Since the topic of Bishop Kallistos Ware's statement on the ordination of women has been closed, I am opening up a new topic to state Vladyka's explaaination of what he meant that has been misinterpretated so many times.
This post by an OCA priest is Bishop's Kallistos reply to said priest confronting him at the last OCA Sobor in Pittsburgh -


Fr Dimitri writes in answer to a question on Bishop Kallistos stance on women clergy -

[As to Bishop Kallistos's position:
As you may note this is not something new; the item to which we are
directed relates to the Harare conference of 1998. Raiser's remarks
caused some stir at the time. In 1999 Bishop Kallistos was a guest at the
OCA's All-American Council. Being a brash individual, I took the
opportunity of his presence to corner him about the issue -- literally --
I was in front of him on an escalator going from one level of the
convention hall to another; he couldn't avoid me or my questions :-)

His response was as follows, and I secured his permission at the time to
repeat it to any interested parties:

When plans were being made to reprint the book "Women and the Priesthood"
(ed. T. Hopko), Bishop Kallistos was asked for formal permission to
reprint his contribution in the new edition. He was hesitant to give
permission. His reason, he said, was that he didn't think the theological
justifications given there for a male priesthood were adequate. He also
felt that we have basically borrowed the RC arguments and not developed
our own arguments out of Orthodox Tradition. He thought that there needs
to be a complete reassessment of the reasons for a male priesthood on the
basis strictly of Scripture and the Fathers viewed from a strictly
Orthodox viewpoint. I specifically asked him whether he thought such a
reevaluation might lead to an acceptance of women priests. He said that
he didn't think that would happen at all, merely that we would have a
stronger, more genuinely Orthodox basis on which to justify our practice
of an all-male priesthood. He said that his personal position remained
that he opposed women priests, and he did not foresee any change in that
position. He just felt that our theological explanation and justification
of the traditional position is not as strong or authentic as it could be.
He also expressed regret that there had been a lot of speculation
resulting from his hesitation to endorse his earlier paper.

This is from the horse's mouth, so to speak, although the information is
two years old.

Vaya con Dios,

Fr Dimitri]

Robert,

Beat you to it

I posted Fr Dimitri's comments on the original thread before it was closed.

Luke

Luke:

Didn't notice it. But I'm glad that this has been resolved. Since it bothered me to think that an Orthodox Bishop might have said such a thing!

Bob

Dear Friends,

I think that whenever we deal with theologians of the calibre of someone like Kallistos Ware we should always give them the benefit of the doubt before jumping to conclusions.

I was more than a little put off by our Roman Catholic brothers over their comments about Ware before having all the facts.

Do they know that Ware is currently studying the issue of the Filioque and that he said (I heard him) that the more he studies it, the more he realizes that the Filioque really isn't a "heresy" in his opinion?

What would our Roman Catholic friends say about that?

And have they ever read his "The Orthodox Church" and the Orthodox Way?

What is also annoying is how far our RC friends will go in describing the Orthodox Church in ways that the Pope and Rome never have.

As for liberalism, I went through the RC education system here.

I can tell you all about RC liberalism and left-wingism.

Alex

Bravo to Bishop Kallistos. While the reactionary elements in both communions wish to suppress the "moderate" viewpoint in order to justify their pogroms against the "liberals", this bishops teaches wisely. One can not be an advoate of ordianing women to the priesthood yet accept many important points rejected by the reactionarys.

First would be the value of listening and discussion. Are all of the factors put forward against women's ordination valid? Do some of the lack intellectual weight? Are some motivated by bigotry? Are even some of the valid points (or those who make them) based on bigotry? Are many of the most strident opponents of womens ordination people with problems acceptign women as social equals? If the priest must be male, because he represents Christ, the Bridegroom of the Church, are male laypersons participating in a homosexual act at Divine Liturgy (the flip of the "lesbian" comment). What about women in the diaconate and lay ministries? In this not a minor point in the Church's understanding of the priestly minsitry? Does it really call for us being bitter and nasty towards ecumencial partners? Is it possible that many or even most of the vocal opponets of women's ordination are motivated by bigotry rather than truth and that most of those who respond affirmatively to those silly opinion polls of the Catholic faithful are simply expressing a belief in the social equality of women?.


And lastly, I think it is unseemly for Catholics who are sincere in promoting ecumenism with the Orthodox to attack them for their ecumencial committment of participating in the WCC, especially since the Catholic Church & the Universal Pastor has repeated praised this organization for its contributions to ecumencism.

K.

Kurt,

And lastly, I think it is unseemly for Catholics who are sincere in promoting ecumenism with the Orthodox to attack them for their ecumencial committment of participating in the WCC, especially since the Catholic Church & the Universal Pastor has repeated praised this organization for its contributions to ecumencism.

Help me understand your objection here. I do not believe that the WCC offers a sound platform for ecumenism. I believe that it is a serious error for any Christian group to be involved with this group. Does that make me, a Byzantine Catholic, unseemly?

Dan Lauffer

I just want to express my personal regret and sorrow that persons from the Church to which I belong have made statements which have caused pain and upset to our Eastern and Oriental Brothers and Sisters, Catholic and Orthodox alike.

Words betraying a lack of love in their conception or expression are unacceptable no matter to whom they are directed or from whom they come. They lead us to betray the law of love mandated by Jesus as the norm of behavior for His disciples.

At the very least, the statements made in the closed thread about Orthodox and Protestant believers and Churches were inflamatory. They exhibit a lack of love expressed in words that are careless and misinformed at best. They show a lack of sensitivity to or concern for the attitudes, beliefs, and feelings of our hosts who are, after, all our brothers and sisters in communion with our commmon Servant in Rome. They also do not reflect the hospitality that we Christians are called to show because they are abusive to fellow guests here.

The statements made by those proporting to state doctrine of the Roman Church about the Orthodox Churches are clearly out of the mainstream. The difference is clear when the words are compared to the authentic teaching of the Patricarchs and Bishops, the Fathers of Vatican II and of John Paul II. I ask the Eastern and Oriental Christians of both the Catholic and Orthodox communions to treat the unfortunate and uncharitable statements of my Roman brothers with the respect that they deserve. I leave the degree of repect to your wise judgement!

They do not reflect the view of many of the Roman Catholics who come here to see the Face of God reflected in the wonderful variety of Churches He has gathered. I believe that when properly taught most Roman Catholics understand, respect, and treasure the Eastern and Oriental Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Such an attitude is reflected in the questions and answers posted on Anthony Dragani's Eastern Q&A site on EWTN.

Let me say just a word to the Roman Catholic posters in the closed thread who posted the statements that caused the thread to be closed.

We are guests in our brothers' and sisters' room in our Father's House. Our role here is not to convert, not to belittle, not to challenge. Dr. John pointed out our role here in one memorable post (among many memorable posts). He said,

"So, please study who we are.
Examine our practices.
Ask questions.
And Don't ever judge us.

That's our bishops' responsibility, and they'll do it on their own."

(Dr. John, Moderator in the EastNWest Forum, Topic: Are Roman/Western Catholics welcome here? 6/03/01)[arrangement of words mine!]

By our coming here and posting you and I present to the persons, posters and lurkers alike whom we join here, the Image of God that He reflects in the Roman Church and its tradition. Your behavior belies that tradition and clouds that Image. The true tradition of the Roman Church is not about superiority or about lashing out in anger. It is about doing what we have been commanded to do, "Love one another as I have Loved you."

It is the same tradition that undergrids all groups of persons whom God has called together to reflect Him to the world. Please, my Roman brothers, think about what you do, lest the best that those here can say about us is "Forgive them for they know not what they do."

To my brothers and sisters in the Eastern and Oriental Churches of both Communions again, my sincere regret and sorrow.

It appears that among the members of the Catholic Communion, and the members of the Orthodox Communion, and among the Protestants there are persons who are only secure when they feel superior and better than those who are different. Unfortunately, this need for security impedes the ability to show the love to which we are all called.

Hard as it is, none of us is excused from the Law of Love because some of our brothers and sisters do not obey it. They may drive us to distraction. Is it not possible to see their behavior as an opportunity? Are we being offered a chance to let God shape our behavior so that we can do good to those who harm us?

Please do not let the written expression impede the meaning or the love!

JOY!



[This message has been edited by inawe (edited 07-23-2001).]

[This message has been edited by inawe (edited 07-23-2001).]

Dan,

I am not questioning your entitlement to your private beliefs. At variance with your view, the Orthodox members of the WCC do believe that the WCC is a sound platform for ecumencial initiative and that their membership is not a serious error. I think it is unseemly for Catholics on the one hand to claim to be supportive of Orthodox ecumencial initiatives but then to damn other ecumencial initiatives of the same body.

I would have no objection to you publicly outlining your disagreement with Pope John Paul as to the merits of involvement with the WCC, as that would be an internal disagreement within the Catholic family between you and the Pope.

K.

Alex, my friend,

It is good to hear from you on this topic. I was glad to see that you point out the way that the Pope and Rome speak about the Orthodox Church is not the way that caused the discussion to be closed. I am sorry for the annoying that was done in the closed thread by persons from the Roman Church. I believe that you are referring to those specific Roman Catholics when you point out how far the RC friends will go.

I am also quite sure that you can thoroughly tell us about RC liberalism left wingism and even about RC conservatism. I'd be quite interested in learning from you. But I'm not clear about what these comments would add or do add to the discussion here.

Liberalism and Conservatism and right wingism and left wingism are constructs to use to analyze many things including the Roman Church and its educational system.

They are not the Roman Tradition. Nor are they what the Roman Church's educational system is about. ISTM that it is about transmitting the Law of Love to the next generation and preparing educated members for Gods people.

Like the members of the Churches, though, that system is surely not perfect in technique or in love. I am sorry that you experienced the flaws in that system as you learned. I am Roman Catholic, and I experienced flaws also. I also experienced, as I am sure you did also, the dedicated love and expertise of the faculty and staff for learning and students and the Faith.

I must say, having learned from you here, that the system reached its objectives in your case despite the flaws in the system.

By the way, we celebrated the feast of St. Benedict on the 11th of July in the Western Churches. Is that feast celebrated in the Easstern Churches? Is it celebrated on that day or on another day in the Eastern Churches? Peace!

Please do not permit the written expression impede the meaning or the love!

JOY!

Kurt,

You write:

"I would have no objection to you publicly outlining your disagreement with Pope John Paul as to the merits of involvement with the WCC, as that would be an internal disagreement within the Catholic family between you and the Pope."

If Pope John Paul II is so supportive of the WCC, why has the Catholic Church consistently refused to become a member? At present it is only an "observer," and there are no public plans to formally join.

Anthony

Dear Inawe,

Yes, you are right, Brother in Christ.

There was a time up here when theological liberalism was quite rampant in our Catholic institutions. Thankfully, that has passed.

My comments, as you have said, were in no way directed to Roman Catholics, such as yourself, but to those who have chosen to be hurtful to their brothers in the Eastern Churches.

Perhaps, next time, I'll refer to them as "Roamin' Catholics" so as not to label my devout Latin brothers the same way?

Please forgive me a sinner!

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Thanks for your kind words to all - an excellent posting and excellent sentiments.

I think I managed to get the last word in on that thread before it was closed. I was attempting to be concilliatory, but you have said it far better than I.

The discussion (or rather, argument) in parts of that thread made me very sad indeed. We who are Christians should always disagree, if we must disagree, kindly.

Anthony,

Thank you for the opportunity to defend the Holy Father's support for cooperation with the initiatives of the WCC. I think the Holy Father's remarks to Dr. Konrad Raiser, General Secertary of the WCC, when he was received in Rome are helpful:

"Relations between Christians are not aimed merely at mutual knowledge, common prayer and dialogue. They presuppose and from now on call for every possible form of practical cooperation at all levels: pastoral, cultural and social, as well as that of witnessing to the Gospel message.

"Cooperation among all Christians vividly expresses that bond which already unites them, and it sets in clearer relief the features of Christ the Servant".This cooperation based on our common faith is not only filled with fraternal communion, but is a manifestation of Christ himself.

Moreover, ecumenical cooperation is a true school of ecumenism, a dynamic road to unity. Unity of action leads to the full unity of faith: "Through such cooperation, all believers in Christ are able to learn easily how they can understand each other better and esteem each other more, and how the road to the unity of Christians may be made smooth".

In the eyes of the world, cooperation among Christians becomes a form of common Christian witness and a means of evangelization which benefits all involved."

Opponnets of the Catholic Church's ecumencial initiatives often try to present matters in black and white terms. I.e either one is a member of the WCC or it is a serious error to be a part of this group.

The Pope rejects such such thinking and is unafraid of the risk involved in ecumencial cooperation. The Catholic Church participates officially in the WCC's Faith and Order Commission. In addition, the Permanent WCC/RC Joint Working Group aides in the coordination of various Catholic-World Council colaborations. The Catholic Church has never "rejected" membership in the WCC and does particpate in similiar national and regional organizations. Clearly on the world level, the Working Group has proven to be very useful and therefore actual membership seem to be not neccesary.

Clearly the Holy Father finds this a organization that makes positive contributions to ecumencialism, though obviously individual Catholics like Dan are free to disagree with him.

K.

[This message has been edited by Kurt K (edited 07-23-2001).]

Dear Kurt,

I am so happy with the Pope's visit to Ukraine and his Beatifications that anything the Pope says is O.K. by me.

That was the case with me before, only I am more enthusiastic about it now .

Alex

Thank you Alex.

The Universal Pastor, in his ministry works so hard to reach out to all Christian communities, it is sad when some of his own faithful do not have the courage he has. But he tells us not to be afraid and that in dialogue with Protestant and Orthodox Christians, we Catholics experience a "sharing of gifts". Why would anyone reject a sharing of gifts or deny Protestant have gifts to share?

I think the Orthodox are also to be commended for their membership, participation, leadership and financial contributions to the WCC and the National Council of Churches (NCCC).

Also commendable is the work of Church World Service, the joint Protestant-Orthodox humanitarian agency which is a beautifal witness for the concern Protestant and Orthodox Christians have for the victims of war, famine, natural disasters, disease and other social matters.

K.

Dear Missus P,

Thank you for your very kind words!

Would, though, that I had expressed my meaning as succinctly and clearly as you did in your postings.

"The discussion (or rather, arguement) in parts of that thread made me very sad indeed.
We who are Christians should always disagree, if we must disagree, kindly."

That should be posted just above this box in the reply to topic box for each of us to ponder whenever we compose!

JOY!

Dear Kurt,
This may rub against your "intelligence" but Roma Locuta est Causa finita est.
Agrumentation or not for women's ordination it aint gonna happen. So it is absurd to discuss it.

Stephanos

Kurt,

I will try once more and then I will let it drop.

Dragani's observation is not so easily dismissed as you pretend. My objections to the WCC are not based upon objections to ecumenical endeavors, as I suspect you know. My objection is to the Apostate and reprobate positions so often taken by the WCC and many of their members. I do not deny that there is some grace in many Protestant circles. Yet, there is so much chaos in so much of Protestantism that it is inconceivable that any worthwhile ecumenical work will ever be done through the WCC.

Dialogues with Lutherans and Episcopalians and Methodists, etc., have born fruit and will bear fruit in future.

Hell will likely freeze over before the restrictions to female priesthood ever comes about. I'm glad that I am home and don't have to seriously concern myself with this idea.

Kurt, you debate like so many liberal to non-believing Protestants I have known over the years. You enjoy assuming positions for others and developing straw men that you procede to knock down. You redefine terms and issues to suit your case rather than looking at reality. I find your approach unproductive and self-serving.

Dan Lauffer

Don't know bout you guys, but the process of assuming positions for others; developing straw men whom one proceeds to knock down; and redefining terms and issues to suit a case rather than looking at reality sounds like a common tactic.

I've heard conservative to believing Catholics do the same thing too. (I think a cursory listening to the Rush Limbaugh Show on the Excellence in Broadcasting Network supports the opinion that conservatives use the strategy too.)

It is also a common tactic to associate one with whom one disagrees with the perceived embodiment of evil (Conservative or Liberal. Take your choice! Believing or non believing Again, take your choice.).

I'm still not sure why we use political templates to analyze theological positions. That seems to me to be a common tactic too.

Shouldn't we simply allow our brother or sister share what he or she sees or understands without trying to cloud the issue in layers of added emotionally charged verbage. Then the conversation can be about the Faith and the Churches of the East and West.

(Not that I am agreeing that either strategy is commonly used by Kurt or suggesting that they are commonly used by Dan for that matter!)

Please do not let the written expression impede the meaning!

JOY!

I certainly didn't mean to appear to dismiss Anthony's legitimate question. What I believe I did was answer it -- the Catholic Church is a formal member of the WCC's Fatih and Order Commission and formally colaborates with the WCC through the WCC/RC Working Group. The Church has never said it rejects full membership, but does not at this time elect to be a full member.

Seems to me I provided a complete and civil response to Anthony's inquiry.

I also certainly didn't mean to suggest you are opposed to all ecumencial endevors. My point was the particular ecumencial endevor of the WCC enjoys the laudatory praise of the Universal Pastor of the Catholic Church. I further respect you right, Dan, to believe the Holy Father is mistaken on this particular view of his which is certainly not an article of faith for Catholics.

K.


[This message has been edited by Kurt K (edited 07-24-2001).]

Dear Inawe,

We have to be careful not to create a strawman when condemning the practice.

To bring up Rush Limbaugh in the discussion of theology is doing just that. He himself admits that he is an entertainer & is part of a very competitive business. He doesn't claim openly any religious affliation.

To lump Conservative Catholics with Rush Limbaugh's social commentary is creating a strawman.

Dear Friends,

Just a thought here.

I do think we need to go to the Protestants and others where they are, the WCC or wherever.

We need to witness to our faith and Church and this helps educate others and helps them appreciate the Church more.

I have met Protestants who don't want to become Catholics, but who respect the Pope and have a better understanding of Catholicism. They achieved this through more, not less, contacts with Catholics.

And that is half the battle.

Have a great day.

Alex

Dear James,

Thank you for pointing out the straw man that you see that I've created. It was invincible ignorance I swear!

My point was and is simply that commonly we use rhetorical techniques to put our positions in the best light and to advance them. This practice is not peculiar to followers of any political position or to followers of any religion.

For some reason, we also use political labels to put a slant on opinions and theological positions. The labels become the focus and generate heat rather than light.

Following an assertion that Kurt employed a strategy used peculiarly by liberal to believing protestants; I noted that, in the context already used, conservative to believing Catholics use it too.

The reference to Rush was simply an attempt to illustrate that persons of all political persuasions outside of religion also use the strategy to advantage. I certainly did not intend to "lump" anyone with Rush's social commentary. I was pointing out the rhetorical tool not belittling or supporting the content.

If I have created a straw man, I invite you to join me. You bring the match. I'll light it! Then we'll have a cup of coffee.

One lump or two?

Please keep on helping me find the beams in my own eye, James. Removing them, though painful, does improve vision.

Please do not let the written expression impede the meaning or the love!

JOY!

Again thank you!

[This message has been edited by inawe (edited 07-24-2001).]

Right on again, Alex.

Catholic participation and Orthodox full membership, leadership and funding of the WCC has helped tremendosuly to bring together Christians and to overcome myths as to issues wrongly believed to divide us, plus promoted a general understanding of our common Christian foundation (on this, the Popes -- JP2 & Paul 6 -- seem to say, yes, we are on a equal footing with Protestants. We Catholics may feel we reach certain heights, but the foundation is common among Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox. )

What wonderful opportunities to share.

Dear Inawe,

Thank you for your graciousness - you are an example for me to imitate.

I think that the core issue is our ability to conform our lives to Christ's teaching of love for God and love for one's neighbor.

There are valid reasons for participation or non-participation in the WCC. Apart from the doctinal stuff, the very fact that people are talking to each other is a wonderful thing; the fact that Christians are working together to feed the hungry and help the enslaved is a true witness to overcoming the baloney and getting down to the 'nitty-gritty' of loving one's neighbor. (I am oftentimes in awe of the Methodists for their unquestioning efforts to help the suffering. May God bless their tireless efforts. I'll work with them anytime they're out there with soup kitchens or clothing closets.)

From the point of view of women's ordination, I'll have to go with the theological perspective first. There is nothing in Christian theology that says that there is a distinction between the soul of a man or a woman. Christ gave His life to save all souls. Does this mean that a woman could receive the 'imprint' of ordination in a valid and licit way? The systematic theology answer must be: Yes.

However, from the point of view of 'traditional' structures, there is an impediment based upon a number of perspectives, including the fact that Christ did NOT consecrate a women to the status of Apostle and this is to be the norm.

While I personally would feel uncomfortable with a woman priest (and I've been to Anglican liturgies with women clergy), my own discomfort rises to the surface and leads me to say: not now.

But, I would hope that the restoration of the deaconess would induce me (and other Christians) to gradually become comfortable with women in overt liturgical roles. (Let's face it: when faced with an Abbess of a cloistered community, you KNOW that you are dealing with something more than just an 'ordinary nun'.)

What constantly makes me uncomfortable is the notion that women can only hold a specific role in the Church. I would hope that we can get into a mindset that allows ALL God's children to be equal members of the Church. Yes, women's ordination, even to Deaconess, might be a long way off, but I would hope that the whole process can move forward in an organic process. And I can't allow the hyper-frantic current 'feminist' elements to influence my true theological perspective on this. To be honest, there are some 'male only' folks who represent the other swing of the pendulum.

Let's just use the talents of all God's people to serve the community; and move forward to see how we can integrate everyone.

Blessings!

The good Doctor is a wise Doctor.

K.

Dear Dr. John,

As always, you raise interesting points!

With respect to women in the Church, there is no reason why we cannot have the Deaconness order restored fully.

During the Middle Ages in the West, we know that Abbesses wielded the same power as Bishops did.

Also, there is a tradition that St Mel of Ireland who was going blind, read the wrong service over St Bridgit, so instead of making her an Abbess, he made her a Bishop!

They certainly considered her to have been validly consecrated and she promised never to exercise her orders.

But, to this day, she is portrayed holding a Bishop's Crozier, not an Abbesses' one.

Alex

Alex. Women are NEVER ordained validly!
Even should they manage to get themself an Apostolic Bishop to do it, it is not valid.
Where do you come up with these ideas? Sometimes I question your name as to being either Orthodox or Catholic.

Yes Abbots and Abesses both use a Crozier symbol of pastoral care which they have by their office. It has nothing to do with ordination to Holy Orders.

Deconesses in the early church were installed in female communities, they were not Ordained. Read you oecumenical council documents of the Church.

Stephanos



[This message has been edited by Stephanos (edited 07-28-2001).]

According to Bishop Kallistos and other Orthodox sources, ancient texts clearly show that, in the East, the ordination rite for deacons and deaconesses was exactly the same.

Sophia!

Bill



[This message has been edited by bill tomoka (edited 07-28-2001).]

>>>Didn't notice it. But I'm glad that this has been resolved. Since it bothered me to think that an Orthodox Bishop might have said such
a thing!<<<

But then, Archbishop Anthony of Sorouzh, who is the Russian Orthodox primate of Great Britain, did say such a thing; i.e., that he could see no reason why women could not be ordained. But then he continued by saying that, until such time as the Church agreed with him, he of course would not unilaterally break with Tradition.

Kallistos' essay in Hopko's revised edition outlines his position very cogently: He agrees that Tradition prohibits the ordination of women to the presybterate, but he finds the various reasons offered as to why this is the case to be unconvincing and unsatisfying, and therefore, he believes that the Church has not in fact "closed" the issue at all.

>>>At variance with your view, the Orthodox members of the WCC do
believe that the WCC is a sound platform for ecumencial initiative and that their membership is not a serious error. <<<

That's not quite what the Orthodox position on the WCC is. Rather, they feel it necessary to remain involved with the WCC precisely in order to put forward the Orthodox position, on which there can be no compromise, Orthodoxy being the one true faith preserved in its fullness, without addition or alteration. The Orthodox delegates to the WCC will continue to oppose all propositions that run counter to Holy Tradition (which amounts to almost all of them), and will by their opposition bear witness to the truth of Orthodox belief.

Which is not quite the same thing as saying that the Orthodox Church sees the WCC as a legitimate platform for discussion.

As always, this is a complicated issue. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union encouraged participation in the WCC by the various Orthodox Churches in the USSR and Warsaw Pact as a means of disseminating Soviet positions and disinformatsiya (the role of the KGB in the WCC is documented by Soviet archival sources). And many members of the Orthodox Churches who were not subborned by the KGB saw the WCC as one of the few forums where they could interact with Church members outside of Communist influence. So it was something of a symbiotic relationship.

Since the collapse of the USSR, many members of those same Orthodox Churches, recognizing the manner in which the WCC had been compromised by Soviet agents of influence, as well as the general apostacy of the WCC's more liberal delegations, have had serious second thoughts, and one or two particular Churches have in fact withdrawn from the Council.

>>>Deconesses in the early church were installed in female communities, they were not Ordained. Read you oecumenical council
documents of the Church<<<

Dear Stephanos,

You are quite wrong here. In the Church of Constantinople, and by extension, to all of the Byzantine Churches, Deaconess was an ordained major order, in rank and dignity equal to the diaconate. They were ordained using EXACTLy the same formula used to ordain a deacon, including the critical phrase, "The divine grace, always healing that which is weak and supplying what is deficient. . ." I don't know how many Byzantine ordination services you have seen, but when they say that, you are a major cleric.

In the Church of Constantinople, the deaconesses were responsible for assisting in the baptism of female catechumens, for maintaining good order and discipline among the women and children, for the distribution of charity to widows, consecrated virgins and orphans, for the distribution of the sacrament to women in confinement, and for"women's issues" generally. They received communion at the altar right after the deacons, and with each species separately, as clergy. Their ordained status was confirmed in Byzantine civil law by the Codex Justinianus, and in the East the institution of the deaconess continued well into the 14th century. In the mid-20th century, a number of women were ordained as deaconesses to serve in isolated female monasteries, and today the Orthodox Church in Greece is seriously considering a general restoration of the office.

St. Olympias, friend and confidante of John Chrysostom, was the Protodeaconess of Hagia Sophia, with responsibility for no fewer than 400 other deaconesses throughout the city. Since she was not a monastic, and did not live in isolation, but held a cathedral office which involved interaction with the rest of the cathedral clergy of Constantinople, the idea that this was a mere "dignity" given to women serving in cloistered communities can be laid to rest with absolute certitude.

I would just like to add that a recent head of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, Pope Parthenios III (Memory Eternal +1996), who was, to say the least, one the more intellectually adventurous of Orthodox hierarchs, favored the ordination of women priests.

Many American Greek Orthodox presbyteras certainly do favor the ordination of women to the diaconate (deaconesses).

Sophia!

Bill

The explanation given is quite good about Deaconesses (and their role in the Great Church). However, one thing must always be added regarding the Major Order of Deacon. When reposed, the Deacon is buried with a censer in their hand and in the Burial Service of a...Layman.

Christ Is With Us!

Three Cents

Patriarch Bartholomew hosts women's conference:
http://www.stnina.org/97f/97f-ecupat-conf.htm

[This message has been edited by bill tomoka (edited 07-29-2001).]

THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, February 15, 1987 Sunday, METRO; Pg. B01


Greek Orthodox hierarchy gathers; Proper role of women in church to be debated
Scott Fagerstrom, The Register


ANAHEIM -- Like her mother before her, and her grandmother before that, Alice Scourby learned early that there were certain things girls could not do in church -- like helping the priest conduct services.


Unlike her mother and grandmother before her, though, Scourby wanted to know why. And even though she's grown up to become a professor of sociology at Long Island University, she still wants to know.
Scourby, a member of the Greek Orthodox Church, finally may get an answer to her question. Greek Orthodox bishops from North and South America, in Anaheim this week for a business meeting, say the church will sponsor an international gathering of theologians, clergymen and sociologists later this year to debate the proper role of women in church.

Bishop Anthony, spiritual leader of the Greek Orthodox Church in California and other Western states, said the gathering probably wouldn't produce any big change in the church's theology or practice.
But the fact that the meeting will take place is noteworthy, he added.
One of the most traditional sects in Christianity, the Greek Orthodox Church has not made major revisions in its theology since the year 787.
And the style of worship has changed little since the second century.


While many Protestant denominations and even the Roman Catholic Church, once a bastion of tradition, have made major changes in the 20th century, the Greek Orthodox have clung tenaciously to their ancient practices. But they are not insulated completely from the waves of change that have swept across the other major Christian sects in the United States.

Introduced to this country by Greek immigrants, most of whom came here in a mass migration at the turn of the century, the Greek Orthodox Church in America was for years primarily an ethnic enclave. Worship services were conducted in Greek, and the church served as a social center for Greek neighborhoods, rather than simply as a house of worship.
But many of the original immigrants have died, and now the church's members are third- and fourth-generation Americans who wonder about some of the "old ways," Scourby said. Religious traditions and cultural traditions have been wrapped in the same package for centuries, and now that some of the cultural aspects of Greek life are fading, the church must decide which traditions are central to the faith, she said.

Scourby, who has conducted several studies of Greek immigrants in the United States, said that in the 1980s, U.S. women of Greek descent still identify with the church but find it is "restrictive and limiting to women."
Since the beginning of the century, Greek-American immigrants have gone from a primarily unskilled labor force to people who occupy professional and managerial positions.
"They've been very upwardly mobile; however, this has not been true of many women. I think it hasn't been true of the women because of these continuing, patriarchial norms. I think that Greek women who are now more educated would like to see more favorable attitudes," said Scourby, who spoke to a women's auxiliary meeting in Anaheim on Saturday.
The question of women's roles is one of many issues with which the church is grappling. As more and more Americans of Greek descent speak English as their primary language, priests and bishops must decide how much of the service should be in Greek and how much in English.

"The key is flexibility," said the Rev. James Diavatis, a priest at St. John the Baptist parish in Anaheim. "If I have a mixed wedding -- one of the spouses is non-Greek -- I'll sometimes do 100 percent (of it) in English."
In a Sunday-morning worship service, the ratio of Greek to English is about 60-40, he added.

The church is in transition, said Bishop Anthony, and "like in any transition, there is a tremendous amount of pain" as leaders struggle to preserve the Greek culture without becoming irrelevant to their primarily American congregations.


Ironically, the ultratraditional nature of Orthodoxy is starting to attract converts from Roman Catholicism and Protestant denominations that have dropped some of their ancient traditions.
The Rev. George Stephanides, a priest at St. Paul's Greek Orthodox Church in Irvine, said about 40 converts join his congregation every year. While half of them are converting primarily because they are marrying someone in the church, the other half are people leaving other denominations, he said.
Diavatis said that hardly a Sunday goes by at his Anaheim church without someone from another denomination wanting to speak with him after the service. Some are just curious, but some -- about 10 to 15 a year -- want to convert.
"The question of ordination of women is a very great problem" among some members of Protestant denominations that have begun to accept women as clergy, he said.
That isn't likely to happen in the Orthodox Church, he added.
"The Orthoodox Church is very pro-woman, but our theology does not allow for a female priesthood," he said. "This has been our stance since Christianity began."

Scourby noted that she isn't calling for the ordination of women as priests, but only wants to see women allowed to become altar girls and deaconesses.
Such a policy would not be revolutionary, she added. The prohibition of altar girls and deaconesses is not a theological one, but a holdover of a Greek, patriarchial family attitude, she said.
Although female priests never have been permitted in the Orthodox Church, women did serve as deaconesses through the 12th century, she added.
Return to Top
Originally Classified as: Articles | Archdiocese

I'm sure Stuart can find indivudual Orthodox who agree with his view, but such statements are lacking from the official sources for the Orthodox members of the WCC. In fact, Orthodoxy hardly operates within the WCC as a 'loyal opposition' or internal dissident. In fact, Orhtodox bishops regularly and currently serve in the highest leadership positions in the WCC, including its presidency. They remian generous financial cotnributors (and have not cut back since the end of the Cold War).

Lastly, if one accepts Stuart's assertion that almost all of the propositions put before the WCC are against Holy Tradition, then the Orthodox are not doing as he says. Teh vast majority of propositions put before the WCC are not opposed by the Orthodox delegations.

Stuart's objective factual error on this last point calls into questione everything he asserts.

K.

>>>Teh vast majority of propositions put before the WCC are not opposed by the Orthodox
delegations.<<<

I never said that they were. And given the structure of the WCC, it is unlikely that any Orthodox resolutions dealing with central dogmatic issues would ever come to the floor. The role of the Orthodox Church in the WCC therefore tends to be negative: a rejection of all propositions that depart from the Apostolic faith through exposition of the Orthodox position.

Might I suggest that you guys take INTENSIVE courses in Greek and then hie yourselves to the nearest Kaffeineion ( the closest is in Greektown in Baltimore, on Eastern Avenue near St. Demetrius Church). The men there (no women -- TRADITION!) sip Venizelos coffee, smoke dank cigarettes or the occasional hookah, play skat (a card game) and engage in the most ferocious debates on every topic imaginable.

To suggest that any Greek (or Orthodox) would pass up a chance to park it and debate with folks, is just not a reality.

So too with the WCC; it is a chance for Orthodoxy to engage in that most Near Eastern and Byzantine practice of talking/debating/arguing/discussing and throwing down the gauntlet. And when it is all over ('last call'), the Westerns may stagger out the door wondering what has happened, while the Greeks (and other Byzantine folks) pack up the cards and head homewards enjoying the fact that issues were discussed and new thoughts were presented for consideration. Overall, it was a fruitful night.

So, when Euro-ethnic-Orthodox sit down with Anglicans, German-Evangelicals, Lutherans, Catholics, etc., there is no expectation that there will be a memorandum of agreement coming forth although the Westerns might expect some such trifle, but the Greeks/Byzantines see it as a fruitful exchange of ideas and something worthy enough to be repeated. The Westerns have suspicions about doing it again -- hey! there was no 'product' -- but for the Eastern folks: the very debate and discussion is EXACTLY the prize that should be expected and relished. Different mindsets.

So, for the Greeks/Byzantines, the next question is: your place or mine? And who brings the wine and mezedes (hors d'ouvres)?

Take the time to STUDY what the Eastern Christian community is and how we understand ourselves and you. Don't jump to conclusions based upon your paradigm -- that's not being Christian towards the East. Give us some space -- we're not really that queer and weird -- just different.

And when we have time to sit together and eat and talk and debate and argue, we're showing you the greatest respect because we're taking the time to do so and dedicating it to you.

So, let the Orthodox continue to interact with the Western Christian communities --even in the WCC-- and even if apparently there is no hope in hell to reach a memorandum of understanding. As John Paul II has made abundantly clear by his actions, the very fact that we are present to each other is a most wonderful sign of God's grace.

Blessings!

Dr. John,

Again, I fully apprciate your post. However, in addition to the worthwhile debates or discussions within the family of the WCC, many common endeavors are agreed to and implemented witht he full support of the Orthodox members.

As to Stuart's point, his error can be demonstated mathamatically. He claims "



One simply needs to take the propositions that come before the WCC (I'll let others pick the time frame), look at the vote of the Orthodox delegations and calculate if the Orthodox vote in the majority more often than not. In fact, they do most often vote witht he majority, disproving the assertion that they oppose almost all propositions.

K.

Kurt, luv', there is a wonderful anecdote that clarifies the issue. It is the story of the Nazi Quakers. When the conflict is established, everyone gets up with their flaming torches and engages in a massive torchlight parade, screaming and chanting. When war is declared the Nazi Quakers sit down and, in conscience, sit down and refuse to go.

So too with the Orthodox in the WCC. It's fine to stand up and march around and vote the way the rest do. But when push comes to shove, there is a chasm. And the Orthodox in the WCC 'abstain' from doing what the group has determined to do. E.g., Orthodox will affirm the absolute value of a woman's soul and right to be a part of the community. [Torchlight parade!] But there is no question of accepting women's ordination. (Sit down and refuse to accept.]

Don't sweat it. It's just our way. Though it may drive the non-Easterns nuts.

Blessings!

[This message has been edited by Dr John (edited 07-31-2001).]

But Dr. John, I think you have bought in to the right wing critics. First of all, the WCC has no formal stance on women's ordination. Second, the Council has a wide variety of initiatives (the "war") of which the Orthodox DO participate in, fully and enthusiastically.

I do think the the right and the anti-ecumenists and just the old fashioned haters have done a hatchet job as to what the WCC is, does and is all about.

The Orthodox, in fact, tend to be more participatory than many other members.

Those who beleive in ecumenism (the stated purpose of this forum) should rejoice in these positive endeavors. Those right wingers who are just looking for a coalition partner in their culture wars, of course, have a different agenda.

K.


[This message has been edited by Kurt K (edited 08-01-2001).]

Dear Stephanos,

I am sorry to have upset you so!

Actually, my Catholic friends think of me as "Orthodox" and my Orthodox friends think of