Is the male-only priesthood a discipline or essential to the nature of being a priest? Sr. Vassa (again unflinchingly taking up a contentious topic by climbing up the ladder to the highest platform and then jumping into the deep end head first) dives right in and says there is no reason beyond personal preference to not have female clergy. You know, when people ask me about women in priesthood, they say, 'Sister, why can't women be priests?' And I say, 'Women CAN be priests. We don't WANT them to be priests.' Because you see, God can do anything, and the Church, by divine authority, uh, can do anything, but, the Church doesn't want to - and that's a legitimate reason. What I don't like is when we TRY to pretend that there are other reasons for this, because it's legitimate not to want something, and there are reasons not to want this - right? - but, we shouldn't pretent that there's some... reason, that, for example, the maleness...
This happens to be on the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The Russian Orthodox Church has no right to build a church there without the blessing of the local Patriarch.
ReplyDeleteAll I've read says that permission was given. The Russian Church, as compared to the Romanian Church in recent years, has a rather good relationship with the Jerusalem Patriarchate. Pat. Kirill is supporting Jerusalem against the encroachment of the Israeli govt., battling Christianophobia and anti-Christian violence in the Middle East, and a number of other endeavors to suppor the local Church.
DeleteSince the convent was established in 1874, I think it is safe to say that permission was granted and that the MP & Patriarchate of Jerusalem have a history of getting along. And I know that a hostel for vistors(Orthodox Christians) from Eastern Europe has been around for way over a century. Before WW1 if Orthodox Christians could get to Constantinople there was free passage for them on a boat paid for by the Russians.
ReplyDelete