Sr. Vassa: There's no ontological impediment to priestesses
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...
Which one doesn't like the Western Rite? I think it was clear Met. Philip was looking for a way to disestablish the WR to align itself with the Patriarchs who don't want to have anything to do with Western Christendom. I know he supported it early on but as the movement grew and they wanted more recognition and say in their own affairs he didn't want to be accused of uniatism. Besides the Antiochians were already considered Eastern Rite Episcopalians. Just sayin'...................
ReplyDeleteBishop Basil be beautiful
ReplyDeleteAre they going to share vote totals?
ReplyDeleteArchbishop Joseph is Syrian and speaks Arabic well - he would be a good way of keeping the Archdiocese and the Patriarchate connected, no?
ReplyDelete