Orthodoxy and LGBT "Inclusiveness"
Where the "European Forum of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Christian Groups" and Orthodox clergy converge. Not a few of these names will be known to the readers.
 |
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...
If these people were honest, they would realise they either have conform to God's Laws or forfeit their right to be Orthodox Christians. It really is that simple.
ReplyDeleteIf these people were honest, they would realise they either have conform to God's Laws or forfeit their right to be Orthodox Christians. It really is that simple.
ReplyDeleteThey need to repent, Conform to God's law, and be in good standing with the Church, or they should just go be Episcopalians. Their Choice to be honest.
ReplyDeleteInclusive lifestyle is that which is in conformity with our Lord's prayer. It is a community prayer. Individuals must abide by the Will of God on Earth and in Heaven.... Accepting to the offer to "deliver us from all that is evil." This is THE inclusion that is meant and whoever opts out of His Grace is out at their own free will.
ReplyDeleteSo what else is new in America?
ReplyDeleteLord, have mercy!
ReplyDeleteI looked at the original post, and the people tagged include Uniats, pro-abortionist Christians. It seems that when it rains, it pours, and when you're willing to challenge Church teaching in one area, why not in all the rest? (But of course, keep the Orthodox garments and name!)
ReplyDeleteI have not read this book, but putting Uniates and "pro-abortion" in the same sentence, as if the one is logically related to the other, is risible. The Catholic Church has a more clear, comprehensive, and consistent pro-life teaching than any other Church, as a perusal of the treatment of contraception in successive editions of K. Ware's "The Orthodox Church" will readily show. If you are a pro-life Orthodox Christian, Uniates are your allies: see you at the March for Life!
ReplyDeleteI shall indeed! I'll be queued up with the St. Tikhon's people most probably.
Delete"The Catholic Church has a more clear, comprehensive, and consistent pro-life teaching than any other Church, as a perusal of the treatment of contraception in successive editions of K. Ware's "The Orthodox Church" will readily show."
DeleteWell, the RC teaching on contraception is "consistent" in the sense of a formulaic reliance of "natural law" that rises above human freedom and thus is actually very questionable in a basic Christian sort of way - certainly from an Orthodox understanding of man's will, freedom, and createdness in-the-body. Yet another division that goes all the way down and reveals that RC and Orthodoxy are not "in schism" - much more than that.
However, I will agree with you that K. Ware is a theological minimalist and all too often sounds like (because he reasons like) and Anglican. Some even speculate as to rather he is really "converted" or not. I don't recommend his books...
My point was that Ware records, in the first edition (1963) of his book, what the consensus of the Orthodox world was at that time with respect to contraception: categorical rejection of it (a position which is easily demonstrable to have been that of the Fathers--which is why, of course, Orthodox have traditionally held to it!).
DeleteSubsequent editions of the book chronicle the gradual shift in Orthodox theory and practice in this regard, resulting in the current situation in which a minority maintains the traditional Orthodox view (which coincides with the Catholic view, but arrives there by a somewhat different theological route), while most others fall at varying points on the spectrum...including many who have no problem whatsover with contraception (thereby failing, in my opinion, to see the intrinsic philosophical--empirically verifiable--connection between the sanctioning of contraception and the proliferation of abortion, the one historically increasing in the wake of the other).
"My point was that Ware records, in the first edition (1963)..."
DeleteWare is not a flawless chronicler of all things Orthodox (though he does nothing to disabuse anyone of this idea). Stop reading him - first edition, last edition, and everything in between. Yes, during this time most Orthodox pastoral/theological thinking on this subject borrowed almost entirely from the RC understanding. However, this is more do to the historical circumstances (which were quite dire) of the time. Even then, the "resourcement" (using a term you should be comfortable with) of authentic Orthodox theology was having a significant effect in other areas.
No, you are seeing what you want to see as far as a "shift in theory" and its relation to RCism - as you admit the theology (of person, bodily existence, sexuality, etc.) is quite different. Fr. Philip LeMasters (Ph.D.) will be publishing his book soon titled "Toward a Eucharistic Vision of Church, Marriage, Family and Sex" (I am assuming that title will remain intact through publication). When it comes out read the final chapter which zeros in on this subject - it is quite good. You will not agree with it because you are a faithful RC (and not Orthodox).
No, what you call the "sanctioning" (by which you mean as a pastoral recommendation handled by the ecclesia/hierarchy) of contraception (and here we must distinguish between contraception and abortifacients) is NOT the reason for the very real historic correlation you point too. The correlation rather points to a larger trend within historical western Christiandom and RCism actually bears a major portion of that responsibility (i.e. in that how we got to the modern Cartesian Self is a result of Scholasticism). Eastern Europe/Russia is NOT the same because the correlation is based on a persecution/destruction and thus is rooted differently.
I actually don't agree with some things Fr. Philip says and part of the usual Orthodox pastoral thinking on contraception, but mine is an internal critique based on a common anthropology. Yours is external based on a anthropology which is fundamentally different...
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I don't think we can make any further progress in this discussion with so many irons in the fire. God bless.
Deleteit's amazing so many people review the book they have not even seen
ReplyDeleteI plan on reading it but I already know what's not going to be in there: encouragement to struggle against one's sinful passions to to live in repentance. That's what I'm encouraging a young man in my parish who was sexually abused by his father and never had a strong male influence in his life and so has spent years seeking affirmation through sexual encounters with men. He needs healing and not affirmation!
ReplyDeleteFather Edward Pehanich
Then why read it? To see how well Fr. Robert Arida can say what he means without actually saying it so he can continue to claim he is in communion with the Church (I give him a B+ on subversive writing)? In a properly functional heiarchy, this sort of nonsense would be clearly and forcibly (by excommunication) censored...alas, we don't have a fully functioning hierarchy (mostly because of the Islamic and Communist persecutions)...
Delete