www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ordination of Women to the Priesthood

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I had lunch with an Anglican priest friend of mine the other day, and he broached an interesting topic: the ordination of women to the priesthood.

Now, I realize the opposition to such a move by the Roman hierarchy, but my friend pointed out that Metropolitan Anthony (formerly Bishop Kallistos Ware) had indicated that such a move would be within the realm of possibility, and that denial of the priesthood to women was tantamount to denial of the Incarnation.

The argument goes something like this:

God became incarnate and took on fully Human Nature - he is True God and True Man. The nature he took on in the Incarnation was full Human Nature, not just the nature of the male sex. If he didn't, then the Incarnation was restricted to the nature of the male gender, not universally to all human beings. Women are excluded from the Atonement by their exclusion in the Human Nature taken on by Christ.

If, therefore, God became fully Human, then there is no logical reason to restrict women from representing Christ at the Eucharistic celebration.

If one argues that the example from Scripture and Tradition is to restrict the sacerdotal priesthood to men, then one must ask: Why not restrict it to Jewish converts? Why not restrict it to Middle-Easterners? Where is the line drawn, and for what reason?

I have to admit, the arguments in favor of ordination of women to the sacerdotal priesthood hold more sway for me than those arguing against it.

The Holy Father seems to have indicated, however, that ordination of only men to the priesthood is an 'infallable' doctrine, at least in a recent proclamation.

I'm curious what the participants on this board feel on this topic, and what arguments or reasons have led you to your own beliefs regarding this subject.

IMHO, I see absolutely no reason why women shouldn't be ordained to the priesthood - they share fully in the Human Nature common to all human beings, and share also in that Human Nature taken on by the Saviour, and hence can represent Him at the Eucharistic sacrifice.

Thoughts, all?

Ohhhhhhhhhh, you may be ending the very merry season of Christmas on this forum.

Personally, I would maintain:

1. The reasoning currently put forward by the Catholic Church on ordaining only men to the priesthood is sophmoric, poorly presented, unconvincing and clearly below the intellectual level common to Vatican statements. None of this, of course, means the teaching is incorrect.

2. For pastoral and ecumencial reasons, the ordination of women to the priesthood would be a mistake, a major mistake. Despite the propaganda from proponets of women's ordination, it is among the laity the strongest opposition exists.

Being convinced of those two points, I think this issue is best left for another day. Women in the diaconate however........


Kurt

Metropolitan Anthony reasons as follows:

"God became incarnate and took on fully Human Nature - he is True God and True Man. The
nature he took on in the Incarnation was full Human Nature, not just the nature of the male
sex. If he didn't, then the Incarnation was restricted to the nature of the male gender, not universally to all human beings. Women are excluded from the Atonement by their exclusion in the Human Nature taken on by Christ."

Let's look at the hidden assumptions in Metropolitan Anthony's argument. He says that God must have taken on full human nature, not just the nature of the male sex. Implicit in this statement is that the nature of the male sex is not fully human nature. Hence, males are something less than human. Similarly, females are less than human as well. In fact, in his view the only true human being is one which is both male and female at the same time. But of course, human beings don't come packaged that way. It is true, of course, that to possess a human nature one must be either male or female. But it is also true that a male human possesses human nature just as fully as does a female human. In short, what is essential to human nature is that it be either male or female but not both and not something in between. Hence, when God becomes man He takes on human nature in its fullness. He takes on masculinity precisely because it was a man, Adam, who as head of the human race and representative of human nature, fell into disobedience and sin.

Ed

I think Edward puts forth an excellent refutation of Metropolitan Anthony's arguments. We possess a full, although faulty human nature. The fall didn't change quantity, but quality.

Why did God only allow males to be in the Aaronic priesthood? Why were only the 12 male Apostles included at the Last Supper and not Mary Magdelen or the Theotokos?

I don't know for what reason these choices were made, but they were made by God and to make the argument that Jesus, as God, was so concerned about cultural resistance He wouldn't consider women in these key positions seems to deny Christ's divinity as the Lord of history. He knew he was going to be crucified anyways, what would He have to lose?

To me the arguments for women's ordination have as their crux the modern assumption that men and women are interchangable and essentially undifferentiated. Men and women are different and each fulfills different roles. Not that women as individuals cannot perform the specific tasks that men do. My wife can help our kids with homework, discipline them, read them bedtime stories, tuck them in, etc. , etc., etc.. just as I can do the things she normally does but she cannot be their father. We need to look at the relational aspects of men to women, fathers to children, mothers to children, in the context to why men are priests and not women. Not simply whether or not women can meet the physical job requirements of singing liturgy, being a decent counselor, balancing the parish books,etc..

Why do we say the Trinity is the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit and the "Our Father" and not mothers, daughters,etc. substituted in? First, because of the direct revelation of our Lord, and second, the relationship of the Father to the Son is as a father should be for a son. It is not because the Father has any specific sexual identity in human terms.

I have never heard an argument for women's ordination that doesn't have, as its backbone, more contemporary feminism than theology. The fault lies in under-appreciating women's roles in the Church and not necessarily equivalence in job descriptions.

Bill

The main issue is Authority.

The Church has the Authority to Ordain Males the Priesthood, which is a part of the matter that makes the Holy Mystery of Orders valid, but She does not have the Authority to Ordain and Consecrate women to the Priesthood.

There is no historical mandate in the Church authorizing the ordination of women, but of course people can cite seedy documentation to "prove" that women have been ordained for pastoral reasons or they talk about Pope Joan and the like.

There is no debate on the issue of women in the Priesthood, just like there is no debate on the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, etc. It sounds simple, but the Truth, in the context of the Catholic Churches, cannot be changed, it is Absolute, and there is no going higher to grander and more noble truths, we have the Fullness of the Gospel and to tamper with that Gospel or to use "Critical Analysis" to do surgery on that Gospel toward the eventual end of furthering a feminist and liberal agenda is not only a grave sin but it is onethat can have deadening affects on the soul as well.

In the Church we are concerned with the Salvation and Deification of the human soul in the energies of the Holy Trinity. Now women deacon, priests, and Hierarchs will never be a reality in the Catholic and canonical Orthodox Church because the issue of Authority is so great in the context of ordaining women. The Church simply cannot consecrate women to serve as clergy in the Catholic Churches. Now they have done such in the Episcopal Church and still have a desire to hold on to the "Historic
Episcopate", but there is nothing "historic" about their Episcopate unless you are speaking about the Gnostics who had women Bishops in the early first centuries of Christianity. The idea of women clergy fits in well with Protestant ministry and certainly does not conflict since the clergy have the same priesthood as the lay members of the Church, but are called out by the Church to serve in the ministry as a "presider" amongst the People of God; and being that they serve as semi-sacramental "presiders" they have just been licensed and called out for that ministry and they certainly do not have any special "powers" that the lay people do not have, but these "powers" of the lay presbyterate must be regulated and channeled by the Ecclesiatical Structure of the Church.
In The Episcopal Church fundamentally it comes down to the above ecclesiology when rationalizing a female priesthood. The only reason why the most liturgical and non-liturgical Protestants did not have female Ministers at the beginning of the Reformation or should we say did not have female Ministers that were endorsed by the Protestant Reformers according to feminist writers of theology was that they carried over the sexist mentality of the era in which they lived and so female presbyterate was not possible because of the nature of the times, but since we are "liberated" now we can have in the context of the Protestant Ministry, that is including Anglicans and other liturgical and non-liturgical Protestants, a female Ministry. But it must me noted that even before the 60's there were Protestant Groups that had female Ministers such as the Methodists and the Pentecostals et al. These were the early pioneers of female Ministry.

In the context of Protestant Ministry, and even those who very focused on a High Liturgical existence, a female Ministry is fine based on the idea that men and women share the same priesthood by virtue of their baptism or "rebirth experience" and as stated above Ministers in the Protestant context would be the same creature as the layperson except they are called out by the Laying on of Hands, which has no sacramental power, and licensing of the clergyman, by their denomination, to perform the ordinances of Baptism, Communion, et al and to Preach.

In the Catholic concept of Ministry there are two presbyterates. There is the common or lay priesthood which is held by all in virtue of their Baptism and Chrismation. This priesthood gives laypeople, men and women the power to serve in the Church in a non-Sacramental way and confers on them Graces that are to be shown forth in their lives and for the empowerment of the Christian Life by the Spirit. The other priesthood in the Church is the Ministerial or Sacramental Priesthood, which is the same High Priesthood that Christ has and is not another Priesthood but a sharing in Christ's Priesthood. All men who share in the the Priesthood are Christ and therefore have that same Priesthood as our Lord and God Jesus Christ has. Christ, being both God and Man, came as a man to reconcile man to himself by virtue of His Death, Descent into Hell vanqushing Death by death so that we might share in His Life,and the Glorious Resurrection; Christ being the Firstfruits thereof. The Adamic Story is telling in that out of man came women and it is through man that women are to be saved by virtue of the Truth that women came form man who came from God and so it is that Christ being by nature a God of Order came to Redeem and Deify man by becoming a man and establishing a male priesthood that is the ikon of Christ on the Earth and through that priesthood all, men and women, are redeemed and sanctified and yes, even deified. It is not that women are lesser creatures then man, but that they proceed from Him according to the Scriptures and Tradition, which are two of the Pillars of the Church or may we even say that there one pillar: Tradition and that all that pertain to Christ and His Church are contained therein. The issue of women's liberation was one of human dignity. Women wanted to feel the purpose of existence; they wanted to be seen as human beings, as beings that did not need a man to sustain them or to fulfill their needs as women. They wanted to become self-sufficient and to guide their hope and dreams into fulfillment. This is all and good. To be free from bondage or perceived bondage is a good thing and is the desire of all human beings, but as Christians who are Catholics of whatever Ritual Church our adherance to Holy Tradition is our Life and without that Living Tradition or that Life-Creating Tradition we are nothing, but shells of people who are empty and seeking. Why is the world seeking Tradition? Why after all the "liberating" movements in the Church over the past 40+ are people still seeking continuity and substance and True Reality in the Traditional Ritual expressions of the Church? Why do people see the banality of the modern Churches? Why do people seek the occult and the New Age? People intrinsically seek the supernatural because we were Created supernaturally by God and all creation is renewed supernaturally daily by the Divine Power. It is natural to seek the supernatural and that is something that cannot be replaced by rationalism and by the empty shell of social activism and modernism.
It is interesting for example the Latin Church after Reforming Her Liturgy thought that Her people would find relevance in the updated "look" of her New Order. Instead they found the world that they ran from become their Church, the Latin Church, and being that the Church looked and acted, in Her Liturgy and expression, no different then the common world there was to be found great apathy and darkness in the lives of millions of people; a citation for this cannot be placed in the Works Cited of a paper, but is only seen today in the life of the Latin Church. Walk into a modern Latin Church you will see a people longing for Tradition, longing for substance and reverence and beauty and holiness and true Catholic Liturgical expression. In our Byzantine Catholic Church and all the Eastern Ritual Churches and even the Indult Latin Liturgy is experiencing unparralled growth. We might ask why is this. We might question why the people seek solace and spiritual health and substance from Traditional Rites. It is because they see in the modern Church: doubt, unbelief, a sense that one may experience more spiritual life at a golf club than at Church because they have at the horizontal level the same being, they are social clubs. Today people want to be told what sin is; they want to walk into their Catholic Church and see no innovations, no liberalism, no critical analysis of the venerable Traditions that their fathers in many cased shed their blood for. One would would say how can I generalize and I would say: the common people, the majority of the world's Catholics love their Holy Traditions. It is the "experts" the "theologians" the "liturgists" who claim to speak for a spiritually dying people, but who are instead encouraging the people's spiritual necrosis. That is why people from the Latin Church and other denominations are coming into the Eastern Church because WE ARE the last hope for Christianity in the world today. I can hear someone saying, "well that is a pretty bold statement now isn't it" and I would the proof is already revealed you need only to open your eyes and to see.

So the issue of women in the Catholic and Orthodox ministerial priesthood, does not even pertain to Tradition, and is not even concerned with Tradition, which is the life of the Church and is the Church, but simply is concerned with getting women in a traditionally Patriarchal "job" or "career." The concern is not about whether the Church has the Authority to consecrate women into the Ministry, the concern is about "sexism" and "male domination" and "injustice" and "phallic Christianity" and the "oppressor man." The fad that we are experiencing today with regard to feminism is just that, a fad, a "new thing" and innovation devoid of Grace and of spiritual life. Those who sek to usurp the Traditions of the Church are not concerned about the souls of men and women they are concerned about "making THEIR mark" and "putting THEIR dent into the world", so to speak and it has nothing whatsoever to do with making people holier and getting filled with the Grace of God through valid sacramental Mysteries. Feminist politicians in the Church do not care about issued of validity, although they have their so-called "proof-texts," They are concerned about the fun of destroying what God has created as His Bride. i.e the Church. They make altars to Sophia, the Mother, the pagan goddess of feminist/lesbian liberation theology. They have communion to make present the presence of the Mother Goddess and they celebrate the victory of Christa, the famale Christ, over the forces of Patriarchy, and male dominance, and pray for the day that all men and women may celebrate same-sex relationships and rejoice in the destruction of the "traditional family" This sounds unreal, but the truth is, it is more real today than ever. And so the issue of women priests is a non-issue for Catholics in Union with the Pope of Rome and in Union with the Ancient Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. That is why the debate seems to unintelligent and so weak is because there is no debate just like there is not debate about whether we believe in the Trinity, God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit one in essence and undivided. We may write books upon books about what perceive the doctrines of the faith to be truly saying to our generation and be held in acclaim by all the theologians and doctors of the world, but if our teaching is not Tradition then we have wasted our time and are neglecting our souls and invoking the great and fearful Judgement of a Great and Mighty God not in our behalf, but for our condemnation. For all the Sophistries in the world cannot save the soul, but Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church which contains the FULLNESS of the EVERLASTING GOSPEL of JESUS CHRIST. In the end it will be those who maintain fidelity to the Apostolic Truth and Faith vs. those who maintain the ever-changing "truths" and fads of a modern era that quickly because of time shall fade away and be replaced by more banality and empyness for the heart of man.
In the end it the witness to the Holy Tradition of Christ's Holy Church that will receive the reward from their Father in Heaven and for those who wrote thesis upon thesis and book upon book trying to discredit the Dogmas and Doctrines of Holy Church that will eventually stand before the God that they thought they knew so much about, but even a new born child knew more than they. So the issue about women priest does not exist in the Reality of God and is even a sin and blasphemy to discuss the "possibility" of a female priesthood.

In Christ and His Holy Church
Alexis

All these arguments ignore the fundamental heresy:

Christ took on HUMAN NATURE - the common human nature shared by all men and women. To deny this is to deny the Incarnation.

The circular arguments about 'authority' completely ignore the historical evidence. There is ample evidence that women shared the function as Eucharistic presbyters in the Early Church.

The supposed 'exclusion' of men at the Last Supper necessarily means that women can't share the Eucharistic priesthood is a very weak argument. Again, take the argument to its logical extreme - only Middle-Eastern, Jewish Males can be priests. After all, that's what Christ chose. And he chose men who were both married and fisherman. I suppose that's the kind of men that should be eligible for the priesthood.

Authority?

On what basis? On the basis of the mysoginistic views of Jerome? Of the views of Augustine?

Why does the contemporary world hold less significance than the past?

Remember - Women were the FIRST to recognize the Lord after the Resurrection.

Dunedain:

The issue is about Apostolic Tradition
and the Salvation and Deification of souls
in Christ. Read my post again. There is NO ARGUMENT and NO PROOF that there were female presbyters in the Early Church. It is interesting that I mentioned , in my above article, about the sophistries of men, because that is what will lead people, who do not remain true to the rock of Holy Tradition, into the sinking sand of the foundationless fads of today. This topic is not debatable and yes, it is an issue of Authority; and the Church simply does NOT have the Authority to ordain women to the High Priesthood of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ. I recommend that one who so infatuated with "proving" the Venerable Traditions of Holy Church wrong evaluate seriously the condition of his soul as we all should daily examine our souls.

The issue is silenced in the face of Holy Tradition and in the presence of the Most August and Holy Trinity, one in essence and undivided, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Amen.

In Christ our God,
Alexis

Dunedain wrote:
"All these arguments ignore the fundamental heresy: Christ took on HUMAN NATURE - the common human nature shared by all men and women. To deny this is to deny the Incarnation."

But no one has denied that Christ took on human nature, nor that this human nature is shared by all men and women. But what of it? It is also a fact that God chose to take on that human nature as a man and not a woman. Was this a purely accidental choice on God's part? I don't think so. Remember that the fall was due to the sin of Adam not to that of Eve. This seems to imply that, in the biblical scheme of things, the whole of mankind, both men and women, is better represented by man than by woman. It may even be the case that man, having natural headship, can be representative of both male and female whereas woman cannot encompass both. I have no proof for this last statement but it certainly seems to be consistent with the data of the Bible and of Holy Tradition. The real question is, "could a woman have saved us?" In short, could a woman have undone the disobedience of Adam and become the progenitor of a new human race? There are many biblical themes that militate against this notion. In order for us to benefit from the Redemption in Christ, He Himself had to receive the fullness of the inheritance from God. He could only do so if He were the first-born Son. The first-born daughter did not receive the inheritance. Furthermore, the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity has been revealed to us as the eternal Son. Could God just as easily have revealed Himself as Mother, Daughter, and Holy Spirit? I think not. It is the doctrine of the Fathers and of Sacred Scripture that God is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that the Persons are not named in this way in imitation of human relationships; rather, human relationships get their names from the eternal communion of Persons in the Godhead. If then the Christ is the eternal Son of God, He could not have been incarnate as anything other than a man. This would seem to imply that, given God's method of redeeming us, a woman could never have done the job.
Now I'm not claiming that any of the above considerations provide sufficient reason for not ordaining women. But I think they show that Metropolitan Anthony's argument is rather simplistic and does not take into account much of the biblical data.

By the way, there is another interesting point. If we look at the Church from the familial point of view we note that the priest exercises the role of a father in the family. The father, as head of the household (see St. Paul) is the one who ought to take the lead in directing his family both spiritually and materially. Similarly, the priest is the head of a local household of the family of God. This means that the priest takes the role of a father in the Church. It stands to reason then that he should be male rather than female.

Ed

Dunedain makes the statement that "God became incarnate and took on fully Human Nature - he is True God and True Man. The nature he took on in the Incarnation was full Human Nature, not just the nature of the male sex. If he didn't, then the Incarnation was restricted to the nature of the male gender, not universally to all human beings. Women are excluded from the Atonement by their exclusion in the Human Nature taken on by Christ".
In the Scientific community in order to establish a basis for a theory you create a hypothesis for that theory to be founded upon. The hypothesis has to be truthful otherwise the theory would be in error and would not be factual or a true and authentic statement. Likewise, a religious hypothesis or statment must be factual and true in order for the argument based upon that statement to be true. The statement that Jesus had to be both male and female in order to have a full human nature is in error. A male is truly a complete human being having a full human nature. Likewise a female is a complete human being with a full human nature. They are of seperate genders but neither is less of a human being. Jesus was not both male and female for obvious reasons - He could not have had a baby anymore then a women could produce a child without the sperm of a male. The hypothesis that he had to be both male and female to be truly human or have a full human nature is an erronious hypothesis and any theory based upon this error would likewise be in error. To state that the male, Jesus, could not save the female race is tantimont to saying that if you were on a ship and it is sinking then the males could not save the females or vice versa. The whole basis for the argument is in error and therefore does not constitiute a legitiment, scientific or religious basis for the argument about whether women can become priests.

All Catholics should recall that the Pope of Rome has forbidden further discussion of this topic.

ICXC NIKA

[This message has been edited by Entomos (edited 12-31-1999).]

I think folks are missing the primary focus of ordination. Holy Orders is a sacrament whose efficacy is worked upon the soul of the receiver of the sacrament, just like the other sacraments.

To my knowledge, no reputable theologian, East or West, has ever stipulated an ontological difference between the soul of a man and the soul of a woman. The 'soul' is the soul, and Christ's death on the cross was accomplished to save the souls of human beings. There is the traditional theological principle that if the Passion and Death of Christ were necessary to save but one soul, it would have been accomplished. Thus, if the soul is the essential element of the individual human person, and the sacraments are efficacious through their actions on the souls of the receiver of the sacrament, any discussion of genitals would appear to be absurd.

While I myself would find a woman priest hard to get used to (I've seen Anglican and Lutheran women clergy), I don't think that one can make a valid theological argument against the validity of Holy Orders being given to a woman. While the liceity is a problem under current canon laws, the validity of the sacrament really could not be questioned without doing major violence to our current sacramental theology.

What puzzles me is the vehemence that some folks demonstrate when discussing the issue. While I'm sure that some see the issue of women as ordained ministers of the Church as an extension of the bra-burning hyper-feminist-at-all-costs agenda, I don't think that we'll be seeing the likes of Gloria Steinem, Bella Abzug and Jane Fonda applying for seminary. The women that would be applying for ordination are more likely to be women who have already dedicated their lives to God and the service of the Church through religious profession. To tell the truth, I kinda like being around women and I think that more formally acknowledging women in our communities is not just a good idea, but is really a way to build up the entire community and a way to make use of all the talents that God has given the members of our 'ekklesia'.

Happy New Year.

Dear Dr. John and others,

Christ is Born!

You wrote:

"To my knowledge, no reputable theologian, East or West, has ever stipulated an ontological difference between the soul of a man and the soul of a woman. The 'soul' is the soul, and Christ's death on the cross was accomplished to save the souls of human beings."

My understanding is rather different. Christ does not save *souls*, He saves *persons.* In other words, He creates and redeems souls and bodies wrapped in flesh and filled with spirit. While we are united in our nature as human beings, we are also divided in our persons as distinct individuals. This is the point of our hymning the Holy Trinity as "one in substance and *undivided*". Like Him are one in substance, but unlike Him we are definitely divided.

The point of the Incarnation was not to obliterate our differences. It was to overcome them by joining us each in our distinct hypostases to the one Person of Christ and through Him to the Father in the Spirit. In Baptism we become one Body (St. Paul), made up of many members (ibid). A sacramental theology that emphasises unity of species over the distinctiveness of individuals is not so much the Christianity of Scripture and Tradition, as the religion of philosophy, especially the Neoplatonic ideas that were to the fathers such a challenge.

So are men and women "ontologically different?" I would nuance it and say that they are ontologically distinct: fundamentally united (and inseparable), but distinguished in their particular manifestation of human-ness. I don't quite see how you can look at the Adam/Eve distinction (and the huge Christian literature it has generated from patristic times)and simply say it is nothing and of no importance.

The Incarnation produces what someone once called the "scandal of particularity." To save our *nature* Christ has to become a *person*. It involves divine choices. One theanthropic gender, not two. Bread, not cake, becomes his Body. We are baptized in water, not oil, and daubed with oil for the Spirit and not water. Faith requires us to become entangled with facts, not just concepts. For it is through this fact-filled and very real life we are actually living that we are called into the Kingdom of Heaven.

Does this provide a simple answer to the question of women priests? No. It is only intended to be a preparation for such an answer. Forgive me, I just didn't think the sacramental theology that was being offered about was all that convincing.

Side note: someone suggested we should not even talk about women priests. The Pope, as I understand it, has forbidden *dissent* from the Church's teaching on this matter. This is not the same as discussion. I don't see how those of us who support the Pope's position (even if we think the arguments are not always well articulated) could be held back from developing an apologia for the orthodox faith. This would make no sense if dissenters could not so much as present their case! What the Pope is doing is trying to prevent theologians and people in *authority* presenting their views as those of the Church. None of that applies to an informal forum such as this. I certainly have no intention of censoring this discussion!

In Christ
unworthy monk Maximos

[This message has been edited by Br Maximos (edited 01-01-2000).]

>>>Now, I realize the opposition to such a move by the Roman hierarchy, but my friend pointed out that Metropolitan Anthony (formerly Bishop
Kallistos Ware) had indicated that such a move would be within the realm of possibility, and that denial of the priesthood to women was
tantamount to denial of the Incarnation.<<<

This is something of a misrepresentation of Bishop Kallistos' position. What he has actually said is that the various rationales put forward by the Orthodox Church, especially in recent years, lack coherence and are intellectually unsatisfying. Bishop Kallistos in no way endorses the ordination of women, but rather believes that the Orthodox Church has not yet made its case against it. He calls upon the Church to approach the subject with open heart and mind, so that the will of the Holy Spirit will be made known.

His arguments are laid out in his contribution to the revised edition of Fr. Thomas Hopko's book, "Women and the Priesthood" (SVS) 1998. This also contains a wealth of other essays which review the issue of women in the priesthood, showing that there is a wide range of Orthodox approaches to this subject, none of which go so far as to endorse ordination of women to the presbyterate. Most interesting for me were the essays on the female diaconate, which I think show rather conclusively that this was an ordained major order within the Byzantine Church, but one that had real limits to the liturgical function of the deaconesses. One essay also looks at how attempts on the part of some deaconesses to encroach on the liturgical role of male deacons may have served to bring about the attenuation of the office.

>>>The circular arguments about 'authority' completely ignore the historical evidence. There is ample evidence that women shared the function as
Eucharistic presbyters in the Early Church.<<<

Unfortunately, that does not hold water. Scripturally and patristically, there is ample evidence for women in the order of diakonia, but none for presbyteria--at least not in the orthodox catholic Church. There is widespread evidence for women presbyters among the Marcionites and the Montanists, but it is significant that when the latter were reconciled and incorporated into the Church, its male presbyters had their orders accepted, but the female presbyters did not.

Most of this material is reviewed in Hopko's "Women and the Priesthood".

>>>All Catholics should recall that the Pope of Rome has forbidden further discussion of this topic.<<<

But of course, that is not an argument one way or the other, and it never worked with any of the Christological arguments of the past, so why should it work with regard to the Holy Orders, which are Christological by extension? What one must remember is that ecumenism is not an appendage to the Church, but a central part of its mission. The Church must act to bring about the unity of all under Christ. But this unity cannot be forced, or coerced in any way, nor does it involve the submission of one group to another, but rather communion of all in the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Church to deal with the issue in a forthright manner, and argumentum ad auctoritas is not likely to work on people who do not accept the authority of the pope to limit discussion or impose doctrinal solutions. Besides, saying that the Church has no authority and will not discuss the matter further is cowardly and an abrogation of responsibility. It is cowardly because it presumes that the Holy Spirit will abandon God's people in this matter, and its is an abrogation because the Church has a mission to teach. And much as we parents hate to admit it, "Because I said so!" is unsatisfactory once children reach the age of reason. Presumably the Church does not consider us to be children. Indeed, its job, as Frederica Matthewes-Green put it, is to "Teach us to stop acting like jerks and grow up". Therefore, the Church is better served by following the recommendation of Kyr Kallistos to develop a rational, coherent doctrine of the priesthood that confirms the Holy Tradition as it has been observed for two millennia.

>>>While I myself would find a woman priest hard to get used to (I've seen Anglican and Lutheran women clergy), I don't think that one can make a valid
theological argument against the validity of Holy Orders being given to a woman. While the liceity is a problem under current canon laws, the validity of the
sacrament really could not be questioned without doing major violence to our current sacramental theology.<<<

The whole issue, in any case, has been distorted by the insertion of a radically secular feminist ideology which views all relationships between men and women in terms of power, domination and submission. Put into an ecclesiastical context, and we see here a strange reiteration of medieval Latin clericalism: the Church is divided between two castes: clergy, who have special access to divine grace; and laity, who lack that access and are thus in the power of priests who control the means of salvation. Aside from the fact that this approach is entirely alien to the Byzantine Tradition, it also ignores the ecclesiology and theology of the laity developed at the Second Vatican Council. It presents a faulty perspective on the Church, treating it as a secular institution based upon power, and not a sacramental entity with institutional manifestations, in which relationships are, or should be, based upon koinonia--the knowledge of all and the submission of all to all in Christ.

It would seem that the Tradition of the Church views the priesthood as an exclusively male ministry. On the other hand, almost all other ministries are open to women--diakonia, teaching, preaching, monasticism, etc. For that matter, sacerdotal priesthood is not a charism granted to all men, either. To pretend that women must be priests in order for the Church to recognize their ontological equality is to say that the priest is ontologically elevated above the laity--which is a denial of the Royal Priesthood of the baptized (were all of you sleeping through the Anaphora of St. Basil on New Year's Day?), and a denial of the Byzantine Tradition that views the priest as a man called out from his community for a ministry of service. His charism is to serve at the altar, but he is equal in grace to any member of the laos tou theou, for his membership in the presbyterate does not abrogate his membership in the laos itself. His ordination does not give him a different gift of the Holy Spirit, but rather endows him with the same gift he received through Chrismation, but to a different extent and with a different purpose.

The Church is the model of the Holy Trinity, which is a perfect communion based on hierarchy without subordination. Human anthropology also should be modeled upon the Trnity, so that man and woman, who TOGETHER constitute the image and likeness of God, should be in perfect communion with God to realize the fullness of their natures. Just as Byzantine Trinitarian theology builds from the unique persons to the Divine Unity, so too should anthropology recognize that man and woman, though equal in nature and in grace, are given different gifts and different roles. The Father is not the Son or the Spirit; the Son is not Father or Spirit; and the Spirit is not Father or Son. Likewise, woman is not man, and man is not woman, though both are equal in the sight of God.

I see all the arguments against the ordination of women to the priesthood in this thread hinging upon one issue: Tradition.

Let me pose a question to the board: What is the essence of Tradition, and why is it the entire measure of valid and invalid?

Tradition is an EVOLVING thing. Were it not so, why did the Church adopt the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil? Was is not seen that these were expressions of the Deposit of Faith received by the Apostles and their successors in the Episcopate? What about the Councilar statements regarding the Trinity, the Incarnation, etc.? The definitions weren't handed down from on high as Revelations, were they?

Tradition isn't a neatly packaged thing, delivered once and for all, to be put on the shelf and admired. It's a thing to be taken to heart, to be modified and re-examined as circumstances warrant.

One fact remains: Women share the common Human Nature taken on by the Son in His Incarnation. As such, there is no reason, aside from human tradition, that they can't receive supernaturally the Charism of the Priesthood. None whatsoever. It's simply a matter of 'This is what we've always done', pure and simple. Contorted reasons may abound trying to justify this position, but reason and common sense must prevail in the end. Tradition will be modified as seen fit by the Faithful, or it will die.


Dunedain