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...
Metropolitan Kallistos spent years in "ecumenical conversations" with the Anglicans and of course it all got nowhere. The same thing, unfortunately, will happen with these conversations with the Roman Catholics.
ReplyDeleteThere is a war going on right now for the soul of the Roman Church. The liberals at the synod met a pretty shocking defeat even though they tried to stack it their favor.
DeleteThe "Uniate" Patriarchs provided a much-needed voice of reason.
Triggstar,
ReplyDeleteIf you think that all non-Orthodox Christian groups are equally "unlike" the Orthodox, you don't know Christian history very well.
One of the most silly things I've seen in modern Orthodox apologetics is this idea that Catholics are like Protestants are like Arians are like Gnostics etc... I call it "the equivalence of all heresies and schisms" theory.
That idea is wrong and has no precedent in Orthodox Catholic history or canon law.
I will be fair and point out that the Church of Rome had a similar attitude from the Counter-Reformation to the 20th Century (with some theologians saying one could could not even participate in "schismatic" Orthodox rituals... which means I would be in deep trouble). The "second class citizen" treatment of the Eastern Christians in communion with Rome was symptomatic of this arrogant triumphalism. It is saddening to watch many Byzantine Orthodox repeat the mistakes of Rome.
DeleteWith Byzantine Orthodox, Assyrians, Orientals we recognize all their sacraments as valid and the only thing barring us from taking their sacraments is the permission of those churches' pastors (with some churches having different policies than others).
"So that one day the Orthodox will find themselves to be fully catholic, united to a Roman church that is once again authentically orthodox" - Geoffrey Hull
As a former Roman Catholic, now Orthodox, I think Khomiakov was right when he said that all Western Christians are two sides of the same coin. Recall, if you please, that while Orthodox get on very well on a personal level with Pope Francis and Pope Emeritus Benedict, the same could not be said for relations with Pope John Paul II. The same Metropolitan Kallistos had to beg Pope John Paul not to declare Mary "Mediatrix of All Grace". I think we need to be very cautious and realistic in our assessment of what might be achieved in relations with the Vatican. That is all.
ReplyDeleteAs for the Anglicans, I think there is a sense of shock and dismay at how the Anglicans moved away from any possibility of rapprochement with the Orthodox (ordination of women priests and bishops, gay marriage, etc.) at the very same time that there had been apparently promising discussions with the Orthodox. Orthodox might be justified in feeling that "ecumenical" conversation, while a pleasantry among friends, will never achieve anything and might end up damaging the integrity of the Orthodox Faith.