www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Bishop Kallistos Ware's Clarification

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).]