www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Bishop Kallistos at Lambeth

Here's a link to an interview with Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, who was an observer at the recent Lambeth Conference.

http://www.prayerbookatlambeth.org/...t-revd-kallistos-ware-archbishop-of.html

IMHO, His Eminence' quotes here highlight why the Apostolic Churches need to get together and study these issues together.

It's been fourteen years since Rome set down the position that must be held by Catholic Christians concerning women being ordained as priests. It's now no longer something that is open to question or discussion. The theology that underlies this position has also been expanded on and is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which, if it is like the last one, will be the standard for more than a century. The theology is couched in spousal terms and is related to Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body.

The issue of same sex unions is further down the way from the issue of SSA itself which the CCC refers to in negative terms: grave depravity and intrinsic disorder. While we are to love and encourage people who struggle with this inclination, we cannot now or ever endorse it, let alone enshrine in our practice a blessing for those who give up the struggle. Since all are called to chastity in their lives--to different degrees depending on their marital status--it flies in the face of reason to argue that there could be development in this direction.

So for Catholics it seems that much of this area has already been explored and mapped out. That puts a block in the ecumenical road if other Churches believe that these issues are still open, thus giving people who wish to make changes in the Church's practices in these areas a false hope that they will prevail.

In Christ,

BOB

For me, it seems rather simple:

Ontologically speaking, ordination as a priest is a participation at the very level of one's being and personhood in the sacerdotal fatherhood of the bishop. Since it is impossible for women to be fathers and since grace does not annihilate but rather builds upon and transfigures our nature, it is therefore impossible for women to serve as priests. Patriarchy is at the root of it all on this issue. Just as in the human family, to be a "father" is not somehow an interchangeable "functional role" with that of the "mother" but rather is rooted in the biological gender of the person, so too in the supernatural family of the Church, the spiritual fatherhood of the presbyter is rooted in the potentiality of his earthly fatherhood.

But Met. Kallistos Ware is correct - it is not enough to simply argue "we've never done this before, ergo..." The argument from traditional practice is rarely a convincing one.

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

I'm interested in expanding upon some of the themes touched on above. Yes, I would agree that it is physically impossible for women to be fathers or men to be mothers, but certainly not impossible for either women or men to represent these functions for/to their children. If, as stated above, grace transfigures, what is the transfiguration that is taking place to our nature?

As to functional roles, how and where are these defined? Who determines what the definition is? In our society today, many people engender both roles in one person. Maybe not ideal in a family setting, but it's reality and a growing phenomenon. These roles are biologically rooted? How? What of women leaders such as a prioress or abbess? Their role is certainly not only a "spiritual" motherhood rooted in their potential earthly motherhood, correct? The rule of many women over dual monasteries in the past while wearing a ring and liturgical gloves as a bishop, carried a crozier, and even that of some women religious today, show that they are indeed not just mothers to their foundations.

I am not advocating that the RC church begin ordaining women as priests, I just am trying to expand and understand some of the concepts brought forth as reasonings against it. I do agree though, agruing traditional practice is ineffective, especially today when so many are well educated and think outside of those traditional parameters.

JOHN K:

First of all, in the Catholic Church, the papal teaching role has stepped in--whether one agrees with the Catholic Church on this matter or not. Nevertheless, it has been binding on Catholics to accept that women cannot be ordained to orders since Pope John Paul II clarified this issue for us in 1994. The matter for Catholics is closed.

The theology behind it stems in part from His Holiness' Theology of the Body and also from the idea of Christ being the spouse of the Church, His Bride: essentially it means all of us are espoused to Christ by our Baptism. The priest stands at the head of the community in persona Christi as he fulfills Christ's perpetual role of advocating for us before the Father in the unbloody sacrifice of the Liturgy, itself being an anamnesis of His Sacrifice on the Cross.

I'll leave the fuller explanation for those more learned and those who wish to flesh this out in detail. For Catholics, however, the matter is no longer something that can be seriously discussed since it is now a matter of faith that we must accept this teaching: women cannot be ordained as priests or bishops.

And the next logical step is that we cannot be in communion with those who believe otherwise.

In Christ,

BOB

Well, we do need to be able to defend the Church's teaching. In that sense, it is true that simply quoting a document does not suffice.

Fr. Serge

BOB

Thanks for your response, but as I said in my message, I am NOT advocating the ordination of women as priests in the RC church, but simply wanted to flesh out some of the thoughts and ideas of FDD from his post.

If indeed it was an infallible statement made by the late pope with all the bishops of the Catholic church in 1994, binding on all RCs to accept, it didn't seem to me to have the force or conviction to it of other papal pronouncements, such as the primacy of the Roman rite over other rites, of papal infallibility, of subjection to the Roman pontiff, or of more recent things, the IC and Assumption of the Virgin.

Be that as it may, I highly doubt that intelligent and thoughtful dicussion, especially by the laity in forums such as these, is (or can be) forbidden by whatever the pope had written. The "matter" may be closed, but it's discussion continues. Discussions continue with other churches about controversies and heresies that happened and were condemned centuries and even millenia ago, in the hopes of eventual reunion with these churches. Because these things were pronounced heretical or closed by prior popes, should also they NOT BE discussed today?

John

JOHN L:

I guess my response stems from my ordinary reaction to the idea that a definite close to an issue can be made in the post-Vatican II era. True, we can discuss these issues and deepen our understanding of why the Church may have come to a definite conclusion on a specific issue.

On the other hand, there are those who believe that if the issue comes up again and again then it must be that it is not or cannot be settled. I think this latter stance stems from the Modernist attitude--or at least the dissent stance that seems to have exploded in the Catholic Church post-V2 by a misinterpretation of what following one's conscience means--that leaves all doctrinal issues unsettled if they are questioned.

Where I come in is that once a matter is settled, it is settled. One may discuss it; one may study it; but ultimately one must believe what the Magisterium proposes the matter to be. I've taken the following citation from the decree of Pope JP2 and wonder how else it is to be interpreted.



The full document is at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j..._22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

In Christ,

BOB

By saying that the Church has no authority, or is not authorized, is very strong language coming from John Paul II. He is going beyond the practice of the Church to the very activity of Christ as the Church has received and understood that activity, much the same way that St. Paul proclaims that he has received from the Lord that which he hands on, when writing about the Eucharist in the First Letter to the Corinthians. Christ chose all to be his disciples, but chose only men to be His apostles, and the Church has always derived Orders from this apostolic office. In other words, reserving Holy Orders to men is part of the constitution of the Church established by Christ and the Church has no authority to change that any more than she has authority to change the elements (matter) of the Eucharist or Baptism. We accept that they are wheat bread and wine for the Eucharist and water for Baptism. We can speculate on substitutes, but it is far more valuable to explore the symbolic beauty and depth of the Lord's choices.

The Church has always been capable of making a final determination on an issue. Arianism, Docetism, Donatism (will someone please tell the Anglicans about that one?), Montanism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Iconoclasm, and so forth are not Christian doctrines, full stop.

One may, of course, discuss whether certain named people were or were not heretics - hence the controversy over Nestorius himself, the Three Chapters, and so on. But the heterodoxy of the doctrines attributed to them is not in question; the question arises (as in the case of St. Isaac the Syrian) as to whether they held those doctrines.

Fr. Serge

How about this then? The Bishop of Rome, John Paul II, speaking for the Church which he rightfully can do, has determined that calling women to Orders and attempting to ordain them is an heretical act because it violates the sacramental act constituted and established by Christ Himself.

Deacon Gordo,

In a revealed religion, the fact that we have never done something before is a really good reason not to do it now.

That's not to say we wouldn't like better explanations, but we should be wary of imposing an explanation on something that Jesus chose not to explain.

JOHN K:

I re-read this whole thread and thought this was an interesting observation. I have one of my own related to this.

So many of our people today have a very deep and thorough education in specific fields and they also have been inculturated in the secular culture that surrounds them. On the other hand, so many have the most feeble instruction in the Faith revealed to us. In my experience, there are tremendous numbers who have learned nothing since the day they were confirmed--and so many in the Latin Church are confirmed at young enough ages that not much has been able to be taught before the confirmation deadline. We also have an ingrained attitude that that is "enough religion" and that, in turn, leaves many people piecing together their own version of Christianity with that little bit of catechesis and a lot of secular attitudes. I term this phenomenon "Kitchen Sink Catholicism: after the song "Love Potion Number 9." (A little knowledge, taken home and mixed up in the sink.) So it's no wonder that people would think that the Church is something simple that anyone can do, mainly for children, and of little deep significance for their lives--except when a crisis comes along and we comfort ourselves by either blaming God for the crisis or telling ourselves that everyone goes to Heaven.

The traditonal parameters make tremendous sense as part of a unified whole when one takes the initiative to learn what it is the Church teaches from the Deposit of Faith and the reason behind every practice that is used. The attitude of asking "why?" when it is done with the desire to learn is what is needed. However, so much of our cultural anti-Catholic stances have made so many people--including believers--ask the question with an attitude of antagonistic challenge that presumes that the Church is an arbitrary, outdated institution not "up with the times."

A further problem stems from our cultural attitude toward authority. We simply don't like it much and don't think we, as adults, have to submit to any outside ourselves. But that's for another time.

In Christ,

BOB

There is no ontological reason why one may not drive through a red light - it itself, it is nothing more than a symbol. But if one makes a habit of driving through red lights, one may confidently expect the public authority to explain firmly - quite firmly - that this is forbidden. If the secular authority may do this about a piece of colored glass, surely the Church may do this about more important matters.

But two questions arise: first, how does one discern whether the Church has in fact rendered a final decision about something? Second, since it is necessary to deal with these matters in ecumenical dialogue, is it not necessary to discuss these matters and pursue appropriate research?

On the first point, we come up against the problems involved with (papal) infallibility, an infallible magisterium, and so on. Since the infallibility of certain papal decisions was not invoked until the nineteenth century, is rather carefully restricted by Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I, and depends upon some peculiar phraseology, there is indeed a problem - not dissimilar to the Orthodox problem of just what is an ecumenical council.

On the second point, it seems self-evident that research and discussion cannot be avoided unless some heresy no longer has any adherents. There have been and are repeated calls for Christian-Moslem dialogue. Mohammedanism is a Christian heresy - it could perhaps be categorized as a form of Arianism - but any theological dialogue with the Mohammedans inevitably involves a serious discussion of the Most Holy Trinity.

For that matter, heresies have an annoying habit of reviving when they seem to have vanished long since (the current rampant Donatism in conservative Anglicanism is a case in point). Wearily, then, we find the necessity to oppose the heresy all over again.

Father Serge

BOB

I see what you're saying and where you seem to be going, but I think that today, many people that are knowledgable and faith-filled are ones who have questioned, searched, and probed various facets of their faith and it's relevency to modern life. The era of the docile "pray, pay, and obey" faithful is long gone, which in my estimation is good. Many clergy still seem to operate on this premise though.

And you're right, when something is taught or proclaimed, there has to be good explanation and back-up for it. Communication in the modern world makes this quite easy and people look for that, to understand what it is they are being told to believe.

John