www.byzcath.org Forums Mysteries: The Life of Worship Vespers, Matins & the Divine Liturgy The Revised Divine Liturgy Valerie Karras, Fr. Taft, women priests the Liturgy

I have for quite some time thought that the revised Liturgy with inclusive language is but the sign of a more serious issue. I make two observations. The first observation is that Valerie Karras was a featured speaker at the seminary in Pittsburgh last April. See http://www.byzcathsem.org/news/cmlecture06.php

As you may know, Valerie Karras is in favor of women's ordination.

The second observation is a comment by Fr. Taft in his article, "Mass without Consecration." See
http://www.america-magazineonline.com/gettext.cfm?articleTypeID=1&textID=2959&issueID=433

This article is about the Anaphora [Eucharistic Prayer] of Addai and Mari. This is the Anaphora that has no (and apparently never has had) explicit words of consecration. At the end of the article, Fr. Taft states:

\

It seems that Fr. Taft stretches the actual content of what the Vatican permitted to a "magisterial teaching." But it is most interesting that he states that he considers it the most important "magisterial teaching" since Vatican II. I know of two very important magisterial teachings since Vatican II which seem to be far more relevant and important with respect to the modern crisis in the Church:

Humanae Vitae (1968)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p..._p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

and ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS (1994)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j..._22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

I submit that it is because of the failure to attend to the importance of these true magisterial teachings, we are getting �inclusive language�. For the relevance of the issue of "inclusive language" and women priests, see the article, "Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, The Outrage of Inclusive Language" by Msgr. Schuler, former rector of St. Agnes parish in Minneapolis. This was a priest of the Roman Rite who knew how to celebrate Liturgy and understood the importance of Gregorian Chant in the Roman Rite. He wrote:



http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/INCLUSIV.TXT

Both Vatican documents referenced above in some measure deal with what Fr. Petras has termed in his response to Fr. Keleher "gender roles." It seems that the fundanmental truth of the �gender roles� is expressed in Genesis and Ephesians:






What seems patently clear to anyone who rubs elbows with the world at all, is that the world is utterly in the dark (willingly perhaps) about the true nature of the proper relationship between man and woman (indeed for the modernist, male and female is but an accident of evolution), marriage and its proper end, the begetting of children, and its representation of Christ and the Church.

I submit that if those who were translating the Creed and the Divine Liturgy (and those in the Oriental Congregation approving them) had a readically informed Catholic view of marriage and its symbolism (and hence of the nature of the male priesthood itself (ie, bridegroom)), they would not have given a hoot (that�s a term of art) about the pressure from the feminists which is what has given us �inclusive language in the Divine Liturgy and the Creed.

One must remember, however, that the translation of the Creed is actually not even a translation in the proper sense because the Greek word �anthropos� is not being translated but left out. One has to be pretty darn bold to tinker with the Symbol approved by an Ecumenical Council. Only a critical error in another area (ie marriage and the priesthood) would, I think, allow one to make such a glaring mistake in the Creed.

We can only hope, as our friend, Alexandr, has suggested in another thread, that the Theotokos will give the Bishops courage and wisdom not to permit a new Creed to be promulgated without the blessing of an Ecumenical Council or the Approval of the Holy See itself.

Alas. It is not altogether surprising that the seminary in Pittsburgh is on the slippery slope regarding the "ordination of women". Altering the language necessarily involves altering one's thought, and for a good twenty years or more there has been a significant feminist influence on liturgical developments in that jurisdiction.

However, this time they may have over-reached themselves. This rather startling development should certainly be made known to the relevant authorities of the Holy See - who take the matter of "the ordination of women" with the utmost seriousness, and who will not be amused that a proponent of that dubious cause is invited to give a public lecture putting forth a favorable view of the matter under the auspices of a Catholic seminary.

Fr. Serge

I don't know much about Valerie Karras; has she actually advocated the ordination of women to the priesthood? If not, and it is instead the issue of women in the diaconate that is the problem, perhaps the Seminary should also be censured for inviting Bishop Kallistos Ware to speak in 2002; I have read several of his writings that contend that women were actually ordained as deaconesses in the early church.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Seems an example of liberal-mainstream camp-following instead of obeying Rome on being more Eastern.

Valerie Karras seems obviously another assimilated Greek-American, more American than Orthodox, or the attitude of 'Orthodoxy is nice customs from the old country to pick and choose from', full stop.

As for women's ordination, as far as I can tell the problem with it is in order to do it you have to undermine the rest of the faith: using arguments like 'Jesus didn't found a church', orders (their substance not just their form) are wholly man-made and so on, Protestant fashion. So... so far it's a non-starter for Catholics.

As for complementarity, I'm a believer, fair play and all that, but equality of persons isn't egalitarianism in the sense of no hierarchy. Put another way, as ageless wisdom (be attentive) shows, even the strongest, most self-reliant woman wants a man who's slightly stronger than she is (which doesn't mean he's abusive!), who can be in charge and take care of her when she needs it. Folk wisdom: marriages in which the wife calls the shots are not happy ones. Or looking at the flip side, women don't respect and thus aren't attracted to weak, overly feminine men.

Dear Jeff,
That women were ordained as deaconesses in the early Church is not disputed; it is attested by Saint Paul, by the texts of ordination rites used for the purpose, and by any number of patristic and historical sources. There are presently deaconesses in the Coptic Orthodox Church. Still more, a solemnly professed and consecrated Carthusian nun is an ordained deaconess, although very few Catholics seem to be aware. Among Byzantine Orthodox, the last such ordination of which we are certain took place around 1850; there are persistent rumors that Saint Nectarios of Pentapolis ordained a deaconess or two, but that has not been confirmed - though he is certainly known to have ordained a subdeaconess or two.

In itself, as stated above, this is not disputed. However, it leaves open to question just what function the deaconesses had in earlier centuries (in more recent times in monasteries the function of the deaconess was and is to preside at the services apart from the Divine Liturgy in the absence of a priest). To put it differently: is a deaconess simply a female deacon, or are the two ministries distinct from one another?

The situation is radically different with regard to the presbyterate and the episcopate; there is no precedent whatever in an Orthodox-Catholic context for the ordination of women to either of these ranks (such things are even relatively rare among heretical groups until quite recently). For Catholics, the matter is not even open to discussion, since the magisterium has ruled definitively on it.

Fr. Serge

Also, 'Mass without consecration' is a bad title; Taft should know better. The Liturgy of SS. Addai and Mari of the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church has an anaphora, only (in present form anyway) without the words of institution unlike the Roman and Byzantine rites.

Father Serge, your blessing!

Thank you for the clarification. Since the Orthodox Church of Greece has given its bishops permission to ordain deaconesses, it seems unwise to declare heretical-in-advance anyone who promotes the idea of ordaining deaconesses in Orthodoxy; further, it would be wise for Eastern Catholic theologians to be familiar with the historical facts and related scholarship - in which case the lecture described above hardly seems like a cause celebre. UNLESS of course, Dr. Karras is promoting the ordination of women to the priesthood. The only writings of hers that I'm aware of concern the issue of deaconesses, and of women religion educators and theologians; that is why I was asking for more information.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Dear YF -

Of course you're right - but to a Latin Catholic, it is precisely "the Consecration" (= Words of Institution) that is missing; just as cradle Orthodox I have known completely dismiss the Roman Canon as even POSSIBLY Orthodox due to the lack of a recognizable (to them) Epiclesis.

Notwithstanding the article's title, the theological argument is interesting; one could argue similarly that the entire Anaphora both consecrates and calls down the Holy Spirit, whether explicitly or implicitly - and one would not need to "add" a Byzantine-style epiclesis to the Roman Canon to make it Orthodox.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

ByzKat: The answer, my friend, is not blowin' in the wind but 'edumacation' on both sides.

Stuart Koehl, a defender of things Eastern, says the lack of an explicit descending epiclesis in the Roman Canon shows it's older than the two Byzantine ones, or 'not everything Eastern is older'. I understand that in some local missals it had one, others not like in the version handed down in the Tridentine Mass and in Eucharistic Prayer I in the current book. No, it doesn't need one tacked on.

Also, to be fair, having a speaker at a university, which this may be in the spirit of, is not the same as advocacy of a position. The university is not catechism class; virtually any point can be debated, the point of the Pope's controversial speech last year at Regensburg. So that's a yes to academic freedom; learn opposing views.

That said given ecclesiastical history over the past 40 years, fool me once, shame on you...

I do have grave reservations about the claim that women can be ordained in the same sense as men to the diaconate. Fr. Saunders in his article, "Straight Answers, Can Women Be Deacons," writes:



http://www.catholicherald.com/saunders/05ws/ws051124.htm

Valerie Karras, as I understand it, does advocate ordination not only of women deacons but also of women priests. This comes from reading several of her articles where she certainly does not deny this possibility and from communication with an Orthodox priest. However, this is all a sidebar to the real topic. The main question is whether the mandate for "inclusive language" is but the fruit of more serious dabblings contrary to the faith.

While I have recommended it in the past, I reread the article
"Jesus Son of Humankind?" by Fr. Mankowski. In that article he demolishes the notion that horizontal inclusive language does not destroy the sense of ancient texts.

http://www.touchstonemag.com/docs/issues/14.8docs/14-8pg33.html

Her writes:



If we are trying to regain the Tradition of the East, why obscure the truth?

Fr. Mankowski has some wonderful lines:



And I really appreciate these lines:



Another problem of course in changing the original lnaguage to fit the modern political agenda is this: Where and when will it end? When is it enough so that the feminists are happy? So if these changes are accepted, more are sure to follow. But when will the project be completed? Wouldn't it be better just to say look, this is what the original texts says, "anthropos" and there is no getting around the fact that "man" is the best translation for that Greek word. If you don't like it, make up up your own Creed and start your own church, but we have the duty to pass on what was given to us for it has the power to transform your life:

[quote=The young fogey]Also, to be fair, having a speaker at a university, which this may be in the spirit of, is not the same as advocacy of a position. The university is not catechism class; virtually any point can be debated, the point of the Pope's controversial speech last year at Regensburg. So that's a yes to academic freedom; learn opposing views.

The seminary is not a university. Don't be fooled twice. The Pope's speech was a call to compare two radically different points of view--the notion that Islam has a God who really is incomprehensible and the Greek notion that God is logos, reason and word, which is consistent with St. John, "In the beggining was the Word."

lm,

Of course Fr. Saunders is answering from a Latin viewpoint. The order of deaconesses died out very quickly in the West, nor was it as an institution as important as it was in the East. If one looks at the ordination formulas in the Byzantine Church for deacons: http://www.anastasis.org.uk/deacon.htm
and deaconesses:
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/woman_deacon.htm
they are very close.

Also deaconesses were treated as a true but seperate order. They received the orarion and communed in the altar after the deacons but before the subdeacons, even if they had no liturgical role outside of Baptism and taking Communion to sick women.

The issue of deaconesses in the Eastern Churches must not be conflated with the feminist demand for women priests, no matter how much their side wants it. We must also not resist looking at the order of deaconess becasue of reaction to feminist misappropriation of the issue.

Fr. Deacon Lance

lm,

"Wouldn't it be better just to say look, this is what the original texts says, "anthropos" and there is no getting around the fact that "man" is the best translation for that Greek word."

I am certainly no expert in Koine Greek, but I am pretty sure that anthropos in Koine Greek is a neuter plural word. Of course traditional English does not have a neuter plural word to plug in here so man in its generic sense is used. In modern English we do have the neuter plural humans or humankind. Whether that is desirable is a matter of taste. Myself, I prefer man and mankind for its poetic flow and conservancy of words. But I don't think we can decry as hertics those who prefer to match neuter plural with neuter plural now that those words exist in the language. I do not agree with simply dropping the word and going with simply "us".

Fr. Deacon Lance

"Anthropos" and "anthropoi" [pl?] are just like the English words "man" and "men". They can be marked and unmarked. You refer to anthropos as if it is always unmarked. It is not. See, eg,

Ephesians ch 5:




And 1 Corinthians 7



It would be rather silly to say "it is well for a human being not to touch a woman," unless of course one thought women weren't human beings.

I highly recommend the article by Fr. Mankowski above for reflections on the use of the word "man".

When we say in the Creed that "He was made man" we get the fullness of meaning, ie, he was made a male human being. Both meanings are vitally important. He took on human nature to save men, women, children, unborn babies--all of mankind. It is also important that he was male, he is the new Adam, the Bridegroom of the Church. If you mistranslate the Creed (as Valerie Karras would like to do) and say that, "for us human beings he became a human being," you miss the richness of the meaning. In Valerie Karras case, this is important because she does not want an all- male priesthood.

Leaving out "men" in, "for us "men" and for our salvation...[He] became man," actually emphasizes His maleness. So the effect of leaving out "anthropos" because it is taboo, is the opposite of what was intended. The feminists should be up in arms.

I did not accuse anyone of being heretics. I did, however, make the comment that you need to be pretty darn bold to drop a word from the Creed and I ask, "Why do this?" What if there was a proposal to drop "men" from the American Declaration --"All of us are created equal." That changes the meaning. Now instead of being a universal statement about mankind, we end up with all of us, ie, all the "born" people are equal. If you're unborn, why we can just snuff you out. Bedrock terms, as Fr, Mankowski calls them, are vitally (ie full of life) important. Without them, one alters the meaning that the original authors intended.

The ordination rite for women references Phoebe, the ordination rite for men references Stephen. There is a difference.

Fr. Saunders comments are validated by the above quote from the ordination ritual you found. In the ordination ritual for the male deaconate, the Apostles law is referenced. No such reference is made with respect to the women.

lm,

I said they were very close I did not say there were not differences, but to get to the heart of the matter:

"the one to be ordained is brought before the Bishop. As he declaims the invocation, Divine grace,[2] etc., she bows her head, on which he lays his hand.
[2] See the rite for male Deacons.

"Divine grace, which always heals what is infirm and completes what is lacking, ordains N., the most devout Subdeacon, as Deacon. Let us therefore pray for him, that the grace of the All-Holy Spirit may come upon him."

is the ordinational form present in the ordinations for major orders in the Byzantine Church. The same formula is used for deaconesses with obvious gender changes. The practice of the Byzantine Church stands in contradiction to the that of the Latin where it is pretty clear deaconesses were not considered a major order. All indications, including ordination formula, vestments, communing in the altar, and being handed the chalice point to the fact that the Byzantine Church considered this an ordination. In my opinion it is equal to but different than the male diaconate as the functions though similar were not identical.

Fr. Deacon Lance

The first footnote in the ordination for women to the diaconate states:


If there is no reference to the service of the Mysteries, there is a significant difference with respect to the nature of the ordination and whether it is considered as one of the Holy Mysteries. One must also avoid of course, the bias that because this is the way the East did it, it must be so. I don't doubt that there was an ordination for deaconesses. I doubt, however, that it conferred the same grace that a deacon receives in the Holy Mystery of ordination.

For some reason, your position reminds me of an answer that the Archbishop of Canterbury (in the 40s or 50s I am told) gave when he was asked if he believed in infant baptism. His response: "Believe in it? I've seen it!"

I simply point out that since the words of the ordination are significantly different, and since words signify realities, the reality signified in the one is different than in the other. Since we have no Ecumenical Council which has stated that women's ordination is one of the Holy Mysteries, we cannot conclude that there really are or were women deacons in the same sense in which you are a deacon.

As I understand it, a Bishop has the fullness of Order, and the deacon and priest participate in that fullness but do not have it in the same manner as the Bishop. But since there cannot be women Bishops, neither can there be women priests or deacons (at least in the same sense as male deacons).

Furthermore, if the order of women deacon existed in the same way as with the male deacon, I would expect we would find this order prevalent in both rites.

But back to the main topic. Is the possibility of women deacon's critical to the faith? Isn't a proper translation and understanding of the Creed far more important? Why is it that the seminary should be so concerned about the positions of Valerie Karras to give us a peak at women deaconesses (she teaches by the way at the bastion of orthodxy, SMU, where the Pope's former classmate, Fr. Charles Curran also teaches), but we can't get a proper translation of the Creed given to us by the Fathers of the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople? There is something amiss here and the two issues are related to one another.

First I note that Valerie Karras has never denied the possibility of women priests. Also take a look at this article:

The Significance of the Maleness of Jesus Christ?

http://stnina.org/journal/art/1.2.11

In it Karras argues that there is no significance of the maleness of Jesus Christ. Of course, if His maleness is not significant, it does not matter whether priests be male or female, they only need to be human.

Elsewhere, in an article on the same site, she argues that God created "male and female" in anticipation of the fall. Marriage, however, which requires male and female, was instituted in the beginning before the the fall. Marriage reflects the mystery of Christ's love for His bride the Church.

Compare Karras' view with the actual account in Genesis where God commands Adam and Eve, before the fall, to be fruitful and multiply.

Also note that in the same article by Karras referenced above, Karras makes the claim that anthropos is best translated as "human being." She implicitly asserts that anthropos did not have a marked meaning in the New Testament. That's simply not true. See my earlier comments in this thread to Fr. Deacon Lance. Her scholarship is skewed because the facts don't correspond to her theory that the maleness of Christ was not significant.

Dear Jeff,
The Blessing of the Lord!

Fr. Serge

P.S. May God grant you every joy in the New Year of His abundant grace!

lm,

"I simply point out that since the words of the ordination are significantly different, and since words signify realities, the reality signified in the one is different than in the other."

There is the rub, the words of ordination are not different. The prayer of ordination is as I pointed out:

"Divine grace, which always heals what is infirm and completes what is lacking, ordains N., the most devout Subdeacon, as Deacon. Let us therefore pray for him, that the grace of the All-Holy Spirit may come upon him."

Only the gender is changed for a deaconess.

The prayers you point out are prayers for the ordained after the ordination has taken place not the prayer of ordination itself.

Again the Latin and Byzantine Churches look at his differently I think. The Latin Church has always seen the minor orders and the diaconate as steps to the priesthood and worries that deaconesses will lend strenght to the arguement for women priests. This is compounded by the fact that the Latin Church since Vatican II has committed many priestly duites to its deacons: baptism, marriage, funerals, etc.

The Byzantine Church has always looked on each order seperately each with its own duties and functions. Deacons in the Byzantine Church perform no priestly function and to have deaconesses is not seen as a threat to the priesthood being male only. Deaconesses did not have a liturgical role in the cathedral churches but in monasteries they served the same role as male deacons performing the incensations and litanies and reading the Gospel.

Fr. Deacon Lance

In general, one must look at the entire context of a particular liturgical ritual if one is trying to determine the meaning. Thus each of the prayers of the ordination service is significant, not just the one invocation "The Divine Grace . . . "

One of the major Reformation errors was the reduction of the Anaphora to the Institution Narrative - and the source of this error can be found in the pre-Reformation idea of Western theologians that the Institution Narrative was all that mattered. This idea persisted among the Latins, and led to such aberrations as intoxicated clergy leaning against bread trucks and mumbling "Hoc est enim Corpus Meum" - I'm thinking of a specific incident in New York in Cardinal Spellman's time (the Cardinal promptly bought the bread truck, bread and all, and sent it up to a Trappist Monastery with instructions that the monks should consume all the bread, down to the last crumb).

This sort of absurdity doesn't do for the Eucharist, and it also doesn't do for ordinations.

Fr. Serge

Dear Fr. Serge,

That sort of absurdity also leads to ridiculous concepts like liturgies that must be under one hour. It also leads to the forgetting of the hours, since why would one go to Vespers if there is no communion? That's all that matters!

Incidentally, I've been thinking of writing up a defense of the antiphons (the enarxis, is it called?) based on Schmemann's thinking--one must look at their function in the whole of the liturgy, not just on their historical meaning. They represent the "gathering" which is constitutive of the Body of Christ, the Church (the ecclesing of the ecclesia, if that makes any sense).

It seems to me that one way to answer revisionists would be to point out the reason for the various parts of the liturgy. Otherwise, when a historicist says "that's old, and the original purpose is gone; therefore, it's unnecessary," we are at a loss. The antiphons may have their origin in the processions in Constantinople, but that's not why they remain.

Anyway, I realize this is a bit off topic, but your post made me think of it.

Karl

Fr Serge,

Just to be clear I am in no way supportive of women in the priesthood. I just believe deaconesses are a seperate issue with its own merits.

I am not dismissing the other prayers but I find it significant that the Divine Grace prayer is used, as well as the communing in the altar and handing over of the chalice. Also since the Byzantines did not adopt the Latin numbering of 7 sacraments until very late, they could have seen it as a sacrament and yet not part of the three-fold sacrament of Holy Orders.

What do you make of it?

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Serge,

I am rather sleepy this morning. Please fill in the conclusion of the implied syllogism. Are you saying that the entire ordination rite ought to be considered with respect to men and women deacons and that the differences means something?

What are you saying?

Thanks.

lm

Fr. Deacon Lance,

There is precedent for thinking that although there are permanent deacons (I assume you are one), no one is ordained to the priesthood without being ordained to the deaconate first (even in the East). That suggests something about the relationship to the priesthood.

But more importantly, although there is some history of deaconesses, whatever the nature of their ordination, it doesn't seem to me to be pressing issue of the day in the United States unless of course one is taken with the feminist agenda. One of the biggest problems of the day (and which makes me think of Fr. Taft's statement which I referenced above as really odd) is Catholics complete lack of understanding of marriage.

The most pressing problem of the day, however, has a whole lot to do with Genesis, Ephesians, why God made man, male and female, and what marriage is a symbol of.

The society at large, which is very influence by the feminist agenda, gives us contraception, abortion, fetal stem cell research, and in some places gay marriage. Catholics (including Byzantines) have been notorious for voting for these measures. I say that's a real crisis and the answer isn't to tinker with the Creed.

Let me be very blunt. We are worried about how to get more people in Church and how to get vocations, so we are willing to tinker with the ancient Creed so as not to offend women -- thinking this will get more women interested in our Church. The Church, however, has a very simple answer for how most people are to get more people in Church -- since most of us do not have a vocation to celibacy, but will follow Christ in the Holy Mystery of marriage---have children--be fruitful and multiply. And when there are more children--there are more vocations! God's simple, but wise plan. This doesn't, however, fit very well with the feminist agenda in the society at large.

Let me suggest that the Byzantine Church has been dying for the last thirty years because its faithful haven't followed Humanae Vitae and probably don't know anything about it (or if they do, they don't think it is binding on them). I have proof positive of that fact from my immigrant grandparents who had 14 children. Very few of their grandchildren have many children.

I suggest that the biggest problem which Byzantine Church has is one it shares with the Roman Church--it's buying in to the modern culture of death which doesn't have a clue about marriage, about man being made male and female.

I am all for a restoration of things Byzantine, but this tinkering with the Creed and inviting Valerie Karras as the featured speaker to the seminary just doesn�t seem to address the pressing issues of the day or help solve the problem of why we are a dying Church.

Thanks.

lm

Fr. Serge,

I am very sleepy. I see I missed the entire first part of your response.

You're right, Fr Serge, that the Lutherans got the idea that the Verba were all that mattered so you got the opposite of Assyrians, no canon but the words of institution, but:


But Father, IIRC AFAIK according to traditional theology east and west that wouldn't mean anything because it wasn't in the context of a Mass, and theoretically besides that wouldn't drunkenness throw intention into doubt?

Reminds me of the joke I heard at theological college about the 'new French eucharistic prayer', 'Voila, c'est Jesus!'

Granted if that or the Verba really were all you needed to have a valid Mass a lot of nominal church members in a hurry (to get to the mall, the golf course or the television to watch football) would be happy. But it's not. Too bad.

Unfortunately it seems they are used as interlocking parts of the same agenda.

We need to ask why we have three antiphons and what they express. What is the essence of the matter? We had three full antiphons before in our history, why don't we have them now?

Time for another antiphon thread?

Indeed. The fact that things have been retained for a thousand years past their usefulness shows that they have another meaning than their use.

<<Bad Biblical Translation and "Deaconesses" >>
For an interesting discussion on translations and deaconesses, check out this link:
http://catholicanalysis.blogspot.com/2003/08/bad-biblical-translation-and.html

Very interesting article. However, this does not seem to be Valerie Karras position. I wonder why?

Well, for one thing, the article limits itself to addressing the existence of the triple hierarchy of order in the first century - rather than dealing at all with the clerical orders as they developed in the Christian East in the post-apostolic age. The question of whether there were women among the clergy in, say, 6th century Constantinople has little to do with the question of whether to refer to Phoebe as a deaconess or not - except in the minds of those wrestling with whether there should be women among the clergy now. For the Latins, this is an open question. For Byzantines it is a different KIND of question; we have had women clergy, who were not deacons, but were not laity. The Church of Greece is re-establishing this order, and the rest of the Christian East has to decide what to do about it. It may in fact be that for Easten Catholics and Orthodox living in the West, we have no need for them - or it may be that we are not mature enough to have women deaconesses, if it inevitably entangles us in arguments about women priests.

If the argument in the article is accepted, it might even suggest that the church fathers should not have mentioned Phoebe in the Byzantine rite of ordination of deaconesses. If this debate were about married priests rather than women deaconesses, its quite possible that the article above would even now be being roundly attacked for ignoring the East, and relying only on Scripture rather than on the whole church tradition.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Jeff,

My point is this. Take an honest look at what Valerie Karras is saying about women deacons. It is not what you just said: "we have had women clergy, who were not deacons, but were not laity." I simply maintain that Karras' position and Fr. Taft's positions, have something to do with THE MISTRANSLATIONS OF THE CREED AND THE DIVINE LITURGY. If you take the Ecumenical Councils of the early Church seriouly, then there is an enormous problem with the proposed Divine Liturgy. It's not a little problem. Rome has stated how "anthropos" ought to be translated and our only response is "Well, this isn't the Roman Church." SHOW ME ONE BYZANTINE AUTHORITY THAT SAYS WE CAN CHANGE THE CREED! It's being altered not for the sake of orthodoxy but to please a certain vocal minority whose positions are in fact unorthodox. That's serious. If the position which is the principle behind the mistranslation of the Creed is taken seriously, then all of the Scriptures have to be rewritten and what Genesis says about the very reason for God creating man male and female, should be thrown away because "gender" roles are changing.

I have heard this type of argument ad infinitum among the intellectual elites in the universities and law schools throughout the country who hate the Catholic faith because they know it is an obstacle to the overthrow of the natural order which God created and which they hate.

lm,

I think we agree on virtually all of the theology involved; I'm simply asking for more information, since the question of "women's ordination" (ordination as WHAT was not specified) was used to question the orthodoxy of the seminary, and Father Taft's belief that any apparent BROADENING of the strict Latin theological requirement for an institution narrative - a broadening which is very favorable to the east, and rather shocking to Latins - is in essence a NEW teaching and rather important; the other statements of teaching you mention are vital to our era, but the TEACHING itself in those cases has been around for virtually the entire life of the Church.

The argument that we must avoid so-called "inclusive language" to guard our orthodoxy (an argument which I can generally except) would be easier to support if one of the priests who opposes the new translation did not use inclusive language overnight in one of his posts.

I would still be interested in evidence that Valerie Karras is calling for the ordination of women to the priesthood, and that she did so in her address at the seminary (as suggested in Father Serge's post; he may have been at the talk, but I wasn't.) If that was the case, I would certainly write to the rector of the seminary to remind him of the bad example that could provide to us layfolk.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff Mierzejewski

Dear Jeff,

I think inclusive language is a bit separate (but not unrelated) from the omission of the word "anthropos" from the creed. It's one thing to say "brothers and sisters", it's another thing to translate "anthropos" as "_____".

Dear P-A,

I agree completely. I do think it was a mistake to remove "man", but I really doubt that _including_ it somehow emphasizes masculine/feminine complementarity, or the masculine character of the priesthood. It certainly CAN play into the hands of those who believe that women are simply "incomplete men" (I've met good Orthodox Christians who quote the Fathers to that effect.) But it's the best word we have in English for that particular phrase.

Jeff

Jeff,

Thanks for responding and raising good questions. These exchanges are very useful and good.



If we are Byzantinte why are distilling essences? What I mean is this. Fr. Taft tells us, look at the whole anaphora not just the words of consecration. I say, Fr. Taft look at the whole of what the Church is teaches about inclusive language even if it isn't specifically addresed to Byzantines, ie, Liturgiam Authenticam and other documents say, translate anthropoi as men.

The document which approved the anaphora for a very limited porpose does NOT rise to the level of NEW MAGESTERIAL TEACHING but taking men out of the Creed is certainly innovative. What struck me as very odd is that Fr. Taft claims that it does and he even calls it THE MOST IMPORTANT MAGISTERIAL TEACHING SINCE VATICAN II. I have pointed out two very real magesterial teachings since Vatican II which get no recogition among those who promote inclusive language and ask the question WHY? In fact one inclusivist in the Roman Church (a former President of the Canon Law Society who has been deleting men from the Creed for years) when he was asked by a new convert about Humanae Vitae said, "Oh we don't talk about that."

With respect to Valerie Karras, she too wants to extract essences and takes a very Roman analysis with respect to the nature of female deacons. She wants only to look at the specific consecretorial prayers and say, "aha, see the words are the same as for the male." As Fr. Saunders points out, and as Fr. Serge alluded to in his response to Fr. Deacon Lance, look at all the prayers and one sees that there is an enormous difference which signifies a difference in the nature of what a female deacon is.

Controversial positions and speakers raise controversy. I feel like the little boy who said, "but Mommy, the Emperor has no clothes." I have been saying, "but the Creed has no "men."

My argument is not that by refusing to translate anthropoi we are "avoiding so called inclusive language but rather, we aren't getting what the Fathers of the Church handed down to us. And I ask WHY? WHY do they dare change the language of the Creed which should take an act of an Ecumenical Council WITH the approval of the Holy See itself? That's unorthodox. So I am looking for answers and I see Valerie Karras is an advocate for similar mistranslations and Fr. Taft is an advocate for inclusive language and makes a bold statement about what he considers the most imporantant magisterial teaching for Vatican II.

I don't think Valerie Karras advocated women priests at the seminary, but I don't know that she did not. She does, however, advocate that women deacons are true deacons just like men. That's controversial. Review her writings and see if you do not come to the same conclusion I have. Why invite her to the seminary? She is not Catholic and holds a position contrary to the sound teaching of the Church. Furthermore, her positions are controversial even amongst the Orthodox.

The burden should be on those who advocate change and innovation and if they get upset that people are suspicious, then they ought not to be so controversial or be willing to give a reason for the hope and faith which they propose.

I understand that that is not your argument, but I do think it is the reason given by those who want to change the Creed. But the easy and orthodox way around the problem is for the Bishops to say we have a duty to hand on what was passed on to us and this is it. If someone is abusing the Creed to say that women are simply incomplete men then they too need a few lessons from Genesis.

lm

Jeff,

The reason that Fr. Petras has given for "inclusive language" is that "gender" roles are changing.

The reason Fr. Taft rebuked the clergy at the meeting in 1998 for their opposition to "inclusive language" is "because they feared it, because it gave power to the disennfranchized."

So the arguments presented FOR "inclusive language" are, at least in the minds of its promoters, relevant to the the issue of what the feminists generally portray as a power struggle between men and women, which of course is opposed to the view that the differences between the sexes is a real good so that they can be fruitful and multiply, a view which has its roots "in the beginning."

lm-

Sorry for being dense, and sorry if you did actually explain this before (if you did, I missed it):

What does Fr. Taft's statement that "the idea that you can have a eucharistic prayer without the words of institution is the most important magisterial teaching since Vatican II" have to do with inclusive language or the translation of anthropoi/homines as "people/humans/men and women" versus "men"? I don't see the link.

You can think one magisterial teaching is more important than another, but that's subjective. And frankly, this has enormous importance for Rome and the Chaldean/Assyrian churches.

And, for that matter, what would you propose that Rome do with the Assyrian/Chaldean eucharistic prayer? Declare it invalid? Say that the words of institution must be inserted? Those are the only alternatives I see. And on what basis would you make this judgment, especially since I believe the studies have shown that this eucharistic prayer is the oldest one still in current use.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh Lord although I desired to blot out
With my tears the handwriting of my many sins
And for the rest of my life to please thee through sincere repentance;
Yet doth the enemy lead me astray as he wareth
Against my soul with his cunning.
Oh Lord before I utterly perish do thou save me!

Interesting mindset. It makes the agency of the Holy Spirit dependant upon our words. That is more like magic than a sacramanet. I don't think the Holy Spirit needs any magic words by us to do as He wills, especially uniting us to Christ. I'm not directing this criticism at anyone in particular, just to the mindset itself.

-- John

P.S., I don't mean to cast aspersions on Tradition or those who seek to preserve it nor those who seek to update it. I simply want to point out that Chrtistians can be perfectly good followers of Christ with different traditions.

And that leads me to this topic: preserving our tradition. Eastern Christianity is the most mystical branch of Christianity; theosis is our tradition. And, theosis is taught, enabled and preserved by the fathers, the liturgy and the ecumenical councils. If we change those things, we change what we are, our tradition. But if we don't change with the times, we become a fossil.

I am very wary about "inclusive language" because I have seen where that has lead in other churches, such as certain "mainstream" Protestant churches and many Roman Catholic parishes: the whole liberal dilution of the Gospel. It is a species of iconoclasm.

However, I am also wary of the fanatical opposition to "inclusive language" (which, to some people, can include substituting "you" for "thee" and "thou"). These people, from what I have observed, try to preserve the liturgy exactly as they think it was. They do so out of real respect and piety. However, they end up making it a fossil, a kind of object instead of a means to an end. It's the conservative idolatry of tradition. I've met this in the Catholic Church (Roman and Byzantine) and now in the Orthodox Church.

Is there a balance in between liberal iconoclasm of tradition and conservative idolatry of tradition ?

-- John

Dr. Varrie Karras is a leading Eastern Orthodox scholar in Patristic studeis with two earned doctorates and an active layperson in her church. She has also spoken as an Orthodox scholar in Ecumenical scholarly conferences. She is a professor at an American university and a member of many academic scholarly organizations.
Dr. Karras has written and is in favour of the restoration of deaconesses which I believe was put into effect in the Greek Orthodox Church in Greece about 18 months. There have been about 4 Pan-Orthodox conferences on the restoration of deaconesses and women's ministry in the church.
I am writing this to clarify the quoted citation made at the beginning of this discussion.

To underscore what Orest posted, and to correct LM's inference; Dr Valerie Karras is an advocate of restoring a "permanent female and male diaconate." I have not read or heard that she is an advocate of the ordination of women to the priesthood.

I just have been spending a little time catching up on this thread. What Orest and Deacon John have given by way of information is correct. I did a search on Dr Karras' published articles which are available both in print and internet PDF, and I have not found her to advocate women's ordination to the priesthood, but rather the restoration of the historical female diaconate.

What is fair is fair regarding this matter. I do not condone exaggerating a noted academic's stance to something that they do not support. If the point continues to be made that Dr Karras supports ordination the priesthood, I would like to see the documentation showing such a stance posted. I am sure that there are others that advocate the ordination of women to the priesthood both in Catholic and Orthodox circles. I am unaware of any seminary faculty allowing such advocates to speak or teach in any of the seminaries.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

Does Valerie Karras think that the nature of the male deaconate is the same as the female deaconate? I think her article indicates that she maintains that they are the same. She is to that extent for women's ordination which is, in Catholic thought (East and West) an unorthodox position. She also does not, as far as I have found, deny the possibility of the male priesthood though I think she would have ample opportunity to do so. Instead she does write that the maleness of Jesus Christ is not significant. In fact she states, "But to the Orthodox Christian, Christ's maleness does not matter."

http://stnina.org/journal/art/1.2.11

Christ's maleness does appear to matter quite a bit because it is only the male who can be a priest and act in "persona Christi".

She is certainly, as far as Catholics go, unorthodox in her positions whatever the merit of her degrees.

Well apparently Fr. Taft doesn't think so. He stated that he thought that the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" on the anaphora was the most important one since Vatican II.

The subjective nature of importance of magisterial teachings is an interesting position. Could one say. e.g., that the Creed from the Council of Niceae which dealt with the Arian heresey which held that Christ was not true God, is less important than the magisterial approval of Fatima. Clearly not. The former I am bound to hold as true, the latter I am free to hold as a true apparition, but I am not bound to so hold it.

Likewise, as a Catholic, I am bound to hold that contraception is a moral evil and that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood. The magisterium has not bound me to anything with respect to the anaphora in question, though I defer to its position.

Since Humanae Vitae and Ordinatio Sacerdotalis bind all Catholics in conscience, they clearly rank as more important than the Vatican's approval of the anaphora. Fr. Taft's statement is overreaching and I suggest his overreaching is not said carelessly, but because he does think the "teaching" on the anaphora is more important than these other two magisterial teachings WHICH SEEMS TO ME TO BE A VERY STRANGE POSITION. I have also noted that he is clearly in favor of inclusive language. I suggest there is a link between being in favor of inclusive language and the apparent disregard that Fr. Taft has for humanae vitae and ordinatio sacerdotalis.

As to crusades, I generally don't think they would be a good idea given the current status of things. However, when in comes to changing the Creed, handed down to us from the Fathers who lived when the memory of the martyrs was still fresh in their minds, why that's something worth fighting for.

lm

It ought to be noted in this thread that the Code of Canon Law for the Oriental Churches only permits ordination for a baptized man.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PKY.HTM

"An Orthodox Response to Feminism" by Deborah Belonick

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PKY.HTM

See page two (pdf document) of this article. Belonick writes:

Here is the correct link to Belonick's article:

http://www.svots.edu/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=151

A good article; thanks for posting it !

-- John

IM observes: It ought to be noted in this thread that the Code of Canon Law for the Oriental Churches only permits ordination for a baptized man.

The reference was interesting. The original Latin in the Code always uses the word "vir" for "man," except in two cases where the word is simply given in the masculine gender. "Vir" is always translated "man" and it always refers to a male human being.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PKY.HTM [/quote]

Fr. David,



I can't find a Latin text of the Oriental Code, but are you saying that "vir" is not used in the canon I referenced? In the code of canon law for the Roman Church on the same subject, "vir" is there, so I assume that it is the same in the Oriental Code. As far as I know, "vir" would always refer to a male like "aner" would in Greek. "Homo" and "anthropos" could, however, refer to either a male or a human being without regard to sex or age. That's why I take dispute with Valerie Karras rendering of the Creed:



The best translation of course is, He became "man" because of "man's" ambiguity. Christ took on our human nature and desires to save all men, male and female. But he was a male human being, because he is the Bridegroom of the Church:


Translating "anthropos" the way Karras advocates is bad scholarship and reveals her a priori principle that she is advocating women's ordination.


Also I do not understand what this means:


Can you clarify?

Christ is Baptized!
In the Jordan!

The subject of women's ordination is best understood through John Paul II's Theology of the Body with its emphasis on the "Spousal Mystery" which is stamped in our bodies precisely because they are gendered. There is a revelatory value in our genders.

The position of priestly ordination for women is based upon the secular, non-sacramental, non theological anthropological concept of gender. The push for ordination of women to the priesthood is basically a reach into secluarism which defines everything in terms of function, usefulness and power.There is NO place especially for "power" in such matters of the Sacred Mysteries and of the life of the Church.

The Church, on the other hand, as JPII so beautifully articulates in his TOB, defines things in terms of sign, sacrament and symbol, i.e. the mystical, the invisible made visible through the phsyical. When this is understood properly the ordination of women to the priesthhood becomes in a sense an "insult" to the intrinsic dignity and revelatory value of femininity. It also shows a complete ignorance or at least a lack of regard of just how foundational is the "spousal mystery." In fact if we err in this area we err in all areas.

Since this issue is often met with more emotion than reason I want to restate and be clear: The Church's tradition of not ordaining women to the priesthood is an AFFIRMATION of the dignity of the intrinsic revelatory value of womanhood, what JPII called the "Genius of woman." It is not a matter of patronizing, chauvinism, Partriarchalism and inequality. This thinking mimics the secular world and is a failure to plummet the mystical depths of the relationship of gender and liturgy. As JPII said in his TOB, and as the Catholic Catechism also says: "Liturgy is conjugal and conjugal relations are in a sense liturgical." Gender DOES matter. Gender is not arbitary or secondary. (And by the way, why do we keep letting the secular world define our values for us? Why not find out what we really believe and then define things for the world like the Church has been mandated to do by Jesus Christ?)

For the sake of any females, especially the religious women of the Metropoloia of Pittsburgh who may be reading this post, I want to be clear from a personal standpoint: I am not against women because I am faithful to the Church's teaching on women's ordination. Rather, on the contrary, it is precisely because I am FOR women, and in this case women monastics in particular, that I embrace the Church's teaching on this issue. I cannot support any secular thinking that strikes at the dignity of womanhood. Unfortuantely the idea or even subtle incremental push for women's ordination to the priesthood has crept into our Church. I belive that this is symptomatic once again of the inferiority complex of the Eastern Churches: Everyone outside of ourselves always has a better idea than we do. So, rather than penetrate deeply into the riches of our own spiritual tradition we ape the secular world or at least the western church (Catholic and Protestant) and we pick up what these churches in turned aped from the secular world.

Once again: I am FOR women (and children, and men, and dogs, and cats, and stars and trees, etc., etc.)--everything and everyone according to the Divine Order, not according to the secular order. The Divine Order brings about the most genuine "equality" and hapiness. I am for equality--but REAL equality. I am FOR women, but REALLY for women. I cannot settle for counterfeit "equality" and hopefully neither will our Church.
This is not fair to women.

As a student and conference speaker on JPII's Theology of the Body I can only recommend that everyone study this articulation of the Church's configuaration of the revelatory value of gender. It is very eastern=based in the Trinity and mysticism.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB., MA.

I am in complete agreement with Fr. Loya's exposition.

I would add that the psuedo-equality which is sought by the mistranslation of the Divine Liturgy is an insult to those women who are having, rearing and educating children and are not in the lime light of the world when it comes to issues of women's equality. I know my wife (who is very well educated and is my equal in things intellectual and whose inferior I am in things domestic) feels deeply offended by the new translation of the Divine Liturgy. Most deeply I think because although she is accustomed to being ridiculed by the world, it is most difficult when that implicit ridicule comes from the Church herself. She does not ask for much, but she does desire that REAL equality be truly welcome in the Church.

lm

I am reminded of that line, "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned." I pity the cleric who will attempt to explain the changes to my wife.

Hegumen Nicholas at Holy Ressurection Monastery has stated that the monastic calling indicates that the Church's teaching with respect to women is not discriminatory. Monasticsm, the highest calling in the Church, is open to men and women.

And of course, Mary was the greatest monastic. According to the most venerable teaching of the Church, her fullness of grace flows from her prerogative in being the Mother of God -- a role of course which is uniquely tied to her sex.

In Eastern Orthodoxy both monasticism and the married states are considered honourable. In fact there are canons which reproach monastics for not giving due honour to the married state.

Orest, I agree with you. John Chrysostom writes:



Marriage is a real good and in fact the foundational sacrament. The reflect the same reality. That man was made male and female from the begining is what is not being respected in the New Liturgy. Instead, we are being introduced to the politics of prayer for the sake of women's ordination, which is, as Fr. Loya has argued, truly disrespectful to women, especially those who marry and give their own flesh and blood in bearing children for the sake of the Kingdom of God.

Orest,

Your comment and St. John's Chrysostom's statement make me realize why Valerie Karras is so wrong. She writes:





http://www.stnina.org/journal/art/2.1.2

First, she speaks of an unanimous assertion by the Fathers for her position, which is dubious. But more to the point, she states that gender is added by God because of his foreknowledge of the fall. In her judgment, male and female exist because of sin. Marriage, therefore, in her eyes, is not really good in the way John Chrysostom speaks of it. On the contrary God created man, male and female, and saw that all He created was very good.

Karras shows her a priori bias in interpretation of Genesis. Since male and female are a remedy made in anticipation of the fall, gender has no real significance (remember she also states that the maleness of Jesus Christ is insignificant) which paves the way for the ordination of women which is so dear to Karras' heart.

Karras is merely a modernist in Orthodox clothing.

Christ is Baptized!
In the Jordan!

I would encourage the wife of Im as well as all other women like her to let their thoughts and convictions be known. The "powers that be" in the new translation of the liturgy simply went with what they determined was the louder voice in the matter of inclusive language. I can't imagine our Hierarachs approving something that they knew would offend (and therefore risk loosing in membership, commitment, enthusiasm and financial donation) a sizeable amount if not most of the rank and file women of our Church.

Our Hierarchs and Liturgy Commmission and apparantly Rome, who approved the inclusive language, must not have heard from enough of the rank and file women either. They heard from certain women, but not the rank and file. The lack of the rank and file (Sensus Fidelium) factor in the process of the new translation is an oversight that has been and probably will continue to be problematic. Not all of the priests on the Liturgical Commission who had pastoral experience were in favor of the inclusive language. But, apparantly these voices were not strong enough. This also indicates that there had to have been a push for the inlusive language agenda during the process of the translation. If the inclusive language issues is something that must stil be addressed it will take the wives of the Ims of our Church to do so.

As is being said in this dicussion there is an inherent contradiction in inclusive language and in the ethos of secular feminimsm. (Notice how I qualified "femininsm". JPII was actually a radical "feminist" in the more honest, senstive, inclusive, NON-chauvinistic, compassionate sense of the word.) Seculare feminism is self-debunking: In the name of "sensitivity and inclusiveness" it is actually INsensitive to the many women who do not accept the secular feminist platform. This platform, in the same of INclusiveness, in reality becomes EXclusive. Pointing out this contradiction is actually being PRO woman.

Since the secular feminist agenda ends up being Exclusive and INsensitive to many women I cannot support it because I a am TRULY "For" women, in fact for all of womanhood which needs its its intrinsic dignity (what JPII called, the "Genius" of women) defended and protected sometimes even against other women who themselves have done nothing more than repeat what happened back in the Garden of Paradise with Eve--fall for a 'good line' from a man! (The serpent being phallic in shape, action and ethos becomes therefore a masculine principle in this theology of the body analysis.)

The origins of secular feminism especially in terms of how it has crept into our own church deserve another posting and discussion in itself.

Again I will try to be clear: Since I am FOR women, especially women relgious, I am therefore AGAINST that which threatens womanhood and women religious. Seculer feminism threatens women (and has been destructive to society and to the Church.) Again, remember: Secular feminism and its whole agenda ends up committing the very things that it purports to be against and therefore it is unfair to women. I am FOR women. I an not a
"conservative" or a "liberal" or anything in between. Such labels have no place in the Church and in serious discussions. These insensitive labels belong to the secular world. I am FOR the rights and dignity of women and I settle only for authentic solutions for women, not counterfeit solutions that have their origin in the secular world.

--Fr. Thomas J. Loya, STB. MA.

While I think I agree with the gist of your argument, I think you overstate the case here. Medicine (healing, both physical and spiritual) is a good, which would not exist were there not wounds. (In the absence of wounds, we would simply have education or training.) Yet God not only put healing herbs, for example, into the world, but presents Himself as a healer. Yet, y our argument suggests that anything God created in FOREKNOWLEDGE of the Fall, and for our benefit, is not "really good."

Also, I still think that given the restoration of the order of deaconesses by the Church of Greece, the phrase "ordination of women" needs to be qualified in argumentation to make it clear what is being discussed; all that has been said about Dr. Karras ' "promotion" of the priestly ordination of women seems to consist of surmises rather than evidence.

Yours in Christ,
Jeff

Jeff,

Earlier in the thread, I quoted Deborah Belonick, an Orthodox theologian who is in favor women's ordination to the deaconate and she certainly seems to indicate that Karras is for women's ordination to the priesthood. Karras is one of the theologians Belonick is arguing against. I presume they speak about such things.

Medicine is not like the creation of male and female. Sickness and disease would not have existed before the fall. Procreation, however, would have. (So much for the popular idea that the Church is against sex).

Karras' argument, posted above reveals that somehow real "human nature" is contrary to "animal nature." We are animals--rational ones--but animals nonetheless. Animal nature wasn't just added to us because of the fall, it was part of us from the beginning. This of course means that procreation is a good thing. The command to be fruitful and multiply was given before the fall. For Karras, procreation, ie, the creation of male and female, is a result of sin. This suggests that procreation itself, in her view, is not really good. In God's view, however, its the PRIMARY good. The very reason why male and female exist--to be fathers and mothers. There is a reflection of the Trinity here -- this touches upon our difference with the Orthodox on the doctrine of the filioque (not its use or non-use --which I have no complaints with). As the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (this is a legitimate patristic view) so does a child proceed from his father through his mother.

Modern science has also shown us that the two really become one in the child. The ancients thought of the man simply as providing the seed for the woman who was considered simply like a fertile field in which the seed grew. Instead, the seed and egg unite, to form a new creation, which really does mean that the two become one flesh -- in the child.

Because the world gets Genesis wrong and sees reality as a power struggle between male and female, we have great disorder in the world -- contraception, abortion and constant disputation in Court rooms about discrimination.

As Father Loya has argued, that struggle has no part in the Church. And it has no part in our Creed. But instead what will we receive? A Creed which is not translated correctly, because of a secular view of the most fundamental reality about human nature.

As Catholics we have vital insights to offer the "culture of death." And as Byzantine Catholics, our liturgy is a great source for this wonderful theology which is why we need to get it right and not tinker with it.

The error which we have introduced into the Divine Liturgy and Creed is not one which strikes directly at matters theological. It does, however, strike a deadly blow to the natural order. Since grace and nature are all intertwined, and God is the author of both, a deadly blow to the natural order, will have its effects in the order of grace.


In Christ,
lm

I just opened a solicitation selling books. One of them which is advertised, "Unprotected," is written by a physician who treats college students. The blurb reads:


In this discussion, I would add, that true faith makes for happiness and holiness.

Hmmmm....What will the new Creed tell our young people about the political correctness which is promoted ad nauseum in the our colleges? Well, it will tell them there must be some truth to it--or else, why would we tolerate political correctness in our Creed and Divine Liturgy.

As Karl Marx knew, ideas have consequences. Better to translate than to rewrite what holy men have given to us. There's real wisdom there.

The doctor is, by the way, a psychiatrist.

In the article by Belonick which I referenced above , Karras is mentioned with three other theologians one of whom is Elisabeth Behr-Sigel.



http://www.svots.edu/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=151

Behr-Sigel writes:


http://stnina.org/journal/onl/feat/mgm-newness

I don't believe that it is mere conjecture that Karras if for the ordination of women to the priesthood.

The fundamental issue is that the sacerdotal ministry has been divorced from its familial-covenantal significance: priesthood = fatherhood and fatherhood (like motherhood) is gender specific. We have to think about ministry in an iconic way, as was the Ignatian model of the 2nd century.

Bishop = Father
Presbyter = Council of Apostles (all men)
Deacons = Jesus Christ

The Didascalia Apostolorum from the Syrian Church took it a step further and saw in the deaconesses an icon of the Holy Spirit! (Which says much about both the theology of the order of deaconess and about the person of the Holy Spirit, who is viewed maternally in early Syriac theology.)

Ignatius' intent was to construct an iconic ecclesiology - with the various ministries as they served liturgically helping to shape and serve as living stones God's holy temple.

The notion that ecclesiology is simply a repository of vanilla, non-gender specific charisms floating around is absurd. These charisms are also embedded visibly in a ministry of hierarchical fatherhood, which can only be expressed iconically through the male. To deny this is to deny the familial origins of humanity and the ecclesia, where Adam was told in Paradise to "till and to keep" the garden and his spouse(priestly terms which also mean to make fruitful and guard, all fatherly activities). Throughout the Old Testament, women did serve in leadership roles, but not ONE ever presumed to take on the ministry of fatherhood and sacrifice. And the laying on of hands signified principally the transfer of the blessing of primogeniture from the father to the firstborn son.

To my mind the deacon is the icon of the bishop's kenotic fatherhood (dominion of charity), while the presbyter is the icon of sacerdotal fatherhood (dominion of truth) with the bishop as the icon of the full revelation of fatherhood (dominion of life).

Regarding the ministry of deaconess, it seems to have been viewed as less than a deacon but more than a subdeacon. This has led some to assert that the "ordination" of deaconess was merely a rite like a sacramental, not a full sacrament. I personally wonder whether such minute theological distinctions were even made in the patristic age.

But there is NO evidence that I am aware of that indicates any deaconess ever was ordained to the presbyterate, while it was very, very common for deacons.

Just my two cents...

Gordo

Since it has been suggested that I have read too much into Valerie Karras' statements, can anyone find a text where she denies that she is for women's ordination to the priesthood?