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

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?