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

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.