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...
Silly question perhaps, but was the Synod that elected these three Archimandrites the Synod in Syria or the North American Synod? If the latter, was it by vote of one (the only diocesan bishop, Met. Philip) or by vote of all the bishops with the concurrence of the Metropolitan?
ReplyDeleteAlso, isn't Met. Philip the direct bishop of the diocese of New England in addition to being Metropolitan of the entire Archdiocese? Does he retain any direct diocesan responsibility that is not handled on his behalf by an auxiliary?
Here is some background on the process:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.antiochian.org/node/25936
As for the Met. Philip assistant bishop role... I don't know the exact breakdown on responsibilities.