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

>>>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.<<<

Tradition is everything that the Church teaches, including Scripture, for Christ wrote nothing himself, but rather gave to His apostles His message for the world, together with the gift of the Holy Spirit, so that they, and we, could interpret those teachings correctly.

You have not addressed any of the issues which were raised, not the least in my own post. You make an assertion concerning the ordination of women that is not reflected either in logic or in the experience of the Church--rather the opposite, since those liturgical churches with prestenses to apolostolicity that have ordained women (i.e., the Lutherans, the Anglicans, and some of the Old Catholics) have been haemorrhaging members faster than the Titanic took on water; while those other ecclesial communities that "ordain" female ministers have abandoned the notion of sacerdotal priesthood altogether.

It would seem that you have an obligation either to answer the arguments raised against ordination of women in a substantive manner, or to put forth substantive arguments of your own in the affirmative--and please, let's try to get beyond the "It isn't fair" stage, while avoiding the clericalist arguments that one can only have true power and holiness within the Church if one is a member of the sacerdotal priesthood.

Dear Dunedain,

Christ is Born!

Forgive me, but your understanding of Tradition (especially the capitalized form) is not mine. You say Tradition is a "thing." It is not. It is a Person. It is the Holy Spirit alive in the Body of Christ. It teaches and authenticates Itself through a lived, sacramental experience of the life in Christ (Cabasilas). The Church as a whole, both those alive and those dead--and even those not yet born but who will will receive this living Grace through our hands--all of us live in and under and through the gift of this Tradition. We all contribute to its expression in the world, for we are all brought to back to life by Its mystical operation.

It follows that Tradition can never be the preserve of only those living at a particular moment. Unless Tradition begins and ends in eternity it is simply "another Gospel", far from the Cross and Ressurection of Christ. How can Tradition "evolve" in the way other sciences do? Until Christ returns and all shadows pass away there will be no more revelation. Tradition contains it all: Scripture, sacraments, liturgy, ethics, the lot. All we can do is return again and again to the same, inexaustible well and draw from it new life in our own age and according to our own need.

When Christ breathed on his apostles and said "receive the Holy Spirit," and when He returned to his Father and sent that same Spirit in fire and wind on Pentecost, He was giving us Tradition. When He returns in glory and judges us it will be to receive back the talent of that Gift, with interest. If we return Him any other coin He will not know us. The only treasure that He will value is that of His own, hidden Life in the Father, that Life Who is His Spirit.

So, does Tradition "evolve"? Or is it rather we who are supposed to evolve into It?

In Christ
unworthy monk Maximos

A couple of late points:

1. Despite the authority of DaVinci's paintings, most scholars believe women were present at the Last Supper, including Christ's Mother. The Jewish Seder would seem to require it.

2. I would think all would agree that all of the Apostles' were in fact male and that nowhere in the Bible does Jesus say anything about this being deliberate or accidential.

I find it amusing that secular conservative opponents of affirmative action, given the example, say, of a board of directors of a bank or something that had 12 men would maintain that this does not prove a conscience decision to not include women, while liberal proponents of affirmative action would say the results give evidence of deliberate exclusion. The reasoning seems to reverse on the ordination issue.

K.

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 01-07-2000).]

Dear Kurt,

Despite whether women were actually present, the Gospels are clear that the narrative focuses on the twelve. "...He was at the table with the Twelve." (Matt 26:20) "...He arrived with the Twelve. And while they were at the table eating ..." (Mark 14:17-18) "... He took His place at the table, and the Apostles with Him." (Luke 22:14) One can either take this as being women were not present or one can say it shows that were not specifically excluded. But it seems pretty clear that the institution of the Eucharist was intended for the Twelve. You're free to do as much "between the lines" reading as you like to broaden it, but to me the intent seems clear. Given the fact that the Aaronic priesthood, instituted by God, was male, and I see a pattern there. We'll just have to agree to disagree on it then.

Bill,

No disagreement. The assertion was no women were present, which I believe to be incorrect. However, clearly the focus of the action of commissioning was on twelve persons without either a seminary education or a foreskin.

K.

>>>1. Despite the authority of DaVinci's paintings, most scholars believe women were present at the Last Supper, including Christ's Mother. The Jewish
Seder would seem to require it.<<<

Who are "most scholars". Kurt? Do you have their names and addresses? Second, there is nothing in Jewish Tradition that mandates women being present, especially as this is not quite your canonical Seder about which we are talking. It is, in fact, the Passover meeting of a sodality, a group of men whom Jesus of Nazareth has established as his alternative family and a symbolic representation of the Twelve Tribes (note that Jesus is not one of the Twelve--he institutes the Twelve and stands outside and over them). Therefore, the argument that women were present at the Last Supper (a) is highly disputable, and (b) has no bearing on the matter. The fact is, while women are mentioned throughout the New Testament in a variety of roles, "elder" (presbyteros) and "overseer" (episkopos) are conspicuous by their absence.

Early Christianity is noteworthy for two things: first, it preached the ontological equality of men and women before God. Unlike Jewish law, which requires ten males for a quorum, the Church is constituted wherever "two or three" are gathered together, irrespective of sex. Second, in distinction from the pagan Hellenistic cults, Christianity did not have women priests. Only the gnostic and heretical cults ordained women to the priesthood. Because of Christianity's uniquely egalitarian approach to women, one must believe that the male exclusivity of the priesthood is not rooted, as many say, "in the patriarchical structure of society", because that same patriarchical structure did not prevent the pagans from having priestesses. Rather, on must look to the entire notion of divine order, of the inherently different natures of man and woman which are the indisputable effect of sexual differentiation. One clue, I submit, lies in the very structure of the family. It has become cliched to state that the Church is modeled on the patriarchical family, but this, I believe, has the entire sequence reversed: God created man and woman, and instituted marriage, as a typos of the Church, and the relationship between mankind and God. As God is Father, with a uniquely paternal relationship to man, so Christ came as "Son" and not daughter. There are important eschatological principles bound up in the identity of the Trinity, and there are equally significant eschatological principles embedded in the male priesthood. This seems unfair only to those to whom, as I noted, view relationships inside the Church only in terms of power and subordination, and not in charism and grace. Unless one believes, as medieval clericalists did, that the priest somehow has access to a special kind of holiness, or a particular type of "magic", then the fact that God differentiates between the sexes for the various ministries in His Church is no more scandalous than the fact that God differentiates between male and female in the rest of nature. It's all transient in any case: come the Parousia, the Church, like the rest of this world, "passes away", replaced by a restored, and glorified creation ("Behold, I make all things new"). That would include the Church, whose purpose as bridge between this world and the Kingdom will have been accomplished.

As seemingly unjust as it may seem, I will never be able to get pregnant and carry a child to term. I will never be a biological mother. That's a gift that women have, that we as men will never be able to attain.

Rather than rant and rave about how unfair it is that I can't be a mom, perhaps I should instead focus on the gifts that God has given me as a male.

God made men and women differently, with different purposes. We must accept this as part of God's planr, rather than constantly fighting it.

Anthony

Dear Anthony,
You make it sound as though getting pregnant, giving birth, and being a mother is too profound a blessing to be usurped by the the priesthood. Certainly being a parent whether a mother or a father is truly a most sacred blessing. It takes both a man and a woman to conceive a child. I do not beleive that God considers one set of reproductive organs more important than the other. Parenthood and Priesthood are two separate issues. They are both very blessed lifetime gifts. The physical body can prevent a woman from becoming pregnant, but it is only man-made rules which prevent a woman from the blessing s of the priesthood. It is a mystery to me why we must live with the critical shortage of Priests and yet turn away very devoted women. I hear the Holy Fathers words, but my heart aches.

Dear Sharon and all,
Your statement "Only man-made rules which prevent a woman from the blessings of the priesthood" sounds like a revisionist with an agenda to overturn a 2,000 year old blessed Tradition into heresy, a violation against the will of God. Your heart need not ache but repent. If something is not broken why do you think it needs to be repaired? The Holy Spirit maintained men in the priesthood for the last 2,000 years and never a female. If you have a problem with that take it up with God who is all-knowing and leads the Church to all truths. Christ took the form of a man and not that of a woman even though both are one human nature. God does as He pleases without being subjugated to the whims of fallen human nature especially feminists. The historic reality of God has revealed to us that the male is to lead in the priesthood and no substition of the male can take place by a female. This has always been the case from the time of Christ, through His Apostles and their followers. There is no need to change this Holy Tradition but you violate it by calling it the tradition of man. Either you are in the Church or outside of Her. Either you are with your Bishop or you are against him who is the icon of Christ. Either the Holy Spirit of God is true and leads the way or the Devil has fooled you into believing that the Church needs revision because females are not allowed into the priesthood. The spiritual headship of the Church and of the family has always been the male. The female has had a very important role in the life of the Church and her family but never of usurping the role of a man. Victorian philosophy of the nineteenth century has robbed you from knowing the historical and spiritual and theological role of the genders inside the Church. Be careful of what you tend to believe as tradition versus Tradition. The Church will never turn Christ into a female or feminize His role and that of His followers. It would be easier to accept Him and His Church without feminizing the priesthood or making an issue out of heresies that are not welcomed into the Church. The wives of male priests had significant roles and ministries that did not conflict but complemented their priestly husbands. They did not desire to become priests but wives of priests(Khourias, presbyteras, matushkas, i.e.). The ordination of women to the priesthood is against the will of the Holy Spirit who abides in His Holy Church. Are you in the Church or are you outside of Her womb? The womb of the Church calls for priestly men and for women to play an important role in assisting the priest in spreading the Gospel but not in administration of the sacraments. My harsh tone is meant for those who believe it is a harsh reality. You need to pray to the Holy Spirit for guidance because it was His will for a male priesthood that has continued into our modern times. You may not agree with God but it is you who must accept His will in the final analysis. "Thy will be done". His will not your own.

In Christ,
Robert Sweiss

Dear Sharon,

First off, please ignore the nasty post from Mr. Sweiss. The absolute cruelty of his post does not accurately reflecting the thinking of myself, others on this board, or the Holy Father in Rome. While there may have been specks of truth in Robert's message, the vehement anger that frames it is disgusting, and disrespectful to women.

That having been said, I can understand why your heart aches. Being a priest appears to be a wonderful gift, and it is a noble thing to long for it.

So why do I not support a female priesthood? Well, because I do not believe it to be a man-made rule. Rather, it is a rule breathed into the Church by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Church Fathers, in opposition to their Greek culture, which had lots of female prietesses, went against the trend and supported a male-only priesthood. Whenever a heretical sect broke away from the Church, such as gnostics or Manichaens, one of the first things they usually did was ordain female priests. After all, the surrounding culture was very favorable towards priestesses. But despite this opposition, the true Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, affirmed the necessity of a male-only priesthood.

As painful as it is to accept, and I don't expect it to be easy, we have to trust that the Holy Spirit guided the Church during these formative years, and into our own time. The cultural pressure was in favor of women priests, but for some reason the Holy Spirit led the Church in a different direction... and continues to do so today, despite overwhelming pressure to the contrary. It is a miracle that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches haven't succumbed to the popular opinion of this century and ordained women priests. The Holy Spirit must be at work in this.

If the Church has taught something this adamantly for two thousand years, there must be a reason for it.

Regarding motherhood, I do see it as a special calling. A mother has new life come into being within her. That is something amazing. A mother houses new life, and is a co-creator with God! But that doesn't mean that a father is any less special, but different.

Likewise, being a priest is a wonderful gift for those men who are called by God to this ministry. It is special, but no better than the calling to be a mother, a religious, or a layman. The REAL leaders of the Church aren't the priests, after all... but the saints. Mother Theresa had a greater impact on the Church that most bishops. A Pope obeyed St. Catherine of Sienna, and moved from France back to Rome!

Your brother in Christ,
Anthony

>>>Being a priest appears to be a wonderful gift, and it is a noble thing to long for it.<<<

John Chrysostom believed the priesthood to be an almost intolerable burden, from which a man should flee, if he could. By this, I take it that John did not see the priesthood as a "profession", but as a true vocation, a "calling" from God. When the Spirit truly called, one had to go, but he considered it entirely inappropriate for man to seek out the priesthood from any sort of "desire" other than the love of God and the desire to do His will. He also believed that the responsibilities of the priesthood were beyond the capacity of most men, and placed their souls in the most mortal peril, for they would be called to account not only for their own transgressions, but those of their flock as well. Not for nothing did St. John say that the floor of hell was paved with the skulls of bishops, and "I think that few bishops shall be saved".

I think that the Amish (who, I continually wonder, are far more "Orthodox" in their spiritual outlook than other Western Christians) come closest to Chrysostom's understanding. When they have a vacancy in their ministry, a slip of paper is places in one of several Bibles, from which candidates (selected by the congregation) are asked to read. The one who has the Bible with the paper in it becomes the new minister. This is not treated as a moment of triumph or rejoicing, but one of sorrow on the part of the new minister and his family, for now he (and they) have the entire congregation as their responsibility, for which they must eventually answer to God.

Dear Anthony, Thankyou for your kind words. I may not agree with everything, but none of us has all of the answers. Certainly some people on this forum have made a case for female priests. I do however appreciate your words, especially the spiritual thought which goes along with them. You are kind and respectful of women. I found Roberts words very hurtful. I pray "thy will be done" every moment of everyday. I may not always succeed, but I am committed to a life of love in Christ and my neighbors. For my daily sins I certainly repent. Sharon

Dear Mr. Sweiss
Your response was very unkind and disrespectful to women. I am deeply hurt by your remarks. I put Christ and God's will first in all that I do (I often fail, but I am committed to God.) I am shocked that I would receive so horrible a reception as to be called "a heretic, a fallen human, living outside the womb of the church, violator of Holy Tradition, Devil believing, self-willed."
I read this forum to learn and grow spiritually, to enjoy the exchange with fellow Byzantine Catholics. I live far from any BC church and so this offers me great comfort. Hopefully, my thoughts and prayers are comforting to others.
As Anthony points out spiritual headship has often been as a result of the action of women (Mother Theresa, St. Catherine of Sienna.)
Anthony, thankyou for your many wonderful comments. I may continue to read the forum, but not if I am received again as I was by Mr. Sweiss.
Many others on this forum have made a case for ordination of women. They were not met with such awful personal condemnation. Why me? Am I the only woman who has made comment. Women have administered the Sacrament of Holy Communion, and do so everyday. This is a change from previous tradition. I do not believe that the Holy Father considers these servents as heretics, but beloved fellow Christians. I do believe that God takes care of men and women and loves and values them equally. We are spiritual beings made and loved by God. Conditions have drastically improved for women, and I am grateful. May God's will be done on earth.
I love my BC faith, and I am frustrated by the lack of understanding among my RC brothers and sisters. However, I receive a much more warm and Christian welcome regardless of my femaleness, and I have never been referred to with the descriptions above.
I wish you all eternal blessings and love. I also wish that this forum could take on a more scriptural, informative (there are so many very educated priests and monks who participate), and meditative emphasis, rather than the sometimes argumentative, condeming, and one better than approach.
I wish you all eternal blessings and love. I will pray for you and hope that you will pray for me.
Yours in Christ, Sharon

[This message has been edited by Sharon (edited 01-12-2000).]

Dear Sharon, thank you for your post(s). They did come through. As I commented earlier, there is no difference in the souls of men and women; all are children of God. And since sacraments are efficacious on the 'souls' of the person (sorry, Bro. Maximos, I know you don't quite see it in those terms, but it seems to be the most common wording) then each of the sacraments should be grantable to any baptized person. While the Church's current administrative structures and customs don't include the ordination of women, I don't think that we should just say: "No. That's it, forever." That would seem to me to be a sin against the Holy Spirit. I get real nervous when folks try to box God in and say: "God won't do this" or "God won't do that." or "God won't use women".

So, I look at people like Sharon and say, "Thank God that this woman has been given the graces of service to God's people." And I wonder, where will God lead her next?

Blessings to All!

Dear Sharon,

Please don't allow the rants of Robert Sweiss to drive you away from us. Mr. Sweiss isn't Byzantine Catholic, but represents an extremist fringe movement in Orthodoxy. His comments are often very hurtful towards those that he targets, and I've been insulted by Mr. Sweiss more than once. He has been continuously warned by the moderator to stop his attacks, but keeps writing vicious messages.

Anthony