|
1 members (Roman),
661
guests, and
98
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,529
Posts417,668
Members6,181
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by Serge Keleher:
... a well-intentioned Greek-Catholic gentleman actually, in all seriousness, asked me how it was possible to speak with approval of the ordination of married men to the priesthood - did I not know that a priest is married to Jesus Christ?!
I responded that I did not know any such thing, nor do I believe it, nor do I find the idea attractive!
Fr. Serge Father Serge, Yes - a very strange way of putting it indeed. I have never heard of anyone saying that a priest was the spouse of Christ! Insofar as a priest is a member of the Church which is the Bride of Christ, I suppose one can say he is "espoused" to Him...but in this case, espousal is a corporate image, not an individual one. I would rather say that a priest is an icon of the Bridegroom in His kenotic espousal to His Bride, the Church...that at least seems more in keeping with the writings of the fathers, I believe. Incidently, I have never agreed with the Franciscan tradition of referring to Mary as the "Spouse of the Holy Spirit" either, especially given the Syriac tradition of the Spirit as feminine. To me, Mary is better described as the icon of the Holy Spirit, which expresses the unity between the two without resorting to bridal imagery...which I think in this case is misapplied. My two cents... Gordon
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
|
|
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904 |
Originally posted by Dr. Eric:
Hesychios,
What translation are you using? It flows well and is nice. I'm used to the older translations of that passage. NAB When posting on this board or primarily Latin boards I quote the NAB as a rule. In Christ, Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
|
|
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904 |
Originally posted by ebed melech:
To me, Mary is better described as the icon of the Holy Spirit, which expresses the unity between the two without resorting to bridal imagery...which I think in this case is misapplied.
My two cents...
Gordon Hmmm... I have been thinking of us all as icons of Christ, in the sense that we can see Christ in each other. Something about this idea of the Theotokos singled out as an icon of the Holy Spirit disturbs me. Michael, that sinner
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Originally posted by Hesychios:
Hmmm...
I have been thinking of us all as icons of Christ, in the sense that we can see Christ in each other.
Something about this idea of the Theotokos singled out as an icon of the Holy Spirit disturbs me.
Michael, that sinner One does not preclude the other... Of course we are all icons of Christ. What is wrong with identifying the iconic role of certain offices? Ignatius of Antioch did as much when he identified the Bishop as the icon of the Father, the Deacon as the icon of Christ and the council of Presbyters like the council of the apostles. Iconic representation is one of the definitive elements of the Eastern theology of orders. (Incidentally according to the Syrian Didascalia Apostolorum which builds upon Ignatian typology, the Deaconess images the Holy Spirit.) As to seeing the Theotokos as the icon of the Holy Spirit, how else should one regard the oft discussed parallels between her titles (such as "Advocate") and those applied to the Holy Spirit? Also, we see in Mary, formed and animated by the energies of Holy Spirit, the icon of the Church, and her life even defines the beginning and end of our festal cycle. If such iconic connections can be made, it is not too far a leap to see the iconic connections between the "Spirit and the Bride" in Mary? Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 81
Junior Member
|
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 81 |
Originally posted by ebed melech: Originally posted by Serge Keleher:
[b] ... a well-intentioned Greek-Catholic gentleman actually, in all seriousness, asked me how it was possible to speak with approval of the ordination of married men to the priesthood - did I not know that a priest is married to Jesus Christ?!
I responded that I did not know any such thing, nor do I believe it, nor do I find the idea attractive!
Fr. Serge
Yes - a very strange way of putting it indeed. I have never heard of anyone saying that a priest was the spouse of Christ! Insofar as a priest is a member of the Church which is the Bride of Christ, I suppose one can say he is "espoused" to Him...but in this case, espousal is a corporate image, not an individual one. I would rather say that a priest is an icon of the Bridegroom in His kenotic espousal to His Bride, the Church...that at least seems more in keeping with the writings of the fathers, I believe.
Incidently, I have never agreed with the Franciscan tradition of referring to Mary as the "Spouse of the Holy Spirit" either, especially given the Syriac tradition of the Spirit as feminine. To me, Mary is better described as the icon of the Holy Spirit, which expresses the unity between the two without resorting to bridal imagery...which I think in this case is misapplied.
My two cents...
Gordon [/b]I like to look at it as the priest represents Christ (male) and is married to the Church--->the people (female). This is why a woman could not ever be a priest because this would be a woman married to another woman-----> Priestess (female) married to Church (female) which is a homosexual union.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564 Likes: 1 |
Well, a professor of mine (one of several who attempted to educate me) recounted with a certain amusement that he had happened to overhear a group of undergraduates agreeing that a jet plane is a phallic symbol - when all of a sudden one of the udergraduates said "but, you know, it does fly!
The moral here is that we are not required to perceive everything in the world as symbolic of something else.
Fr. Serge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
Father Serge, Agreed! I would argue in favor of the patristic quadriga. It begins at the level of earthly, literal, historical meaning, and then, as Augustine argues, the earthly becomes the sacrament of the heavenly. To address what I think is John's point, the maleness of the presbyter could not be regarded as incidental to his priesthood, but rather integral since his ministry is a heavenly sign of both bridegroom and father. Women can never become icons of either in an ecclesial sense. Women are in fact the icon of the bride and mother, and thus image the splendor of the church. The biological is thus the ground of the eschatalogical. But one should be careful with an overuse of allegory to be sure. Sometimes a plane is just a plane... and I have been in my share of a few and it is clear that the women are in charge!  Returning to the topic at hand, how should one regard then the practice of married clergy? I don't see any difficulty with regarding a married presbyter and a married deacon as eschatalogical signs. If I read St. Paul's letter to the Ephesians correctly, marriage itself must be an eschatalogical sign, otherwise how could it be regarded as a sacrament? There is also an intimate connection between the familial and the ecclesial in Sacred Scripture. This is why St. Paul exhorts St. Timothy to choose men for the office of bishop and deacon of the household of faith based on their qualifications as fathers and husbands of their earthly households. I personally think that this topic merits a doctoral dissertation somewhere. God bless! Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 138
I also support the Zoghby Initiative
|
|
I also support the Zoghby Initiative
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 138 |
I am also a latin at this time, though I may not always be. I am appauled that there is more married men ordained by my church as exception than the eastern church as the norm. End the prejudice now. Nothing more to say!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180
Orthodox Christian Member
|
|
Orthodox Christian Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,180 |
Originally posted by Serge Keleher:
That the Patriarch has a difficult time with English is understandable; he does not live in an English-speaking environment. Fr. Pacwa does live in an English-speaking environment, is a Jesuit (and therefore presumed to have a higher education) and is in some sense a Maronite (which would make it sensible for him to speak both French and Arabic). If he lacked the necessary linguistic ability then EWTN could and should have made use of another interviewer who knew the topic and who would have been able to assist the Patriarch by translating this or that word when necessary.
Besides, nothing whatever prevented Father Pacwa from preparing a serious list of questions in advance, having someone else translate them into French or Arabic, and giving them to the Patriarch far enough ahead of time so that His Beatitude would have been able to prepare to answer these questions. Actually, the Patriarch came off much better than Father Pacwa did.
Not long ago, EWTN broadcast another interview by Father Pacwa; on that occasion his victim was a Syro-Malankara hierarch. Father Pacwa gave everyone to understand that it doesn't matter in the least whether leavened or unleavened bread is used for the Eucharist. That indicates that either Father Pacwa has never read the Liturgical Instruction of 1996 from Rome, or he regards this as an irrelevant document which he is free to dismiss or ignore. So much for EWTN's boasted loyalty to "the magisterium".
Fr. Serge Dear Father Serge: I agree. Sociolinguistics or intercultural communications (not the diversity type) should be mandated for all undergraduate students. I wonder if Father Pacwa realizes that he is doing the Eastern Church a disservice by his apparent lack of research. Perhaps you might consider sending a note to him. BTW: I thoroughly enjoyed my course in Sociolinguistics. We humans are a curious group of very unique individuals with an innate ability to communicate. The text we used was: Wardhaugh, Ronald. (2002). An Introduction to Sociolinguistics. 4th Edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Respectfully in Christ, Elizabeth
|
|
|
|
|
