (ousion) and identity or persona (hypostasis). God has a single ousion (so the Creed tells us), but possesses three distinct hypostases-Father, Son, and Spirit. Man has a single nature (ousion), but being sexually dimorphic has two distinct hypostases--male and female. These differ not just physically, but emotionally, psychically and spiritually. Neither is inferior to the other, but their differences render them unique, and permit some to do things that the other cannot do. The most fundamental of these are the roles in parenthood: a woman can be a mother (something that goes well beyond giving birth), but not a father (something that goes well beyond impregnating a woman), and vice versa. As I noted, the typos of the bishop is fatherhood. And to the extent that the presbyter is a minister of the sacraments, he does so as a deputed representative of the bishop, who is the only ordinary minister of ALL the sacraments. A man can be a father; a woman cannot, in the same sense that a bird cannot become a cow, even if you could train it to moo
"I think I do. The question is why women are restricted from playing other, less anarchic roles, even if those roles are somehow seen as “often superior to that of the bishops.” "
There are many gifts, and God does not distribute them equally. That the presbyterate and episcopate are reserved for men is significant only if you somehow believe these ministries set those who hold them above other Christians. I don't, but I get the impression you do--which is, as I keep reminding you, the very essence of medieval clericalism.
"I would argue that changes that are consistent with tradition must retain the essential elements of tradition and discard those elements that are accidental. There are many qualities required to be an effective bishop or priest. Their genitalia are accidental to that effectiveness. "
That's your take. An alternative one was God granting the power to bind and loose to his Apostles, and assigning them the authority to ordain deacons, presbyters and bishops. The very first ordination, which took place within a week or so of the Resurrection, saw the selection of a replacement for Judas Iscariot. There were many women in that upper room, including some of Christ's closest followers--Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of Joses, and of course, his own Mother. Why, with all these women so close to the master, did the Disciples not choose one of them, but instead a relative unknown from outside the inner circle? Why, for that matter, did Jesus, known for his radically egalitarian approach to women, only choose men to be numbered among the Twelve? Are you saying that Christ himself was swayed by "accidents" or social constructs? Guys who respect social constructs don't get nailed to trees.
"That’s true, but it’s not an argument since the opposite is also true. The question is whether an open mind is justified on the issue of women’s ordination. "
Make an argument that is convincing, then. Truth is self-affirming: something is true, whether everybody believes it or nobody believes it. And Christ sent us the Spirit to lead us into all truth. So, if what you preach is true, it will be believed. Alas, it does not seem to be the case so far.
"Thanks for the suggestions. If I ever find Eastern Catholicism enticing, I will. It seems to have some advantages over Western Catholicism. In the meantime, I continue to be challenged and brought into worship by deacons, ministers, and bishops who have various genitalia."
Your faith seems so fixated on the pipes that you lead me to think your Christ was a plumber, not a carpenter.
12.14.2010 | 9:39pm
Lewis says:
“As a bishop or a presbyter is specifically called upon to be a father to his people, a woman could not fulfill that function.”
What specifically about these jobs requires that they be a father rather than a mother?
“The paradox here is one achieves significance in the Church not through domination but through submission”
But some must submit differently than others.
“Because they are not germaine to our discussion. Marcrina was extremely interested in the fundamentals: Who is God, what is his nature, and how do we know Him?”
So, in all of your many posts on all of these different forums, you quote from Marcrina and other women all the time. You just haven’t in this thread. Is that right?
“Neither is inferior to the other, but their differences render them unique, and permit some to do things that the other cannot do.”
Odd, though, that, except for motherhood, men are permitted to do anything that women can do, but women are not permitted to do some things that men can do. Have you noticed that at various times in various places across the globe women are told that they cannot do something that they elsewhere prove they are quite capable of doing? And have you noticed that the opposite rarely happens?
Apropos of this, you never answered my question about Eastern Christianity and menstruation. Is it true that menstruating women were once denied the Eucharist and even attendance?
“There are many gifts, and God does not distribute them equally.”
True enough. Can you give me another example of gifts that are distributed biologically? I find it anomalous that men and women possess the only significant biological difference.
“That the presbyterate and episcopate are reserved for men is significant only if you somehow believe these ministries set those who hold them above other Christians.”
There is another reason, namely, effectiveness. I’ve had a great female bishop and two great female pastors. By making genitalia the first criterion, Catholics are limiting the talent pool. Your claim that only men can father and only women can mother is true enough, which is why I’ve benefitted from receiving both fathering and mothering from my bishops and pastors.
“Why, for that matter, did Jesus, known for his radically egalitarian approach to women, only choose men to be numbered among the Twelve?”
Perhaps he chose the best qualified for the job, and they happened to be men. They also happened to be Jews, Judeans, villagers, Aramaic speakers, and from the lower classes. Of all these shared characteristics, only the genitalia have been seized on as somehow essential. Meanwhile, Christ’s “radically egalitarian approach to women” led to apostles like Junia and deacons like Thecla before “the order of deaconesses fell into disuse for historical, not theological reasons,” a disuse that suggests Christ set something to blossom that was later choked off.
“Are you saying that Christ himself was swayed by "accidents" or social constructs?”
No, I’m not.
“Make an argument that is convincing, then.”
I have.
“So, if what you preach is true, it will be believed. Alas, it does not seem to be the case so far”
Not true. Many of your Christian brothers and sisters believe as I do.
“Your faith seems so fixated on the pipes that you lead me to think your Christ was a plumber, not a carpenter”
Ah, but it is your faith that is fixated on pipes. I could care less about the piping of my ministers and bishops. I care about quality.
What specifically about these jobs requires that they be a father rather than a mother?
“The paradox here is one achieves significance in the Church not through domination but through submission”
But some must submit differently than others.
“Because they are not germaine to our discussion. Marcrina was extremely interested in the fundamentals: Who is God, what is his nature, and how do we know Him?”
So, in all of your many posts on all of these different forums, you quote from Marcrina and other women all the time. You just haven’t in this thread. Is that right?
“Neither is inferior to the other, but their differences render them unique, and permit some to do things that the other cannot do.”
Odd, though, that, except for motherhood, men are permitted to do anything that women can do, but women are not permitted to do some things that men can do. Have you noticed that at various times in various places across the globe women are told that they cannot do something that they elsewhere prove they are quite capable of doing? And have you noticed that the opposite rarely happens?
Apropos of this, you never answered my question about Eastern Christianity and menstruation. Is it true that menstruating women were once denied the Eucharist and even attendance?
“There are many gifts, and God does not distribute them equally.”
True enough. Can you give me another example of gifts that are distributed biologically? I find it anomalous that men and women possess the only significant biological difference.
“That the presbyterate and episcopate are reserved for men is significant only if you somehow believe these ministries set those who hold them above other Christians.”
There is another reason, namely, effectiveness. I’ve had a great female bishop and two great female pastors. By making genitalia the first criterion, Catholics are limiting the talent pool. Your claim that only men can father and only women can mother is true enough, which is why I’ve benefitted from receiving both fathering and mothering from my bishops and pastors.
“Why, for that matter, did Jesus, known for his radically egalitarian approach to women, only choose men to be numbered among the Twelve?”
Perhaps he chose the best qualified for the job, and they happened to be men. They also happened to be Jews, Judeans, villagers, Aramaic speakers, and from the lower classes. Of all these shared characteristics, only the genitalia have been seized on as somehow essential. Meanwhile, Christ’s “radically egalitarian approach to women” led to apostles like Junia and deacons like Thecla before “the order of deaconesses fell into disuse for historical, not theological reasons,” a disuse that suggests Christ set something to blossom that was later choked off.
“Are you saying that Christ himself was swayed by "accidents" or social constructs?”
No, I’m not.
“Make an argument that is convincing, then.”
I have.
“So, if what you preach is true, it will be believed. Alas, it does not seem to be the case so far”
Not true. Many of your Christian brothers and sisters believe as I do.
“Your faith seems so fixated on the pipes that you lead me to think your Christ was a plumber, not a carpenter”
Ah, but it is your faith that is fixated on pipes. I could care less about the piping of my ministers and bishops. I care about quality.
12.15.2010 | 2:14am
Nick says:
As Stuart notes Lewis you are fixated on genetalia. There are a great many things that make us different. You also have made this a New Testament only exercise. Was God somehow unfair in creating a male only priesthood then? Was the truth about God's impartiality in judgement different then (which is what your favorite scripture is discussing)?
As I have pointed out elsewhere I feel no need to seize the power that mothers have. Their role is different than mine. Their gifts are gifts I will never have. The best women do not want to seize the gifts of men. We live instead in profound joy and wonder at what the other has. Anything else would be theft; a most dire theft as it would be of God's things.
As I have pointed out elsewhere I feel no need to seize the power that mothers have. Their role is different than mine. Their gifts are gifts I will never have. The best women do not want to seize the gifts of men. We live instead in profound joy and wonder at what the other has. Anything else would be theft; a most dire theft as it would be of God's things.
12.15.2010 | 6:04am
Stuart Koehl says:
Lewis,
One of my friends said, and I quote: "You're really expending a lot of time on this one". He's right. Too much time. We're going in circles, because, as I said, we don't share the same frame of reference, or even the same vocabulary.
One of my friends said, and I quote: "You're really expending a lot of time on this one". He's right. Too much time. We're going in circles, because, as I said, we don't share the same frame of reference, or even the same vocabulary.
12.15.2010 | 2:04pm
Lewis says:
“As Stuart notes Lewis you are fixated on genetalia.”
No, I’m not. You are. I don’t care whether my bishop, priest, deacon, altar server, candle lighter, gospel readers, choir, etc., is male or female. I just want them to be good at their job. But Catholics and the Orthodox start first by identifying the genitalia and then select the best male for the jobs that are reserved for men. I’m just asking you to explain why YOU are so focused on genitalia.
“I feel no need to seize the power that mothers have. Their role is different than mine. Their gifts are gifts I will never have.”
I have no argument with the idea that men can’t be mothers and that women can’t be fathers. What doesn’t make sense is how being a mother or a father has anything to do with being a bishop or priest.
No, I’m not. You are. I don’t care whether my bishop, priest, deacon, altar server, candle lighter, gospel readers, choir, etc., is male or female. I just want them to be good at their job. But Catholics and the Orthodox start first by identifying the genitalia and then select the best male for the jobs that are reserved for men. I’m just asking you to explain why YOU are so focused on genitalia.
“I feel no need to seize the power that mothers have. Their role is different than mine. Their gifts are gifts I will never have.”
I have no argument with the idea that men can’t be mothers and that women can’t be fathers. What doesn’t make sense is how being a mother or a father has anything to do with being a bishop or priest.
12.15.2010 | 2:05pm
Lewis says:
“we don't share the same frame of reference, or even the same vocabulary”
What you really mean is that you can’t answer my questions satisfactorily. As you said earlier, the theological arguments against women’s ordination “are rather weak, others are mutually contradictory.” You’ve trotted out a handful, and each has collapsed. That’s ok. You knew in advance that they wouldn’t hold up, and I admire your honesty in owning up to that at the outset.
“We're going in circles”
I don’t think so. I see two different patterns. One is that you propose a fact or a claim, I challenge it, and you drop it. For example, you claimed that mainline Protestants are declining and Catholics are increasing. Catholics aren’t. They’re declining more slowly, especially when adjusted for immigration.
A second pattern is that you make a claim, I challenge it, you say I’m either medieval or secular because I’m using the wrong terms, I change my terms to match yours, and then you either drop the claim or move to another.
But it’s interesting that you choose to stop at this point because my last set of questions is asking you to really think through the implications of your arguments. You still can’t explain why a bishop must be a father or why a mother would make a bad bishop.
As you know, people have generated all sorts of crazy theories concerning the nature of women, and as a result, women have been prevented from serving lots of different roles in lots of different societies. Including, apparently, the idea that women can’t take the Eucharist when they’re menstruating. The theories and roles have changed many times over the centuries, but what they share is the conviction that women can’t do some things that men can do.
The presumption that women lack the “gifts” required to be priests and bishops seem of a piece with presumptions that women can’t excel in theology, science, literature, business, athletics, etc., presumptions that Westerners have held at one time or another. The presumption against women comes first, and then the rationales follow.
According to your account, the Eastern Church accepted the apostolic expansion of services women could perform. Instead of growing organically from there, however, the Eastern Church allowed those roles for women to lapse. Beginning thirty years ago, they started considering reinstituting those roles, but they’re slow deciders. You’ve claimed that the Eastern Church thinks of anything less than 500 years old as new. Perhaps they should spend some time thinking about their first 500 years. Maybe then women’s ordination wouldn’t seem quite so new.
What you really mean is that you can’t answer my questions satisfactorily. As you said earlier, the theological arguments against women’s ordination “are rather weak, others are mutually contradictory.” You’ve trotted out a handful, and each has collapsed. That’s ok. You knew in advance that they wouldn’t hold up, and I admire your honesty in owning up to that at the outset.
“We're going in circles”
I don’t think so. I see two different patterns. One is that you propose a fact or a claim, I challenge it, and you drop it. For example, you claimed that mainline Protestants are declining and Catholics are increasing. Catholics aren’t. They’re declining more slowly, especially when adjusted for immigration.
A second pattern is that you make a claim, I challenge it, you say I’m either medieval or secular because I’m using the wrong terms, I change my terms to match yours, and then you either drop the claim or move to another.
But it’s interesting that you choose to stop at this point because my last set of questions is asking you to really think through the implications of your arguments. You still can’t explain why a bishop must be a father or why a mother would make a bad bishop.
As you know, people have generated all sorts of crazy theories concerning the nature of women, and as a result, women have been prevented from serving lots of different roles in lots of different societies. Including, apparently, the idea that women can’t take the Eucharist when they’re menstruating. The theories and roles have changed many times over the centuries, but what they share is the conviction that women can’t do some things that men can do.
The presumption that women lack the “gifts” required to be priests and bishops seem of a piece with presumptions that women can’t excel in theology, science, literature, business, athletics, etc., presumptions that Westerners have held at one time or another. The presumption against women comes first, and then the rationales follow.
According to your account, the Eastern Church accepted the apostolic expansion of services women could perform. Instead of growing organically from there, however, the Eastern Church allowed those roles for women to lapse. Beginning thirty years ago, they started considering reinstituting those roles, but they’re slow deciders. You’ve claimed that the Eastern Church thinks of anything less than 500 years old as new. Perhaps they should spend some time thinking about their first 500 years. Maybe then women’s ordination wouldn’t seem quite so new.
12.15.2010 | 3:20pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"What you really mean is that you can’t answer my questions satisfactorily."
No, it means you won't listen, and won't accept answers that contradict your existing presuppositions. "Hello, hello! Who is speaking please?" It is you who are speaking.
"Including, apparently, the idea that women can’t take the Eucharist when they’re menstruating. "
Never part of the Tradition, as Sister Vassa Larin of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) convincingly established. Look her up on the internet.
"The theories and roles have changed many times over the centuries, but what they share is the conviction that women can’t do some things that men can do. "
Women can't do some things men can do. And men can't do some things women can't do. Get. Over. It.
It also interests me that aspiring feminists like to insist that women can do anything men can do, and can bring unique perspectives and talents to those things, but for some reason, men can never do anything a woman can do, and even if they could, they would bring no value added to it. Ah, well. Heads you win, tails I lose.
"The presumption that women lack the “gifts” required to be priests and bishops seem of a piece with presumptions that women can’t excel in theology, science, literature, business, athletics, etc., presumptions that Westerners have held at one time or another. The presumption against women comes first, and then the rationales follow. "
Actually, none of those things are required to be a presbyter or bishop. The only thing required is the presbyter or bishop be a father to his people. Show me a woman who can be a father.
"According to your account, the Eastern Church accepted the apostolic expansion of services women could perform. Instead of growing organically from there, however, the Eastern Church allowed those roles for women to lapse."
And pretty much left it at that. We do not presume to improve on what the Apostles gave us, only to adapt that to our current circumstances. In other words, when the Tradition evolves, it is for pastoral, not doctrinal reasons.
And, as I said, the office of deaconess lapsed not because of some diabolical conspiracy to keep women down, but simply because, in the circumstances faced by the Orthodox Church in the 14th century, the ordination of deaconesses was not a pressing issue.
"Beginning thirty years ago, they started considering reinstituting those roles, but they’re slow deciders. "
If they decided in less than a century, it would be remarkably fast work. As I said, anything less than five hundred years old is new.
The Eastern Churches never ordained women to the presbyterate, so even if we restored patristic practice (or sub-apostolic practice, for that matter), nothing would change in that regard. We would have deaconesses, which I personally think would be a good thing. But we will never have female presbyters.
And it is not really necessary. As I told you, and as you refuse to accept, among the Orthodox, the monastics have always led doctrinal movements. And in Eastern monasticism, there is quite a rigorous egalitarianism--men and women alike are simply monks. Oh, I forgot--that's not good enough for you.
Before you argue with someone, and try to tell him about what his Church ought to do, maybe you should take the time to get at least a passing familiarity with the Orthodox Tradition. Two very accessible works by Protestant theologians writing for Protestants are "Light From the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition", by James R. Payton, Jr.; and "Eastern Orthodox Christianity" by Daniel B. Clendenin.
After reading these, you probably will recognize the need to reset all of your previous assumptions when dealing with the Eastern Churches. We're not just Roman Catholics in drag, you know.
No, it means you won't listen, and won't accept answers that contradict your existing presuppositions. "Hello, hello! Who is speaking please?" It is you who are speaking.
"Including, apparently, the idea that women can’t take the Eucharist when they’re menstruating. "
Never part of the Tradition, as Sister Vassa Larin of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) convincingly established. Look her up on the internet.
"The theories and roles have changed many times over the centuries, but what they share is the conviction that women can’t do some things that men can do. "
Women can't do some things men can do. And men can't do some things women can't do. Get. Over. It.
It also interests me that aspiring feminists like to insist that women can do anything men can do, and can bring unique perspectives and talents to those things, but for some reason, men can never do anything a woman can do, and even if they could, they would bring no value added to it. Ah, well. Heads you win, tails I lose.
"The presumption that women lack the “gifts” required to be priests and bishops seem of a piece with presumptions that women can’t excel in theology, science, literature, business, athletics, etc., presumptions that Westerners have held at one time or another. The presumption against women comes first, and then the rationales follow. "
Actually, none of those things are required to be a presbyter or bishop. The only thing required is the presbyter or bishop be a father to his people. Show me a woman who can be a father.
"According to your account, the Eastern Church accepted the apostolic expansion of services women could perform. Instead of growing organically from there, however, the Eastern Church allowed those roles for women to lapse."
And pretty much left it at that. We do not presume to improve on what the Apostles gave us, only to adapt that to our current circumstances. In other words, when the Tradition evolves, it is for pastoral, not doctrinal reasons.
And, as I said, the office of deaconess lapsed not because of some diabolical conspiracy to keep women down, but simply because, in the circumstances faced by the Orthodox Church in the 14th century, the ordination of deaconesses was not a pressing issue.
"Beginning thirty years ago, they started considering reinstituting those roles, but they’re slow deciders. "
If they decided in less than a century, it would be remarkably fast work. As I said, anything less than five hundred years old is new.
The Eastern Churches never ordained women to the presbyterate, so even if we restored patristic practice (or sub-apostolic practice, for that matter), nothing would change in that regard. We would have deaconesses, which I personally think would be a good thing. But we will never have female presbyters.
And it is not really necessary. As I told you, and as you refuse to accept, among the Orthodox, the monastics have always led doctrinal movements. And in Eastern monasticism, there is quite a rigorous egalitarianism--men and women alike are simply monks. Oh, I forgot--that's not good enough for you.
Before you argue with someone, and try to tell him about what his Church ought to do, maybe you should take the time to get at least a passing familiarity with the Orthodox Tradition. Two very accessible works by Protestant theologians writing for Protestants are "Light From the Christian East: An Introduction to the Orthodox Tradition", by James R. Payton, Jr.; and "Eastern Orthodox Christianity" by Daniel B. Clendenin.
After reading these, you probably will recognize the need to reset all of your previous assumptions when dealing with the Eastern Churches. We're not just Roman Catholics in drag, you know.
12.15.2010 | 3:21pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"What doesn’t make sense is how being a mother or a father has anything to do with being a bishop or priest."
What is a priest, first and foremost, OTHER than a spiritual father?
What is a priest, first and foremost, OTHER than a spiritual father?
12.15.2010 | 3:37pm
David Gray says:
>>Before you argue with someone, and try to tell him about what his Church ought to do, maybe you should take the time to get at least a passing familiarity with the Orthodox Tradition.
True regarding all Christians churches, including the Orthodox.
True regarding all Christians churches, including the Orthodox.
12.15.2010 | 8:46pm
Lewis says:
“No, it means you won't listen, and won't accept answers that contradict your existing presuppositions.”
Except that I have listened, and I have accepted some answers that contradict my existing presuppositions about some things. Have you been listening to me and accepting answers that contradict your existing presuppositions?
“Never part of the Tradition , as Sister Vassa Larin of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) convincingly established.”
Thanks for the suggestion. I read the article. Larin argues that ritual impurity “entered church practice under direct Judaic and/or pagan influences” but “finds no justification in Christian anthropology and soteriology.” So yes, concerns about the ritual impurity of women during menstruation was “never part of tradition” if by tradition you mean tradition as it now understood. But it was once and apparently still is in some places seen as part of the tradition.
“Women can't do some things men can do. And men can't do some things women can't do. Get. Over. It.”
I agree. We differ over what belongs on that list.
“It also interests me that aspiring feminists like to insist that women can do anything men can do, and can bring unique perspectives and talents to those things, but for some reason, men can never do anything a woman can do, and even if they could, they would bring no value added to it. Ah, well. Heads you win, tails I lose”
Now you’re making things up. Show me one place where I have made that argument.
“The only thing required is the presbyter or bishop be a father to his people. Show me a woman who can be a father”
You can’t seem to answer this question, can you? Why are presbyters and bishops required to be fathers? Why aren’t they required to be mothers? Why not require a mix? After all, most of us have both mothers and fathers.
“when the Tradition evolves, it is for pastoral, not doctrinal reasons”
And pastoral reasons have never included bringing the unique gifts of motherhood into the priesthood.
“And, as I said, the office of deaconess lapsed not because of some diabolical conspiracy to keep women down, but simply because, in the circumstances faced by the Orthodox Church in the 14th century, the ordination of deaconesses was not a pressing issue”
I never said there was a diabolical conspiracy. I just said that men tend to forget about what women are doing. But more to the point, what happened to the services that deaconesses were performing? Did the church feel the loss of their unique gifts of motherhood?
“If they decided in less than a century, it would be remarkably fast work. As I said, anything less than five hundred years old is new”
If you start the clock at the apostolic expansion of offices for women, then they’ve had two millennia to work on this.
“As I told you, and as you refuse to accept, among the Orthodox, the monastics have always led doctrinal movements.”
I haven’t refused to accept it. I take your word for it. I’m interested in those positions from which women have been excluded. Since you say monasteries are not exclusionary, I’ve dropped that subject. And since you say that only medieval clerics care about power, I’ve dropped that subject, too. See how much I’m learning from you? You see how we’re not going in circles?
“Before you argue with someone, and try to tell him about what his Church ought to do, maybe you should take the time to get at least a passing familiarity with the Orthodox Tradition.”
Another option is to converse with someone. Like I have. It doesn’t seem so wrong.
“What is a priest, first and foremost, OTHER than a spiritual father?”
Well, my male ministers have been spiritual fathers to me, and my female ministers have been spiritual mothers, so I’d say I’ve had a full spiritual parenting. The question is why you don’t need spiritual mothers as presbyters.
In my reading about Orthodoxy today (see, I read!), I’ve come across the claim that, during baptism, baby boys are taken into the altar to be blessed while girls are blessed in front of the altar. This difference in practice is no doubt related to their different gifts, but I’m puzzled.
I also read an article on Antiochian.net by Valerie Karras about female deacons in the Byzantine Church (look, more reading!). She seems to agree with my suggestion that sexism played a role in the disappearance of deaconesses. She says, “In the absence of any documentary evidence pointing to other causes, the most likely answer--both for the decline beginning in the iconoclastic period and the eventual vanishing of the ordained order in the twelfth century--is the introduction into the Byzantine Church beginning in the late seventh century of severe liturgical restrictions on menstruating women.”
She agrees with my supposition that crazy ideas about women’s differences from men contributed to the way that deaconesses were always treated differently. She says that “it appears from other legislation that, although deaconesses were obviously considered part of the clergy, and the higher clergy at that, Justinian and others were not entirely comfortable with the idea. The cultural notions that female nature was morally "weaker,"(n102) and that male headship--especially in church affairs--needed to be exercised over women who were either lustful or susceptible to seduction,(n103) no doubt influenced Justinian as well as the church as a whole. That women were ordained to major orders likely multiplied the trepidation hierarchs and emperors felt in this regard.”
This idea that women are morally weaker than men, more lustful, and more susceptible to seduction is a far cry from your claims that the East understands that women have different gifts, the kinds of gifts mothers have. As I’ve said, the cultural constant is discrimination against women, what changes are the rationales for it.
Karras describes some of the consequences as well: “the punishment for sexual misconduct was far harsher for deaconesses than for the male clergy, exemplified most starkly by a provision in Justinian's Novel 6, promulgated in 535, which prescribed the death penalty for any deaconess who broke her vow of celibacy by marrying or engaging in fornication.(n109) Such a penalty was far harsher than for laywomen guilty of fornication;(n110) it was also far harsher than for fornicating subdeacons deacons, and priests, who were simply reduced to lay status.”
Lovely.
I also came across the following story on OrthodoxChristianity.net. It paints a different picture than you did. This woman talks about how “it drives me CRAZY to see random men wandering in and out of the altar during Divine Liturgy! It also drives me nuts that the mythology that says "you can enter the altar if you are a man" still prevails.” Because she was doing catering, she “spoke with the Priest (who presumably spoke with the Bishop), and received the blessing to go into the Holy Altar to change the temperature.”
After receiving the kind of permission that I guess only a father can give, she still had trouble. “He left it up to my discretion to use my judgement to know when I needed to enter the Altar. And I was in constant contact with both him and my father confessor. I took that as a heavy responsibility. But then I would turn around and see random guys in the parish going in and out of the altar, cutting through the altar to get into the vestry (instead of going around like the rest of us), etc and so forth. And they think they can do this because they are men. And nobody corrects them! That's what kills me!”
So here she is, trying to be responsible and respect the altar, but men believe their genitalia (oh, excuse me, their gifts) entitle them to be more cavalier.
The kicker to this story is that after she left town “my priest actually MOVED the thermostats out of the Altar! The reason was because there were some people in the parish who did not like that I had been given a blessing to go in the Altar.”
No sexism here. Just the Tradition.
Lest you think this woman is what you earlier and respectfully called a “harridan,” she’s not: “Please don't get me wrong. Lest I be accused of being some scary left wing woman who is going to go requesting ordination, let me be clear in stating that I do not believe in women being ordained, etc. However, I find some of the attitudes regarding women in the Holy Altar thoroughly offensive and insulting.”
She tells two stories. The first story is about a man who “disapproved of me being at the chant stand.” “After the Epistle, the male chanters (some of whom I knew did not have a blessing to be in the altar) all went to hang out and chat in the altar for the rest of the Liturgy, and I went to sit down in the pew. As I did so, the attitude the gentleman gave me was so insulting, and triumphalist, and was based totally on the fact that HE was allowed to enter the Altar because he was a man, and I couldn't because I was a woman. He went as far as to laugh at me in front of the entire congregation. Obviously his nannny-nanny-boo-boo attitude was childish, and I knew it, but I was actually embarrassed! I was embarrassed to be a woman! I was embarrassed that I could not enter the Altar! I felt like a child being punished for something that I couldn't help!”
Her second experience is worse. “I was actually teased by a priest because I could not enter the Altar to venerate the relics he had in the Altar because I was a woman. My husband, God bless him, was kind enough to bring them to the altar door so that I could venerate them. Again, I was humiliated (and in front of several priests-- none of whom stood up for me), and was feeling lower than dirt for being a woman. What are we to do when our clergy themselves are furthering this type of thinking? This is the exact type of thinking that makes women in the Church feel that they are worth less than men, to feel that the Church has no place for them, to have all kinds of negative feelings that even I, who obviously know better, have struggled with.”
Now that’s some fine fathering done by those priests. I wonder whether any mothering presbyters would have helped.
So it appears that I’m not the only one thinking like a medieval cleric. The men in her story seem to have absorbed the lesson that men have power and rights that women don’t have.
Except that I have listened, and I have accepted some answers that contradict my existing presuppositions about some things. Have you been listening to me and accepting answers that contradict your existing presuppositions?
“Never part of the Tradition , as Sister Vassa Larin of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) convincingly established.”
Thanks for the suggestion. I read the article. Larin argues that ritual impurity “entered church practice under direct Judaic and/or pagan influences” but “finds no justification in Christian anthropology and soteriology.” So yes, concerns about the ritual impurity of women during menstruation was “never part of tradition” if by tradition you mean tradition as it now understood. But it was once and apparently still is in some places seen as part of the tradition.
“Women can't do some things men can do. And men can't do some things women can't do. Get. Over. It.”
I agree. We differ over what belongs on that list.
“It also interests me that aspiring feminists like to insist that women can do anything men can do, and can bring unique perspectives and talents to those things, but for some reason, men can never do anything a woman can do, and even if they could, they would bring no value added to it. Ah, well. Heads you win, tails I lose”
Now you’re making things up. Show me one place where I have made that argument.
“The only thing required is the presbyter or bishop be a father to his people. Show me a woman who can be a father”
You can’t seem to answer this question, can you? Why are presbyters and bishops required to be fathers? Why aren’t they required to be mothers? Why not require a mix? After all, most of us have both mothers and fathers.
“when the Tradition evolves, it is for pastoral, not doctrinal reasons”
And pastoral reasons have never included bringing the unique gifts of motherhood into the priesthood.
“And, as I said, the office of deaconess lapsed not because of some diabolical conspiracy to keep women down, but simply because, in the circumstances faced by the Orthodox Church in the 14th century, the ordination of deaconesses was not a pressing issue”
I never said there was a diabolical conspiracy. I just said that men tend to forget about what women are doing. But more to the point, what happened to the services that deaconesses were performing? Did the church feel the loss of their unique gifts of motherhood?
“If they decided in less than a century, it would be remarkably fast work. As I said, anything less than five hundred years old is new”
If you start the clock at the apostolic expansion of offices for women, then they’ve had two millennia to work on this.
“As I told you, and as you refuse to accept, among the Orthodox, the monastics have always led doctrinal movements.”
I haven’t refused to accept it. I take your word for it. I’m interested in those positions from which women have been excluded. Since you say monasteries are not exclusionary, I’ve dropped that subject. And since you say that only medieval clerics care about power, I’ve dropped that subject, too. See how much I’m learning from you? You see how we’re not going in circles?
“Before you argue with someone, and try to tell him about what his Church ought to do, maybe you should take the time to get at least a passing familiarity with the Orthodox Tradition.”
Another option is to converse with someone. Like I have. It doesn’t seem so wrong.
“What is a priest, first and foremost, OTHER than a spiritual father?”
Well, my male ministers have been spiritual fathers to me, and my female ministers have been spiritual mothers, so I’d say I’ve had a full spiritual parenting. The question is why you don’t need spiritual mothers as presbyters.
In my reading about Orthodoxy today (see, I read!), I’ve come across the claim that, during baptism, baby boys are taken into the altar to be blessed while girls are blessed in front of the altar. This difference in practice is no doubt related to their different gifts, but I’m puzzled.
I also read an article on Antiochian.net by Valerie Karras about female deacons in the Byzantine Church (look, more reading!). She seems to agree with my suggestion that sexism played a role in the disappearance of deaconesses. She says, “In the absence of any documentary evidence pointing to other causes, the most likely answer--both for the decline beginning in the iconoclastic period and the eventual vanishing of the ordained order in the twelfth century--is the introduction into the Byzantine Church beginning in the late seventh century of severe liturgical restrictions on menstruating women.”
She agrees with my supposition that crazy ideas about women’s differences from men contributed to the way that deaconesses were always treated differently. She says that “it appears from other legislation that, although deaconesses were obviously considered part of the clergy, and the higher clergy at that, Justinian and others were not entirely comfortable with the idea. The cultural notions that female nature was morally "weaker,"(n102) and that male headship--especially in church affairs--needed to be exercised over women who were either lustful or susceptible to seduction,(n103) no doubt influenced Justinian as well as the church as a whole. That women were ordained to major orders likely multiplied the trepidation hierarchs and emperors felt in this regard.”
This idea that women are morally weaker than men, more lustful, and more susceptible to seduction is a far cry from your claims that the East understands that women have different gifts, the kinds of gifts mothers have. As I’ve said, the cultural constant is discrimination against women, what changes are the rationales for it.
Karras describes some of the consequences as well: “the punishment for sexual misconduct was far harsher for deaconesses than for the male clergy, exemplified most starkly by a provision in Justinian's Novel 6, promulgated in 535, which prescribed the death penalty for any deaconess who broke her vow of celibacy by marrying or engaging in fornication.(n109) Such a penalty was far harsher than for laywomen guilty of fornication;(n110) it was also far harsher than for fornicating subdeacons deacons, and priests, who were simply reduced to lay status.”
Lovely.
I also came across the following story on OrthodoxChristianity.net. It paints a different picture than you did. This woman talks about how “it drives me CRAZY to see random men wandering in and out of the altar during Divine Liturgy! It also drives me nuts that the mythology that says "you can enter the altar if you are a man" still prevails.” Because she was doing catering, she “spoke with the Priest (who presumably spoke with the Bishop), and received the blessing to go into the Holy Altar to change the temperature.”
After receiving the kind of permission that I guess only a father can give, she still had trouble. “He left it up to my discretion to use my judgement to know when I needed to enter the Altar. And I was in constant contact with both him and my father confessor. I took that as a heavy responsibility. But then I would turn around and see random guys in the parish going in and out of the altar, cutting through the altar to get into the vestry (instead of going around like the rest of us), etc and so forth. And they think they can do this because they are men. And nobody corrects them! That's what kills me!”
So here she is, trying to be responsible and respect the altar, but men believe their genitalia (oh, excuse me, their gifts) entitle them to be more cavalier.
The kicker to this story is that after she left town “my priest actually MOVED the thermostats out of the Altar! The reason was because there were some people in the parish who did not like that I had been given a blessing to go in the Altar.”
No sexism here. Just the Tradition.
Lest you think this woman is what you earlier and respectfully called a “harridan,” she’s not: “Please don't get me wrong. Lest I be accused of being some scary left wing woman who is going to go requesting ordination, let me be clear in stating that I do not believe in women being ordained, etc. However, I find some of the attitudes regarding women in the Holy Altar thoroughly offensive and insulting.”
She tells two stories. The first story is about a man who “disapproved of me being at the chant stand.” “After the Epistle, the male chanters (some of whom I knew did not have a blessing to be in the altar) all went to hang out and chat in the altar for the rest of the Liturgy, and I went to sit down in the pew. As I did so, the attitude the gentleman gave me was so insulting, and triumphalist, and was based totally on the fact that HE was allowed to enter the Altar because he was a man, and I couldn't because I was a woman. He went as far as to laugh at me in front of the entire congregation. Obviously his nannny-nanny-boo-boo attitude was childish, and I knew it, but I was actually embarrassed! I was embarrassed to be a woman! I was embarrassed that I could not enter the Altar! I felt like a child being punished for something that I couldn't help!”
Her second experience is worse. “I was actually teased by a priest because I could not enter the Altar to venerate the relics he had in the Altar because I was a woman. My husband, God bless him, was kind enough to bring them to the altar door so that I could venerate them. Again, I was humiliated (and in front of several priests-- none of whom stood up for me), and was feeling lower than dirt for being a woman. What are we to do when our clergy themselves are furthering this type of thinking? This is the exact type of thinking that makes women in the Church feel that they are worth less than men, to feel that the Church has no place for them, to have all kinds of negative feelings that even I, who obviously know better, have struggled with.”
Now that’s some fine fathering done by those priests. I wonder whether any mothering presbyters would have helped.
So it appears that I’m not the only one thinking like a medieval cleric. The men in her story seem to have absorbed the lesson that men have power and rights that women don’t have.
12.15.2010 | 11:20pm
Bobby Winters says:
Lewis,
I am in a denomination that has female clergy. I've been reading the arguments regarding women in the priesthood for quite sometime. It is not about ability to do a job from the point of view of those who oppose women priests. It is a matter of a view of the church. Jesus was essentially male because he was the new Adam. The priest is acting fully in the place of Jesus and so must be male. QED. Quite frankly, this is a higher view of clergy than I currently possess, so it's not an area of conflict for me.
I am in a denomination that has female clergy. I've been reading the arguments regarding women in the priesthood for quite sometime. It is not about ability to do a job from the point of view of those who oppose women priests. It is a matter of a view of the church. Jesus was essentially male because he was the new Adam. The priest is acting fully in the place of Jesus and so must be male. QED. Quite frankly, this is a higher view of clergy than I currently possess, so it's not an area of conflict for me.
12.16.2010 | 7:29am
Stuart Koehl says:
Congratulations, Lewis! I said the number of Orthodox who favor women's ordination can be counted on one hand, and you found one of the five! Great work, although Valarie Karras is such a squeaky wheel that googling the words "Orthodoxy" and "Women's Ordination" will turn up Karras in at least half of the top ten picks. Let's just say that she's not at all representative of the Orthodox consensus among women, and that if you wanted to find that, you would be better off looking up the blog of Khouria Frederica Matthewes-Green, or reading the books and essays of Fitzgerald, or Mother Vassa. In fact, there is an entire compilation of stories about Orthodoxy by Orthodox women converts, "Our Heart's True Home". Or you could get the proceedings of a 2008 conference on "Women in Orthodoxy, Past and Present", held in Manhattan, which was sponsored by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia, the agenda for which can be found here:
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/pdf/Orthodox_Womens_Conference_BrochureFinal.pdf
Take a look at some of the lecturers, and tell me if you think these are simpering, downtrodden women who think their options inside the Church are unduly constrained by their inability to be ordained as presbyters and bishops.
Here are some examples:
Vera Shevzov teaches in the Department of Religion at Smith College. She received her B.A and Ph.D. from Yale University and is a graduate of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. She also spent a year and a half studying at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Her book, Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution (Oxford University Press, 2004), received the Frank S. and Elizabeth D. Brewer Prize from the American Society of Church History. It has been translated into Russian and is scheduled to be published in 2009 by Dmitrii Bulanin Publishers. Her current book project is a study of Mary, the Mother of God, in
modern Russian Orthodoxy from the eighteenth through the twentieth centuries.
Marina Ledkovsky, Professor (Emerita) of Slavic Languages and Literature, Barnard College, Columbia University, is the author of The Other Turgenev: From Romanticism to Symbolism (1973), co-author of the Dictionary of Russian Women Writers (1994), and of two anthologies of women's writings in Russian and English. She has contributed numerous articles, reviews, and chapters in books and journals on themes of Russian literature, poetry and linguistics, including religious philosophy and Russian Orthodox ecclesiastical music. Lately she has been concentrating on notable émigré composers of Russian Orthodox sacred music and on family history. Most recently she has been engaged in editing, annotating, and writing the introduction to the translation from English to Russian of the memoirs of Nicolas Nabokov (1903-1978), first cousin of Vladimir, and a noted musicologist, composer and champion of the Congress for Freedom of Culture during the darkest totalitarian years behind the Iron Curtain.
the Synod Cathedral Choir in New York City, where she has also been guest conductor, and currently studies voice at the Rockland Conservatory of Music. Ms. Temidis is founder, artistic and musical director of the Holy Myrrhbearers Women’s Choir, which had its inception in 1998, and for which she researches and arranges much of the repertoire. Eugenia holds a BA in Cultural Anthropology from Drew University and this year concludes a three-year program of study for church conductors at the Summer School of Music at Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, NY. Her interests include Church Slavonic chant, order of the Orthodox divine services (ustav) and liturgical symbolism. Ms. Temidis anticipates continuing her education in the field of Orthodox music and liturgics when her five children have grown.
Sister Vassa Larin is a nun of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in the Archdiocese of Berlin and Germany. She received her Master's Degree in Orthodox Theology at the University of Munich and specializes in the history of Byzantine Liturgy. She is currently the Graduate Assistant of Professor Robert Taft in Rome, where she is working on her doctoral dissertation on the topic of the hierarchical Divine Liturgy.
Professor Nadieszda Kizenko received her B.A. from Harvard and her PhD from Columbia University. Her first book, A Prodigal Saint: Father John of Kronstadt and the Russian People (Penn, 2000) received the Heldt Prize. A Russian translation, Sviatoi Nashego Vremeni: O. Ioann Kronshtadtskii i Russkii Narod, (Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie) was published in 2006. Prof. Kizenko has published widely on topics pertaining to Orthodoxy in Russian history and culture. She is currently working on a study of confession in modern Russia.
Natalia Ermolaev is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures at Columbia University. Her fields of interest are Russian religious thought and Russian women's writing. She is currently completing her dissertation on the poetry and theology of Saint Mother Maria (Skobtsova). Natalia is an Archival Assistant at Columbia's Bakhmeteff Archive, and is involved in several projects with Russian emigre collections. She is a member of the Holy Virgin Protection Cathedral in New York City (OCA), where she teaches Sunday school and is the parish representative for the International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC).
"So it appears that I’m not the only one thinking like a medieval cleric. The men in her story seem to have absorbed the lesson that men have power and rights that women don’t have."
Assuming you take her story at face value. Miss Karras (whom I have met) seems to me one of those perpetually aggrieved women who has a rather large chip on her shoulder and a truculent look in her eye. I gathered she wasn't so much Orthodox as a woman whose grandmother came from Greece. You meet as many Greeks and Russians whose Orthodoxy is cultural as you meet Irish and Italians whose Catholicism is cultural (95% of the population of Greece is supposedly Orthodox, but only 5% of the population can be found in Church on any given Sunday).
To find the true soul of Orthodox, you must go to Liturgy, not once, but repeatedly, and get to know the people you meet there. I know that sounds scary, and it should be. You would definitely be running the strong risk of having your entire life transformed by what you discover. As the emissaries of St. Vladimir of Kyiv (grandson of St. Olga, evangelist of the Rus') wrote in the Russian Primary Chronicle:
"We did not know if we were in heaven or on earth, for on earth there is no such beauty. But this we do know: God dwells there among men".
http://www.russianorthodoxchurch.ws/synod/pdf/Orthodox_Womens_Conference_BrochureFinal.pdf
Take a look at some of the lecturers, and tell me if you think these are simpering, downtrodden women who think their options inside the Church are unduly constrained by their inability to be ordained as presbyters and bishops.
Here are some examples:
Vera Shevzov teaches in the Department of Religion at Smith College. She received her B.A and Ph.D. from Yale University and is a graduate of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. She also spent a year and a half studying at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Her book, Russian Orthodoxy on the Eve of Revolution (Oxford University Press, 2004), received the Frank S. and Elizabeth D. Brewer Prize from the American Society of Church History. It has been translated into Russian and is scheduled to be published in 2009 by Dmitrii Bulanin Publishers. Her current book project is a study of Mary, the Mother of God, in
modern Russian Orthodoxy from the eighteenth through the twentieth centuries.
Marina Ledkovsky, Professor (Emerita) of Slavic Languages and Literature, Barnard College, Columbia University, is the author of The Other Turgenev: From Romanticism to Symbolism (1973), co-author of the Dictionary of Russian Women Writers (1994), and of two anthologies of women's writings in Russian and English. She has contributed numerous articles, reviews, and chapters in books and journals on themes of Russian literature, poetry and linguistics, including religious philosophy and Russian Orthodox ecclesiastical music. Lately she has been concentrating on notable émigré composers of Russian Orthodox sacred music and on family history. Most recently she has been engaged in editing, annotating, and writing the introduction to the translation from English to Russian of the memoirs of Nicolas Nabokov (1903-1978), first cousin of Vladimir, and a noted musicologist, composer and champion of the Congress for Freedom of Culture during the darkest totalitarian years behind the Iron Curtain.
the Synod Cathedral Choir in New York City, where she has also been guest conductor, and currently studies voice at the Rockland Conservatory of Music. Ms. Temidis is founder, artistic and musical director of the Holy Myrrhbearers Women’s Choir, which had its inception in 1998, and for which she researches and arranges much of the repertoire. Eugenia holds a BA in Cultural Anthropology from Drew University and this year concludes a three-year program of study for church conductors at the Summer School of Music at Holy Trinity Seminary in Jordanville, NY. Her interests include Church Slavonic chant, order of the Orthodox divine services (ustav) and liturgical symbolism. Ms. Temidis anticipates continuing her education in the field of Orthodox music and liturgics when her five children have grown.
Sister Vassa Larin is a nun of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in the Archdiocese of Berlin and Germany. She received her Master's Degree in Orthodox Theology at the University of Munich and specializes in the history of Byzantine Liturgy. She is currently the Graduate Assistant of Professor Robert Taft in Rome, where she is working on her doctoral dissertation on the topic of the hierarchical Divine Liturgy.
Professor Nadieszda Kizenko received her B.A. from Harvard and her PhD from Columbia University. Her first book, A Prodigal Saint: Father John of Kronstadt and the Russian People (Penn, 2000) received the Heldt Prize. A Russian translation, Sviatoi Nashego Vremeni: O. Ioann Kronshtadtskii i Russkii Narod, (Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie) was published in 2006. Prof. Kizenko has published widely on topics pertaining to Orthodoxy in Russian history and culture. She is currently working on a study of confession in modern Russia.
Natalia Ermolaev is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures at Columbia University. Her fields of interest are Russian religious thought and Russian women's writing. She is currently completing her dissertation on the poetry and theology of Saint Mother Maria (Skobtsova). Natalia is an Archival Assistant at Columbia's Bakhmeteff Archive, and is involved in several projects with Russian emigre collections. She is a member of the Holy Virgin Protection Cathedral in New York City (OCA), where she teaches Sunday school and is the parish representative for the International Orthodox Christian Charities (IOCC).
"So it appears that I’m not the only one thinking like a medieval cleric. The men in her story seem to have absorbed the lesson that men have power and rights that women don’t have."
Assuming you take her story at face value. Miss Karras (whom I have met) seems to me one of those perpetually aggrieved women who has a rather large chip on her shoulder and a truculent look in her eye. I gathered she wasn't so much Orthodox as a woman whose grandmother came from Greece. You meet as many Greeks and Russians whose Orthodoxy is cultural as you meet Irish and Italians whose Catholicism is cultural (95% of the population of Greece is supposedly Orthodox, but only 5% of the population can be found in Church on any given Sunday).
To find the true soul of Orthodox, you must go to Liturgy, not once, but repeatedly, and get to know the people you meet there. I know that sounds scary, and it should be. You would definitely be running the strong risk of having your entire life transformed by what you discover. As the emissaries of St. Vladimir of Kyiv (grandson of St. Olga, evangelist of the Rus') wrote in the Russian Primary Chronicle:
"We did not know if we were in heaven or on earth, for on earth there is no such beauty. But this we do know: God dwells there among men".
12.16.2010 | 9:44am
Stuart Koehl says:
Bobby,
It's mainly Latin theology that sees the celebrant of the Eucharist standing "in persona Christi". In the Easter Churches, he stands "in persona ecclesia", and his sacramental role is limited to providing hands and a mouth, for all of the actions in the Liturgy are performed either by Christ (offeror and offering, priest and sacrifice), or through the descent and action of the Holy Spirit ("and make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ; and that which is in this Chalice the precious Blood of Thy Christ, changing them by Thy Holy Spirit"--Epiclesis, Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). In all the sacraments, the priest hardly ever speaks of himself in the first person (except to express his unworthiness); thus, while in the Latin Church the priest absolves the sinner (Ego te absolvo), in the Byzantine Church, the action is explicitly God's: "The Servant of God N.___ is absolved in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
This is one reason why Bishop Kallistos finds the argument "In persona Christi" unsatisfactory--it is not universal. On the other hand, the role of the presbyter and especially the bishop as father to his people is both universal and extends to the earliest stratum of the Church (cf. the Epistles of St. Ignatios of Antioch). Now, while God, encompassing both male and female, can be both Father and Mother (but for some reason, chooses to reveal Himself to us as Father), God, when He made man in his own image and likeness, chose to divide the masculine and the feminine in two sexes. We can speculate on why He did this, but we must acknowledge that He did, and therefore sexual differences are part of the divine plan. And we have to acknowledge also that fatherhood and motherhood are sexually determined roles. Since the presbyter and bishop are to be fathers, they must be male.
It's mainly Latin theology that sees the celebrant of the Eucharist standing "in persona Christi". In the Easter Churches, he stands "in persona ecclesia", and his sacramental role is limited to providing hands and a mouth, for all of the actions in the Liturgy are performed either by Christ (offeror and offering, priest and sacrifice), or through the descent and action of the Holy Spirit ("and make this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ; and that which is in this Chalice the precious Blood of Thy Christ, changing them by Thy Holy Spirit"--Epiclesis, Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). In all the sacraments, the priest hardly ever speaks of himself in the first person (except to express his unworthiness); thus, while in the Latin Church the priest absolves the sinner (Ego te absolvo), in the Byzantine Church, the action is explicitly God's: "The Servant of God N.___ is absolved in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit".
This is one reason why Bishop Kallistos finds the argument "In persona Christi" unsatisfactory--it is not universal. On the other hand, the role of the presbyter and especially the bishop as father to his people is both universal and extends to the earliest stratum of the Church (cf. the Epistles of St. Ignatios of Antioch). Now, while God, encompassing both male and female, can be both Father and Mother (but for some reason, chooses to reveal Himself to us as Father), God, when He made man in his own image and likeness, chose to divide the masculine and the feminine in two sexes. We can speculate on why He did this, but we must acknowledge that He did, and therefore sexual differences are part of the divine plan. And we have to acknowledge also that fatherhood and motherhood are sexually determined roles. Since the presbyter and bishop are to be fathers, they must be male.
12.16.2010 | 10:28am
Lewis says:
“googling the words "Orthodoxy" and "Women's Ordination" will turn up Karras in at least half of the top ten picks.”
Interesting. I googled the menstruation issue and discovered her essay. I didn’t realize she was pro-ordination. And as I recall, the essay didn’t mention her position on ordination. I was citing the essay for her description of the history of deaconesses. Are her facts wrong?
“simpering, downtrodden women who think their options inside the Church are unduly constrained by their inability to be ordained as presbyters and bishops”
I would never make that claim. Claims of false consciousness are inherently disrespectful.
“Assuming you take her story at face value. Miss Karras (whom I have met) seems to me one of those perpetually aggrieved women who has a rather large chip on her shoulder and a truculent look in her eye.”
You need to read more closely. “Her story” refers to a woman who signs herself as “Presbytera Mari” in a forum on Orthodoxchristianity.net.
“I know that sounds scary, and it should be.”
I’m not scared. Are you scared of female priests?
Interesting. I googled the menstruation issue and discovered her essay. I didn’t realize she was pro-ordination. And as I recall, the essay didn’t mention her position on ordination. I was citing the essay for her description of the history of deaconesses. Are her facts wrong?
“simpering, downtrodden women who think their options inside the Church are unduly constrained by their inability to be ordained as presbyters and bishops”
I would never make that claim. Claims of false consciousness are inherently disrespectful.
“Assuming you take her story at face value. Miss Karras (whom I have met) seems to me one of those perpetually aggrieved women who has a rather large chip on her shoulder and a truculent look in her eye.”
You need to read more closely. “Her story” refers to a woman who signs herself as “Presbytera Mari” in a forum on Orthodoxchristianity.net.
“I know that sounds scary, and it should be.”
I’m not scared. Are you scared of female priests?
12.16.2010 | 12:06pm
Stuart Koehl says:
"Are you scared of female priests?"
One should never be scared of imaginary beasts.
One should never be scared of imaginary beasts.
12.16.2010 | 3:30pm
Lewis says:
“Jesus was essentially male because he was the new Adam.”
When Jesus was made incarnate, there were only two choices available, male and female. The question is how much should be made out of the fact that he was incarnated as male. If he had been incarnated as female, then Paul would have written about the new Eve, not the new Adam.
“The priest is acting fully in the place of Jesus and so must be male.”
Of all of the human qualities that Jesus possessed, why seize on his maleness as a quality required for bishops and priests and not for other church offices? He was also Jewish, Judean, a villager, an Aramaic speaker, and a carpenter. But we recognize that these qualities are accidental, not essential, and so we look for church leaders that share some of the characteristics Jesus had: his prophetic voice, his pastoral care, his willingness to accept the cross, etc. Why the church has long added sex to that list of characteristics is what this argument has been about.
Humans have long had the habit of seizing on sex as the first criterion for social roles, and men always and everywhere have ensured that the plum roles go to them. So it’s no accident that the early church quickly assigned the plum positions to men. To justify those assignments, the church, no doubt unconsciously, made beautiful rationalizations. Koehl has lovingly described the rationalizations used by the Eastern churches. The Roman Catholic Church made their own, and Protestant churches made still others.
Like yours, my mainline Protestant church has dispensed with the rationalizations, and Jesus is more fully present than ever. My female pastor and my female bishop are still called elders. They still parent me, and my experience of God’s parenting is fuller because I have had both mothers and fathers, Eves and Adams, serve as pastors and bishops. I was raised Roman Catholic, and so I could only conceive of God as father, but he is mother, too. Having pastors and bishops of both sexes reminds us of the ultimate irrelevance of sex. In Christ, there is neither male nor female.
“this is a higher view of clergy than I currently possess”
I’m fascinated by this perception that Catholics and the Orthodox have a “higher” view of clergy. In one sense, of course, they do. The Protestant urge for the plain and simple and daily seems somehow “lower” than the Catholic and Orthodox love of ceremony, ritual, and ornament. They have produced lots of gorgeous language for describing why they do the things they do. We Protestants haven’t. You can find some lovely language in the old writers, but we don’t stress it, and we should.
But we don’t need to rationalize an institutional preference for one sex over another. Our “lower” view of the clergy has allowed us to experience more fully God’s parental care for us, whether that care is expressed by paternal pastors or maternal bishops.
When Jesus was made incarnate, there were only two choices available, male and female. The question is how much should be made out of the fact that he was incarnated as male. If he had been incarnated as female, then Paul would have written about the new Eve, not the new Adam.
“The priest is acting fully in the place of Jesus and so must be male.”
Of all of the human qualities that Jesus possessed, why seize on his maleness as a quality required for bishops and priests and not for other church offices? He was also Jewish, Judean, a villager, an Aramaic speaker, and a carpenter. But we recognize that these qualities are accidental, not essential, and so we look for church leaders that share some of the characteristics Jesus had: his prophetic voice, his pastoral care, his willingness to accept the cross, etc. Why the church has long added sex to that list of characteristics is what this argument has been about.
Humans have long had the habit of seizing on sex as the first criterion for social roles, and men always and everywhere have ensured that the plum roles go to them. So it’s no accident that the early church quickly assigned the plum positions to men. To justify those assignments, the church, no doubt unconsciously, made beautiful rationalizations. Koehl has lovingly described the rationalizations used by the Eastern churches. The Roman Catholic Church made their own, and Protestant churches made still others.
Like yours, my mainline Protestant church has dispensed with the rationalizations, and Jesus is more fully present than ever. My female pastor and my female bishop are still called elders. They still parent me, and my experience of God’s parenting is fuller because I have had both mothers and fathers, Eves and Adams, serve as pastors and bishops. I was raised Roman Catholic, and so I could only conceive of God as father, but he is mother, too. Having pastors and bishops of both sexes reminds us of the ultimate irrelevance of sex. In Christ, there is neither male nor female.
“this is a higher view of clergy than I currently possess”
I’m fascinated by this perception that Catholics and the Orthodox have a “higher” view of clergy. In one sense, of course, they do. The Protestant urge for the plain and simple and daily seems somehow “lower” than the Catholic and Orthodox love of ceremony, ritual, and ornament. They have produced lots of gorgeous language for describing why they do the things they do. We Protestants haven’t. You can find some lovely language in the old writers, but we don’t stress it, and we should.
But we don’t need to rationalize an institutional preference for one sex over another. Our “lower” view of the clergy has allowed us to experience more fully God’s parental care for us, whether that care is expressed by paternal pastors or maternal bishops.
12.16.2010 | 11:28pm
Lewis says:
Koehl,
On 12/9, you gave a wise answer to the question of how the church establishes true from false traditions. You said, “The answer is the test of time, prayerful discernment, and patient study of the history of the Church. Know the mind of the Fathers, know the acts of the Councils, know the liturgy and the inner life of the Church. There is no other way, and those who demand certitude are barking up the wrong tree.”
I completely agree with this statement.
On 12/10, you showed yourself to be admirably honest. You noted with approval that “Kyr Kallistos is not unsympathetic to the idea of ordaining women.” And you explained that of the many theological reasons given for reserving the priesthood for men “many of them are rather weak, others are mutually contradictory.”
Since then, I’ve tried to explore with you the strengths and weaknesses of the different reasons, asking questions and posing possibilities. As the conversation has gone on, however, you have gotten increasingly defensive, projecting a certitude that you didn’t express on the 9th (the reasons are “weak,” you said). This certitude that the East has been right in limiting women is also what you argued against on the 10th, when you said that “those who demand certitude are barking up the wrong tree.”
This defensiveness is completely understandable in a heated discussion, but I hope you reflect on it in a more sober time.
I’ve also noticed an uncharacteristic disregard for the facts. I say “uncharacteristic” because you’re clearly knowledgeable , have a fabulous memory, and relish the opportunity to share your knowledge. But you also do not acknowledge or correct your facts when you are proven wrong.
I first entered this conversation because I didn’t appreciate your dismissal of mainline Protestants for ordaining women. When you made the facile argument that ordination is driving the shrinking membership of mainline churches, I countered by observing that the Catholic Church is also shrinking, though at a lesser rate. You attacked my source, but when I demonstrated that you had misunderstood my source, you were silent. And when I asked for a source you trust, you were silent. I expect more honesty than that.
And now at the end of the thread, when I offer a different account of why the office of deaconess lapsed, you again attack my source, not for the facts she presents but for her stands and for her personality. This inability or unwillingness to entertain other arguments lessens your credibility. I expected more from you.
Finally, I encourage you to read more closely than you have the woman’s account of her experience of men’s superiority about their access to the altar. You have explained the theological meaning of sexual discrimination in Eastern Christianity, but the lived reality sounds different. What you describe as theologically correct has less pleasant real effects on both men and women. Those unpleasant effects are perfectly predictable given the way that men always and everywhere have sought to hold superior positions over women. You might be willing to accept the cost of that sexual discrimination, but don’t pretend that power and humiliation isn’t happening just because it’s not part of your theology.
On 12/9, you gave a wise answer to the question of how the church establishes true from false traditions. You said, “The answer is the test of time, prayerful discernment, and patient study of the history of the Church. Know the mind of the Fathers, know the acts of the Councils, know the liturgy and the inner life of the Church. There is no other way, and those who demand certitude are barking up the wrong tree.”
I completely agree with this statement.
On 12/10, you showed yourself to be admirably honest. You noted with approval that “Kyr Kallistos is not unsympathetic to the idea of ordaining women.” And you explained that of the many theological reasons given for reserving the priesthood for men “many of them are rather weak, others are mutually contradictory.”
Since then, I’ve tried to explore with you the strengths and weaknesses of the different reasons, asking questions and posing possibilities. As the conversation has gone on, however, you have gotten increasingly defensive, projecting a certitude that you didn’t express on the 9th (the reasons are “weak,” you said). This certitude that the East has been right in limiting women is also what you argued against on the 10th, when you said that “those who demand certitude are barking up the wrong tree.”
This defensiveness is completely understandable in a heated discussion, but I hope you reflect on it in a more sober time.
I’ve also noticed an uncharacteristic disregard for the facts. I say “uncharacteristic” because you’re clearly knowledgeable , have a fabulous memory, and relish the opportunity to share your knowledge. But you also do not acknowledge or correct your facts when you are proven wrong.
I first entered this conversation because I didn’t appreciate your dismissal of mainline Protestants for ordaining women. When you made the facile argument that ordination is driving the shrinking membership of mainline churches, I countered by observing that the Catholic Church is also shrinking, though at a lesser rate. You attacked my source, but when I demonstrated that you had misunderstood my source, you were silent. And when I asked for a source you trust, you were silent. I expect more honesty than that.
And now at the end of the thread, when I offer a different account of why the office of deaconess lapsed, you again attack my source, not for the facts she presents but for her stands and for her personality. This inability or unwillingness to entertain other arguments lessens your credibility. I expected more from you.
Finally, I encourage you to read more closely than you have the woman’s account of her experience of men’s superiority about their access to the altar. You have explained the theological meaning of sexual discrimination in Eastern Christianity, but the lived reality sounds different. What you describe as theologically correct has less pleasant real effects on both men and women. Those unpleasant effects are perfectly predictable given the way that men always and everywhere have sought to hold superior positions over women. You might be willing to accept the cost of that sexual discrimination, but don’t pretend that power and humiliation isn’t happening just because it’s not part of your theology.
12.17.2010 | 7:33am
Stuart Koehl says:
As a Protestant, Lewis, I assume you take seriously the doctrine of sola scriptura (as a Byzantine Christian, I of course, hold that Scripture is part of Tradition). How, therefore, can you reconcile your endorsement of women's ordination in light of St. Paul's directives regarding the qualifications for a bishop:
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober-minded and of good behavior, able to teach, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money; but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the Church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover, he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-8)
Or Paul's list of qualifications for a presbyter:
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders [presbyteroi] in every city as I have commanded you--if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop [the terms episkopos and presbyteros are used interchangeably by Paul] must be blameless, as a steward [oikonemos] of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. (Titus 1:5-9)
So, here we have Paul laying out the foundation of the Tradition, in two distinct but remarkably consistent passages, to two different followers in two different places, indicating that Paul is communicating the common practice of the Church. And what does Paul say? That a bishop must be a man, and if he is married, he must be the husband of one wife (i.e., married just once, not remarried or engaged in a plural marriage); and, moreover, that marriage is defined in strictly heterosexual terms.
It seems to me that the so-called "mainline" Protestant denominations have abandoned the principal source of authority (Scripture) on which Protestantism is based, and instead have either taken to cherry-picking and tendentious interpretations--when they have not simply abandoned Scripture altogether in favor of the Zeitgeist. Either way, without either an extrinsic magisterium or an eveloping Tradition to provide constraints on wild flights of fancy, you have sadly mistaken the voice of your own desires for the voice of the Holy Spirit.
A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober-minded and of good behavior, able to teach, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money; but gentle, not quarrelsome, not covetous; one who rules his house well, having his children in submission with all reverence (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the Church of God?); not a novice, lest being puffed up with pride he fall into the same condemnation as the devil. Moreover, he must have a good testimony among those who are outside, lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. (1 Timothy 3:1-8)
Or Paul's list of qualifications for a presbyter:
For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders [presbyteroi] in every city as I have commanded you--if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop [the terms episkopos and presbyteros are used interchangeably by Paul] must be blameless, as a steward [oikonemos] of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict. (Titus 1:5-9)
So, here we have Paul laying out the foundation of the Tradition, in two distinct but remarkably consistent passages, to two different followers in two different places, indicating that Paul is communicating the common practice of the Church. And what does Paul say? That a bishop must be a man, and if he is married, he must be the husband of one wife (i.e., married just once, not remarried or engaged in a plural marriage); and, moreover, that marriage is defined in strictly heterosexual terms.
It seems to me that the so-called "mainline" Protestant denominations have abandoned the principal source of authority (Scripture) on which Protestantism is based, and instead have either taken to cherry-picking and tendentious interpretations--when they have not simply abandoned Scripture altogether in favor of the Zeitgeist. Either way, without either an extrinsic magisterium or an eveloping Tradition to provide constraints on wild flights of fancy, you have sadly mistaken the voice of your own desires for the voice of the Holy Spirit.
12.17.2010 | 11:55am
Lewis says:
Interesting. I write a careful, respectful description of where I think we are now and explain where I think you’ve dropped the ball, and you go on the attack. The best defense is a good offense, I suppose. But I think I’ve asked some fair questions.
“It seems to me that the so-called "mainline" Protestant denominations have abandoned the principal source of authority (Scripture) on which Protestantism is based, and instead have either taken to cherry-picking and tendentious interpretations--when they have not simply abandoned Scripture altogether in favor of the Zeitgeist. Either way, without either an extrinsic magisterium or an eveloping Tradition to provide constraints on wild flights of fancy, you have sadly mistaken the voice of your own desires for the voice of the Holy Spirit.”
Let’s see whether I can answer in your preferred mode. If I have the formula right, I have to (1) be offended that you lump all mainline Christians together as if they weren’t separate traditions, (2) use some theological jargon that doesn’t actually create clarity but instead leads the conversation down some tangential path, and (3) recommend some books that you need to master before I’ll condescend to listen. Oh, right there is one more: (4) accuse you of holding the worse possible position within the range of argument (e.g., since my position is one you call feminist, you make the bizarre accusation that I think men can’t do anything a woman can do). Wait. There’s one more: (5) I need to accuse you of lacking “seriousness” or of being so obtuse that you couldn’t possibly understand.
But I don’t have the acting ability to pull off such an impersonation. I will say that you know enough about Protestantism to know that if you’re going to get into the thickets of what I mean by sola scriptura, you need to ask what Protestant tradition I belong to. You also know enough Protestant theology to know that accusations of cherry-picking are no more accurate than accusations that Catholics are blindly dogmatic and follow the Pope’s marching orders. You might even know enough biblical history to know how complex the Pauline tradition is.
But what this really boils down to is (1) that you are defending a practice that you admit has no firm theological ground but only a firm habitual ground and (2) that you are resorting to bluster rather than taking seriously the factual claims I’ve offered.
“It seems to me that the so-called "mainline" Protestant denominations have abandoned the principal source of authority (Scripture) on which Protestantism is based, and instead have either taken to cherry-picking and tendentious interpretations--when they have not simply abandoned Scripture altogether in favor of the Zeitgeist. Either way, without either an extrinsic magisterium or an eveloping Tradition to provide constraints on wild flights of fancy, you have sadly mistaken the voice of your own desires for the voice of the Holy Spirit.”
Let’s see whether I can answer in your preferred mode. If I have the formula right, I have to (1) be offended that you lump all mainline Christians together as if they weren’t separate traditions, (2) use some theological jargon that doesn’t actually create clarity but instead leads the conversation down some tangential path, and (3) recommend some books that you need to master before I’ll condescend to listen. Oh, right there is one more: (4) accuse you of holding the worse possible position within the range of argument (e.g., since my position is one you call feminist, you make the bizarre accusation that I think men can’t do anything a woman can do). Wait. There’s one more: (5) I need to accuse you of lacking “seriousness” or of being so obtuse that you couldn’t possibly understand.
But I don’t have the acting ability to pull off such an impersonation. I will say that you know enough about Protestantism to know that if you’re going to get into the thickets of what I mean by sola scriptura, you need to ask what Protestant tradition I belong to. You also know enough Protestant theology to know that accusations of cherry-picking are no more accurate than accusations that Catholics are blindly dogmatic and follow the Pope’s marching orders. You might even know enough biblical history to know how complex the Pauline tradition is.
But what this really boils down to is (1) that you are defending a practice that you admit has no firm theological ground but only a firm habitual ground and (2) that you are resorting to bluster rather than taking seriously the factual claims I’ve offered.
12.17.2010 | 7:14pm
Stuart Koehl says:
Come now, Lewis. All I asked is what you consider the locus of authority within the Church. Catholics look towards the magisterium of the Pope and the bishops; the Orthodox look towards the matrix of the Tradition; and Protestants look to Scripture.
You seem to reject each of these in turn, so I ask, in order to determine how to respond to you, what authority you DO consider binding upon the Church, other than your own feelings.
You seem to reject each of these in turn, so I ask, in order to determine how to respond to you, what authority you DO consider binding upon the Church, other than your own feelings.
12.17.2010 | 11:41pm
Lewis says:
The locus of authority for United Methodists is what has come to be called the Wesleyan quadrilateral: scripture (prima, not sola), tradition, reason, and experience.
It is ludicrous to describe any of the mainline churches as indulging "wild flights of fancy." Decisions concerning women's ordination have been made soberly and with great prayer and study.
Of all the qualities Paul lists as necessary for a bishop you notice only the one accidental quality, as if the gospel were not about how to lead a "blameless" life but how to find male leaders.
While mainline Protestants are quite aware of how sex influences behavior, relationships, etc., we believe the notion that there is something special that qualifies only men to be leaders is a variety of superstitution.
Hence, your inability to explain why bishops require only fatherly qualities. It has been quite clear for some time that women are every bit as capable of being bishops in the blameless way Paul describes. That they lead in maternal rather than paternal ways brings greater fullness to the church than is found in Catholicism.
It is ludicrous to describe any of the mainline churches as indulging "wild flights of fancy." Decisions concerning women's ordination have been made soberly and with great prayer and study.
Of all the qualities Paul lists as necessary for a bishop you notice only the one accidental quality, as if the gospel were not about how to lead a "blameless" life but how to find male leaders.
While mainline Protestants are quite aware of how sex influences behavior, relationships, etc., we believe the notion that there is something special that qualifies only men to be leaders is a variety of superstitution.
Hence, your inability to explain why bishops require only fatherly qualities. It has been quite clear for some time that women are every bit as capable of being bishops in the blameless way Paul describes. That they lead in maternal rather than paternal ways brings greater fullness to the church than is found in Catholicism.
12.18.2010 | 8:20am
Stuart Koehl says:
Thank you, Lewis, for explaining that the locus of authority within the Methodist church is nothing more than the invidividual's own will. I doubt John Wesly would agree, though--in fact, he would be rolling in his grave to see what abominations are proposed in his name. As I said, we do not have a common frame of reference, nor even a common vocabulary, so there is no point in further discussion.
Go in peace, and may the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, some day lead you into all truth. But remember, you cannot hear the voice of the Spirit, or separate from the voice of your own desires, unless first you shut your yap and LISTEN.
Go in peace, and may the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, some day lead you into all truth. But remember, you cannot hear the voice of the Spirit, or separate from the voice of your own desires, unless first you shut your yap and LISTEN.
12.20.2010 | 1:21pm
Lewis says:
“the locus of authority within the Methodist church is nothing more than the invidividual's own will.”
Explain how you reached this conclusion from my words. Since the church has decided to ordain women, the decision can hardly be individual will.
“I doubt John Wesly would agree”
Not only do we think Wesley would agree (note the spelling of his name), but Methodists (or Methodist Episcopals as we were originally called) believe all the faithful in the Christian tradition would agree. We are proud of the continuity of our tradition from Jesus, the apostles, and early church fathers right through to the present.
“what abominations are proposed in his name”
The ordination of women is an “abomination”? That’s strong language, the kind that is usually reserved for things that make a sacred place unholy. Do women really make sacred places unholy?
“we do not have a common frame of reference, nor even a common vocabulary, so there is no point in further discussion”
This smacks of relativism. We share several frames of reference and several common vocabularies. You just don’t like my answers and can’t think of any good responses. You’ve gotten the facts wrong on church membership. You can’t refute Karras’s facts about the decline of deaconesses. You haven’t been able to deal with the contradiction between your explanation of the theology behind the restrictions placed on women and the experience of devout Orthodox women like Presbytera Mari. You can’t even get Larin right (more on that in a minute). And in a last ditch, maybe-I-can-just-attack-him moment, you’ve decided to go after Wesley.
I’m still waiting for you to explain whether girl babies are presented differently for baptism than boys and, if so, why.
Finally, you still can’t explain why priests and bishops have to be fathers only or why mothers wouldn’t work in those roles. If we need fathers, don’t we also need mothers?
Your answer is tradition, and tradition is important to Methodists, second only to scripture. But we know that tradition must be watched as well as kept. Here’s where you get Larin wrong. You point to her as evidence that the Orthodox exclusion of women during menstruation was “never part of the tradition,” but that’s not what she said. She said that the Orthodox believed that it was part of the tradition and then decided it wasn’t. Now, from this historical perspective, she can say that this practice went under the “guide of tradition” but for those who practiced the exclusion of women they believed the exclusion of women WAS part of the tradition.
This is why tradition must be watched carefully: practices slip into and out of tradition all the time, with the result that people think it’s always been this way when in fact it hasn’t.
Similarly, justifications for preventing women’s ordination keep changing all the time while even time-honored practices like deaconesses are allowed to lapse for the usual sexist reasons that exist universally. These changes are just some of the considerations that led Methodist and other churches to conclude that ordination would actually fulfill the gospel rather than violate it.
“Go in peace, and may the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, some day lead you into all truth. But remember, you cannot hear the voice of the Spirit, or separate from the voice of your own desires, unless first you shut your yap and LISTEN”
And you said, we don’t share a common vocabulary! I’ve been prepared to say the same to you (minus the “shut your yap” part; did your mother teach you to talk that way, or was it your father?). We believe that you Catholics have had difficulty to listening to the Holy Spirit. You’ll come around in 500 years or so, which you say is a short time.
“separate from the voice of your own desires”
You betray your profound ignorance of the process of decision that led to women’s ordination. Desire had little to do with it, and many voices, many fears, and many prayers filled the room. It suits you to present the mainline response as whim, but you were wiser when you said, “The answer is the test of time, prayerful discernment, and patient study of the history of the Church. Know the mind of the Fathers, know the acts of the Councils, know the liturgy and the inner life of the Church. There is no other way, and those who demand certitude are barking up the wrong tree.”
You’ve described in these lines what good Christians do in whatever church they belong to. You’ve had trouble living up to these lines ever since you wrote them.
Explain how you reached this conclusion from my words. Since the church has decided to ordain women, the decision can hardly be individual will.
“I doubt John Wesly would agree”
Not only do we think Wesley would agree (note the spelling of his name), but Methodists (or Methodist Episcopals as we were originally called) believe all the faithful in the Christian tradition would agree. We are proud of the continuity of our tradition from Jesus, the apostles, and early church fathers right through to the present.
“what abominations are proposed in his name”
The ordination of women is an “abomination”? That’s strong language, the kind that is usually reserved for things that make a sacred place unholy. Do women really make sacred places unholy?
“we do not have a common frame of reference, nor even a common vocabulary, so there is no point in further discussion”
This smacks of relativism. We share several frames of reference and several common vocabularies. You just don’t like my answers and can’t think of any good responses. You’ve gotten the facts wrong on church membership. You can’t refute Karras’s facts about the decline of deaconesses. You haven’t been able to deal with the contradiction between your explanation of the theology behind the restrictions placed on women and the experience of devout Orthodox women like Presbytera Mari. You can’t even get Larin right (more on that in a minute). And in a last ditch, maybe-I-can-just-attack-him moment, you’ve decided to go after Wesley.
I’m still waiting for you to explain whether girl babies are presented differently for baptism than boys and, if so, why.
Finally, you still can’t explain why priests and bishops have to be fathers only or why mothers wouldn’t work in those roles. If we need fathers, don’t we also need mothers?
Your answer is tradition, and tradition is important to Methodists, second only to scripture. But we know that tradition must be watched as well as kept. Here’s where you get Larin wrong. You point to her as evidence that the Orthodox exclusion of women during menstruation was “never part of the tradition,” but that’s not what she said. She said that the Orthodox believed that it was part of the tradition and then decided it wasn’t. Now, from this historical perspective, she can say that this practice went under the “guide of tradition” but for those who practiced the exclusion of women they believed the exclusion of women WAS part of the tradition.
This is why tradition must be watched carefully: practices slip into and out of tradition all the time, with the result that people think it’s always been this way when in fact it hasn’t.
Similarly, justifications for preventing women’s ordination keep changing all the time while even time-honored practices like deaconesses are allowed to lapse for the usual sexist reasons that exist universally. These changes are just some of the considerations that led Methodist and other churches to conclude that ordination would actually fulfill the gospel rather than violate it.
“Go in peace, and may the Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth, some day lead you into all truth. But remember, you cannot hear the voice of the Spirit, or separate from the voice of your own desires, unless first you shut your yap and LISTEN”
And you said, we don’t share a common vocabulary! I’ve been prepared to say the same to you (minus the “shut your yap” part; did your mother teach you to talk that way, or was it your father?). We believe that you Catholics have had difficulty to listening to the Holy Spirit. You’ll come around in 500 years or so, which you say is a short time.
“separate from the voice of your own desires”
You betray your profound ignorance of the process of decision that led to women’s ordination. Desire had little to do with it, and many voices, many fears, and many prayers filled the room. It suits you to present the mainline response as whim, but you were wiser when you said, “The answer is the test of time, prayerful discernment, and patient study of the history of the Church. Know the mind of the Fathers, know the acts of the Councils, know the liturgy and the inner life of the Church. There is no other way, and those who demand certitude are barking up the wrong tree.”
You’ve described in these lines what good Christians do in whatever church they belong to. You’ve had trouble living up to these lines ever since you wrote them.
12.20.2010 | 7:34pm
Lewis says:
I don’t know who the bigger idiot is, Koehl, you or me. I’m an idiot because I assumed that you would be careful about your facts. You’re one because you aren’t.
I’ve busted you on your Pew smear, your claims about Karras’s work, and your inability to distinguish Prebytera Mari from Karras.
But I decided to take up your challenge on the 16th to read Mathewes-Green, and once again your accuracy is in doubt.
Yes, Mathewes-Green doesn’t think women should be ordained, but she shoots down the arguments you make against it, and she thinks it is possible, though unlikely. She doesn’t think it is “ludicrous” the way you claimed it is. She offers other reasons that I find fallacious, but she thinks your arguments are weak.
You also challenged me to look at the lecturers at the Orthodox Women’s Conference to see whether they were “simpering, downtrodden women” who feel “unduly constrained.”
You listed Shevzov, Ledkovsky, Kizenko, and Ermolaev, and it turns out that all four joined 77 others in protesting the lack of women’s voices at an all-Diaspora council merely because tradition dictated that they should be excluded: “It is inconsistent with this legacy that the historical precedent of no female delegates at past Sobors overrides the clear living reality that women are an integral part of ROCOR.”
So I guess Prebytera Mari is not the only Orthodox woman who feels sexism is a problem within Orthodoxy. You might describe these protesters as “simpering, downtrodden women” who feel “unduly constrained.” And you might call them “harridans.” But I wouldn’t.
They observe that “While the Council organizing committee felt that there was too little time to consider the inclusion of women, sporting and scout associations were summoned to send delegates. This indicates that the Church does not hold in high regard the contributions and worth of its female members.”
I’m betting the organizing committee was all-male, but you tell me that the Orthodox don’t talk about power the way “medieval clerics” like me do. But these women point out that the Orthodox Church “shuts us out when it comes to making momentous decisions.”
The same website that included the open letter signed by four of the women you held up as serious, committed Orthodox far away from the “petulant” Karras also included an article by Maria Gwyn McDowell arguing for women’s ordination.
You can find both the letter and the article on the St. Nina Quarterly.
Your boat is leaking, Koehl. Maybe a well-phrased insult would right it.
I’ve busted you on your Pew smear, your claims about Karras’s work, and your inability to distinguish Prebytera Mari from Karras.
But I decided to take up your challenge on the 16th to read Mathewes-Green, and once again your accuracy is in doubt.
Yes, Mathewes-Green doesn’t think women should be ordained, but she shoots down the arguments you make against it, and she thinks it is possible, though unlikely. She doesn’t think it is “ludicrous” the way you claimed it is. She offers other reasons that I find fallacious, but she thinks your arguments are weak.
You also challenged me to look at the lecturers at the Orthodox Women’s Conference to see whether they were “simpering, downtrodden women” who feel “unduly constrained.”
You listed Shevzov, Ledkovsky, Kizenko, and Ermolaev, and it turns out that all four joined 77 others in protesting the lack of women’s voices at an all-Diaspora council merely because tradition dictated that they should be excluded: “It is inconsistent with this legacy that the historical precedent of no female delegates at past Sobors overrides the clear living reality that women are an integral part of ROCOR.”
So I guess Prebytera Mari is not the only Orthodox woman who feels sexism is a problem within Orthodoxy. You might describe these protesters as “simpering, downtrodden women” who feel “unduly constrained.” And you might call them “harridans.” But I wouldn’t.
They observe that “While the Council organizing committee felt that there was too little time to consider the inclusion of women, sporting and scout associations were summoned to send delegates. This indicates that the Church does not hold in high regard the contributions and worth of its female members.”
I’m betting the organizing committee was all-male, but you tell me that the Orthodox don’t talk about power the way “medieval clerics” like me do. But these women point out that the Orthodox Church “shuts us out when it comes to making momentous decisions.”
The same website that included the open letter signed by four of the women you held up as serious, committed Orthodox far away from the “petulant” Karras also included an article by Maria Gwyn McDowell arguing for women’s ordination.
You can find both the letter and the article on the St. Nina Quarterly.
Your boat is leaking, Koehl. Maybe a well-phrased insult would right it.
2.9.2011 | 1:20pm
Tamesha Siluis says:
Never part of the Tradition, as Sister Vassa Larin of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR) convincingly established. Look her up on the internet. So, in all of your many posts on all of these different forums, you quote from Marcrina and other women all the time. You just havent in this thread. Is that right?
4.25.2011 | 4:01am
Lela Agent says:
In my reading about Orthodoxy today (see, I read!), Ive come across the claim that, during baptism, baby boys are taken into the altar to be blessed while girls are blessed in front of the altar. This difference in practice is no doubt related to their different gifts, but Im puzzled. As Stuart notes Lewis you are fixated on genetalia. There are a great many things that make us different. You also have made this a New Testament only exercise. Was God somehow unfair in creating a male only priesthood then? Was the truth about God's impartiality in judgement different then (which is what your favorite scripture is discussing)?
Actually, the most radical of all the Fathers at Vatican II was probably Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV, ably assisted by the rest of the Melkite Synod and advisors such as Archimandrite Joseph Raya.
From the moment His Beatitude rose and addressed the Council in French, rather than Latin (which caused a storm of shock, indignation and protest--demonstrating how much times have changed), he was determined to transform the Church. He was critical in pushing the adoption of an ecclesiology of communion, of extending ecclesial status to what were then known as the Eastern "rites" of the Roman Catholic Church, of recognizing the Orthodox has being "Sister Churches", and not the least, the adoption of the vernacular in the liturgy.
The role of the Melkite Church at Vatican II was out of all proportion to its numbers at the Council. Those who wish to learn about this little-known aspect of the Second Vatican Council should consult "The Melkites at Vatican II: Contribution of the Melkite Prelates to Vatican Council II" by Saba Shofany (AuthorHouse, 2005).