I hope I'm not de-prioritising the 'own voice' element but my understanding is that Irish Christians were certainly celebrating Marian feasts well before the Crusades. There was something of an upsurge of interest in Mary within Western monasticism during the 11th century. This may not have resembled later medieval Marian devotion and I wouldn't be surprised if returning Crusaders intensified what was already there.
But I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that it didn't exist in the West prior to the Crusades, if indeed that is what Karen Carpenter is saying.
Nor am I saying that Western and Eastern Christianity were identical im every respect before the Great Schism, nor that they were unrecognisable to one another thereafter.
I often think about what Florence Nightingale said:
The Church of England has for men bishoprics, archbishoprics, and a little work. For women she has what ? I would have given her my head, my heart, my hand. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet in my mother’s drawing-room; or, if I were tired of that, to marry and look well at the head of my husband’s table.
What I hadn't realised was that the full quote actually credits Catholic religious orders as at least giving her something worthwhile to do. I do wonder how many times the Church has sought to "quench the Spirit" in women over the centuries.
It seems to me that, when you're talking about customs and traditions, religious or otherwise, "it's what we do" or "it's how we do it" is often the answer - not as an assertion of authority, but as the only answer there is. I mean, if you asked why we put candles on birthday cakes and have the birthday person blow out the candles - we do it because it's what we do. It's our customary way of celebrating birthdays. When I was growing up, my family did not decorate with red and green for Christmas. We decorated with blue. There's no answer for "why" beyond, "that's what my father's family did, so it's what our family did, and it's what I've always done."
But at some point there was a reason, even if in some cases it's been forgotten today. Someone or a group of someones made the decision, based on criteria of some kind, that women shouldn't be ordained. In the case of church traditions, usually somebody has written down the reason or criteria somewhere and they often aren't hard to find out.
Also, birthday parties are (usually) nice. Patriarchy has a body count, every day. If a religion, any religion's, traditions lead to misery and death, and they refuse to reconsider that part of their tradition in order to save human life, those deaths are on their hands.
At the parish where I was chrismated, some boys realized that they could take a shortcut through the altar area to get to some place they wanted to go, and of course, they were delighted that the girls couldn't. One of our deacons caught them at it, and read them the riot act. The boys defended themselves by saying they were boys. The deacon made it absolutely clear to them that people are blessed to enter the altar area, not based on anatomy, but only to perform the works of service that had been assigned to them. If there were an emergency in the altar, then anyone who was capable of managing the emergency could enter to deal with that emergency, and anyone not capable - even the clergy - would need to stay out.
Yeah, but when the works of service are assigned based solely on anatomy, it's a distinction without a difference. And presumably none of those kids was ordained yet, so it's not a matter of ordained persons vs. not ordained. It's just boys vs. not boys. I think the kids understood the situation perfectly clearly.
Plenty of groups have emergency exemptions to the rules. Catholics allow lay people to baptize or make confession to each other in life-threatening emergencies; a Reform Jewish friend once told me they're allowed to eat prohibited foods if there's no kosher food available and they're in danger of starvation. It doesn't mean the rules don't exist or that people are happy to break them.
The point about wine made from grapes is tenuous. You can use other beverages, can't you?
No, we can't.
Well, that's true enough in broadly Western and Mediterranean traditions and regions. When Portuguese Jesuits, sent out to Africa in the 1600s by Francis Xavier in Goa, reach what is now Zimbabwe (then Monomatapa), there is no wine or bread available. What they use in the consecration is a fermented sorghum drink and a crushed millet porridge.
I checked with a couple of people who had seminary training (which I have not had), and it seems that the answer to this question has varied (as you might expect for a church that has been around for 2000 years, across pretty much the entire globe). It seems to have been generally (but not universally) agreed, if the situation is dire, and it is absolutely impossible to get grape wine, or wheat bread, then the principal of economia would apply, and whatever was possible would be allowed. The differences over time and place seem to have been mostly about how dire the situation has to be, and how impossible the possibility of getting bread and wine would have to be, before substitutions could be made. And waiting for the bread or wine to arrive is a legitimate solution to the problem.
In ordinary times, under any but extreme conditions, the answer is no.
The point about wine made from grapes is tenuous. You can use other beverages, can't you?
No, we can't.
Well, that's true enough in broadly Western and Mediterranean traditions and regions. When Portuguese Jesuits, sent out to Africa in the 1600s by Francis Xavier in Goa, reach what is now Zimbabwe (then Monomatapa), there is no wine or bread available. What they use in the consecration is a fermented sorghum drink and a crushed millet porridge.
I checked with a couple of people who had seminary training (which I have not had), and it seems that the answer to this question has varied (as you might expect for a church that has been around for 2000 years, across pretty much the entire globe). It seems to have been generally (but not universally) agreed, if the situation is dire, and it is absolutely impossible to get grape wine, or wheat bread, then the principal of economia would apply, and whatever was possible would be allowed. The differences over time and place seem to have been mostly about how dire the situation has to be, and how impossible the possibility of getting bread and wine would have to be, before substitutions could be made. And waiting for the bread or wine to arrive is a legitimate solution to the problem.
In ordinary times, under any but extreme conditions, the answer is no.
Legend has it that Lord Strathallan received the last rites with oatcakes and whisky at the Battle of Culloden, suggesting that Episcopalians applied a similar principle.
It seems to me that, when you're talking about customs and traditions, religious or otherwise, "it's what we do" or "it's how we do it" is often the answer - not as an assertion of authority, but as the only answer there is.
But at some point there was a reason, even if in some cases it's been forgotten today. Someone or a group of someones made the decision, based on criteria of some kind, that women shouldn't be ordained. In the case of church traditions, usually somebody has written down the reason or criteria somewhere and they often aren't hard to find out.
If it is indeed not hard to find the reason that women are not ordained to the priesthood in the Orthodox Church, perhaps you would be willing to provide it?
FWIW, I don't believe that "the reason" exists - I expect that there were many reasons that interacted in various ways over centuries and across cultures. Some of the reasons might have been written down somewhere, but they might have been considered so obvious at the time that no one thought it worth writing down. Or it was written down, but the manuscripts haven't survived for 2000 years. And given that we're looking at 2000 years, even finding something written somewhere doesn't mean you've found the reason. You've found a reason, which is not at all the same thing, and you have absolutely no way of knowing whether, when you read it, you have a clue what the writer meant by it.
And, perhaps more to the point, as I've said at least once on this thread, "We've always done it this way" is a perfectly legitimate reason for doing something in the Orthodox Church. The Holy Spirit has been our guide from the beginning, and we trust him to guide us in the way of truth.
It's true, of course, that as times and customs and cultures change, we might need to change directions in order to maintain our true course. It's possible that we change more slowly than some would like. Sometimes, that slowness is a good thing - fads and fashions usually pass us by. Sometimes it would be better if we changed faster. But, like ents, we're not hasty, and we want to make sure we've talked it all the way out, and understood every side of an issue, before we change. So we argue amongst ourselves, and trust that the Holy Spirit will keep us on a good path.
Cultural norms got baked in centuries ago and nobody would ever write down that that's what they were doing so Orthodox Churches are just stuck with it.
FWIW the exposure of clerical abuse has been expected for some time and nobody is saying that the Orthodox Church is any less likely to have abusive clergy than anyone else.
Although I did hear of one bishop who, when pressed by clergy to get a move on with safeguarding measures across the diocese, replied, 'That's a Roman Catholic problem, not ours ...'
Yes, Orthodoxy believes that the Holy Spirit will guide us into 'all truth.' It sounds glib to say that this doesn't mean that individual clergy aren't going to become abusers nor that structural issues may even facilitate that abuse.
One hopes that the Holy Spirit is at work though as this kind of abuse is exposed wherever it takes place, whether within Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism or the Protestant churches.
One hopes that the Holy Spirit is at work though as this kind of abuse is exposed wherever it takes place, whether within Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism or the Protestant churches.
I do not hope, nor would I expect, that the Holy Spirit is at work through sexual abuse. Despite sexual abuse, yes. In the aftermath for victims, yes. But not through the sexual abuse of innocent people.
One hopes that the Holy Spirit is at work though as this kind of abuse is exposed wherever it takes place, whether within Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism or the Protestant churches.
I do not hope, nor would I expect, that the Holy Spirit is at work through sexual abuse. Despite sexual abuse, yes. In the aftermath for victims, yes. But not through the sexual abuse of innocent people.
I have a distinct sense that you and @Gamma Gamaliel are using "through" in a subtly different way here.
There's the "through" of "teaching reading through phonics" and there's the through of "got home eventually through the dreadful traffic"
Although on second reading I notice that @Gamma Gamaliel said "though", not "through".
One hopes that the Holy Spirit is at work though as this kind of abuse is exposed wherever it takes place, whether within Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism or the Protestant churches.
I do not hope, nor would I expect, that the Holy Spirit is at work through sexual abuse. Despite sexual abuse, yes. In the aftermath for victims, yes. But not through the sexual abuse of innocent people.
I have a distinct sense that you and @Gamma Gamaliel are using "through" in a subtly different way here.
There's the "through" of "teaching reading through phonics" and there's the through of "got home eventually through the dreadful traffic"
I’m afraid that second usage makes no sense to me in the context of saying the Holy Spirit works through a particular situation.* That second meaning would, in my experience, require a sentence along the lines of “The Holy Spirit works to enable us to get through this kind of situation.”
* I realize now, thanks to you, @KarlLB, that I misread what @Gamma Gamaliel wrote. My apologies, GG.
Cultural norms got baked in centuries ago and nobody would ever write down that that's what they were doing so Orthodox Churches are just stuck with it.
It's been a very long while since I participated in a thread in Epiphanies, so I could be misremembering norms, but this post seems rather more fitting for Hell. If this is expected behavior for Epiphanies, I am bowing out. I came here expecting a conversation. I do not have the time or energy to deal with whatever this is.
I stand to be asked to withdraw if this breaches the 'own voice' stipulation raised by Hosts and which various male posters, including myself, have tended to ignore - but 'whatever this is' conforms to @Ruth's contention that the historic Churches are inveterately and irredeemably sexist and should fade away until they cease to exist. She has expressed that hope elsewhere so there's not a lot of wiggle-room for those of us who are Orthodox or RC. We should either become Protestants of one form or other or abandon our faith entirely.
Ruth is entitled to that view, and it is up to Hosts and Admins to determine whether it is Hellish or within the bounds of Epiphanies.
I will observe though, that some posters on this thread have taken some of @Josephine's analogies out of context and used them to challenge me on the now closed Hell thread about my supporting sexism by joining the Orthodox Church.
I do wonder why they didn't seek clarification from josephine here rather than misrepresenting what she'd written elsewhere and using them as a stick to poke me with.
I hope josephine will feel able to contribute here as she offers an 'own voice' perspective from within one the historic Churches in a way that cgichard and myself can't.
It is, of course, up to her whether she feels able to do so.
Misrepresent, nothing. I quoted her exact words. If you think my understanding Josephine's metaphor to say that men and women are fundamentally different creatures was inaccurate, please explain to me how wheat and rice are the same species.
I did say that her analogies weren't perfect and they aren't analogies I'd have chosen myself. I took them to refer to different roles rather than different species but she's no longer on this thread to unpack what she meant.
Are you seriously suggesting that Josephine and by extension the Orthodox Church believes that m and women are different species?
Yours was an overly literal interpretation of Josephine's analogies @Antisocial Alto and you know it.
FWIW, here is an interesting piece by an Orthodox Christian on the particular issues Orthodoxy faces in getting to grips with modernism in the way that 'Western' Christianity has been doing for some considerable time.
It's not 'own voice' as it's written by a man but it does provide some context and much food for thought for us Orthodox I think:
This is indeed the correct board for talking seriously about institutional sexual abuse in churches as opposed to just venting. Raising the issue in the context of whether certain church structures or beliefs have led to it, continue it or or absolutely have nothing to do with it belongs on this board and is perfectly legitimate to discuss. It should reflect the voices of what survivors of abuse have to say about it. @Ruth's link is to a serious article from a reputable source with own voice testimony and so fits the guidelines here.
Pointing out that churches have ongoing and historic problems with child abuse which survivors are speaking out about, does not constitute a personal attack, even if another poster belongs to the church in question. Smearing churches with false/ distorted accusations from poor sources however would break the guidelines and probably C1 under sectarianism. But this isnt the case.
Can I remind posters that survivors of sexual abuse and survivors of sexual abuse in churches are posting on the Ship? It's a serious issue which needs to be treated seriously with own voice testimony from survivors.
Dragging in spats from Hell is not OK @Gamma Gamaliel If you've a beef with @Antisocial Alto for what she posted there, then starting a new hell thread with her or stopping it entirely are the options. Please stop this line of discussion and only refer to posts on this thread and this board.
Similarly accusing other posters of posting Hellishly or breaking the guidelines is junior hosting which also derails the thread - please do not do that on this board.
[Edited to add - people who really don’t like what another poster has posted have the option of calling them to Hell, if they think that the post though within the rules, warrants it]
If people want to question hosting or the guidelines then that belongs in the Styx.
Hosting with tags - warning
Finally if men want to discuss misogyny in the church it needs to centre women's voices and those of other minority genders who are most affected. Remember male voices are usually heard disproportionately in the media and in male led churches and organisations. We dont need another link to what men say about women in churches even if the man is own voice to a given denomination being discussed. Please do the extra work of finding what the range of views among women is.
I've now had to raise this multiple times on this thread and the other and will be consulting Admin about it.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host Hosting with tags off
Categories are known to have subcategories. Wheat and rice, for example are subcategories of the category cereal grain. They are both types of grass.
Yes, but men and women and nb people are all the same subtype of grass.
In my first post on the subject I said Josephine's analogy implied that "the Orthodox view of men and women is that they're so different from each other that they might as well be different species." Gamma, you might want to think about why you keep jumping on me for restating the plain implication of the analogy. If you don't like what it implies, your problem is with the person who came up with, not with me.
Categories are known to have subcategories. Wheat and rice, for example are subcategories of the category cereal grain. They are both types of grass.
Yes, but men and women and nb people are all the same subtype of grass.
In my first post on the subject I said Josephine's analogy implied that "the Orthodox view of men and women is that they're so different from each other that they might as well be different species." Gamma, you might want to think about why you keep jumping on me for restating the plain implication of the analogy. If you don't like what it implies, your problem is with the person who came up with, not with me.
Hi @Antisocial Alto
Pointing you to my host post above which you might have missed. Discussing Josephine's posts made here is fine, but not getting personal with @Gamma Gamaliel who's been hosted for importing disputes from Hell. The Hell element of the dispute needs to stop or go back to Hell.
Misrepresent, nothing. I quoted her exact words. If you think my understanding Josephine's metaphor to say that men and women are fundamentally different creatures was inaccurate, please explain to me how wheat and rice are the same species.
I can't say how they are the same species, of course, because they are not, I never said they were, and I do not understand how you could have gotten that out of what I said. I don't think I have ever given you any reason to think I was so stupid as to not understand that rice and what, or grapes and cherries, are different species, and that men and women are the same species. At the same time, I expected Shipmates to know that there are more ways to categorize things than by species, and it never occurred to me that you would not realize that the categories in my analogy were not species, but "things you can make bread out of" and "things you can make fermented beverages out of" and (by analogy) "things you can make priests out of."
I thought it was clear. If you genuinely didn't understand what I was saying, I apologize.
Discussing Josephine's posts made here is fine, but ... the Hell element of the dispute needs to stop or go back to Hell.
Thanks!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Louise, I have not been following or participating in the Hell thread, it was not until after I made my last post that I realized that I may have imported something back from Hell. I tried to do a "just in case" edit and failed for lack of "Vanilla.Comments.Edit" permission.
the categories in my analogy were not species, but "things you can make bread out of" and "things you can make fermented beverages out of" and (by analogy) "things you can make priests out of."
I thought it was clear. If you genuinely didn't understand what I was saying, I apologize.
Yes, but (as I understood it) the categories are "different things you can make bread out of" and "different things you can make wine out of". A distinction can be drawn between grapes and blueberries. Your point seemed to be that the Orthodox consider men and women to be different from each other in some important way, something that's important enough to affect the sacraments. That's what I was responding to.
Whoops sorry. I hope responding to that post doesn't count as continuing the Hell disagreement. Since the original post we're discussing was made on this thread, I hope it's okay to keep talking about it here as long as we aren't making personal remarks.
the categories in my analogy were not species, but "things you can make bread out of" and "things you can make fermented beverages out of" and (by analogy) "things you can make priests out of."
I thought it was clear. If you genuinely didn't understand what I was saying, I apologize.
Yes, but (as I understood it) the categories are "different things you can make bread out of" and "different things you can make wine out of". A distinction can be drawn between grapes and blueberries. Your point seemed to be that the Orthodox consider men and women to be different from each other in some important way, something that's important enough to affect the sacraments. That's what I was responding to.
As far as I know, no synod or council has ever said that grapes are different from blueberries in any way that is important enough to affect the sacraments - only that grape wine is what we use (except, as noted previously, in absolutely dire situations). The point I was trying (and apparently failing) to make is that, as I understand it, the difference between grapes and blueberries, when it comes to the sacraments, is in fact utterly trivial. There is nothing about grapes that make them more suitable than blueberries for being fermented into communion wine. Nevertheless, grape wine is what we use, mostly because that's what Jesus used at the Last Supper. An accident of history, if you will. No value judgment implied.
As I understand it, the differences between men and women for the purposes of the sacrament of ordination are likewise trivial. Nevertheless, men are the matter we use for the sacrament. An accident of history. No value judgment implied.
And, yes there are people in the Church, both men and women, who would disagree with me. Some of the folks who agree with me have left the Church and found their homes elsewhere. At this time, I intend to stay in the Orthodox Church, where we are allowed to disagree with each other, to argue our respective opinions, to work things out.
But the way we do things, working things out takes time, and I think the horizon for changing anything about the priesthood would be very long indeed. I'd rather focus on the diaconate, where it is clear, from within our framework for deciding such things, that women should be deacons, that excluding women from the diaconate is a novelty and an aberration, and that it needs to be made right.
Whoops sorry. I hope responding to that post doesn't count as continuing the Hell disagreement. Since the original post we're discussing was made on this thread, I hope it's okay to keep talking about it here as long as we aren't making personal remarks.
My understanding of Louise's post is that y'all are fine talking about gender, misogyny (or lack thereof) and churches here. In as far as that conversation isn't from Hell--which I think it isn't--you're fine.
Cultural norms got baked in centuries ago and nobody would ever write down that that's what they were doing so Orthodox Churches are just stuck with it.
Which would be a fair comment if the Orthodox or anyone else were claiming that the Holy Spirit guiding people collectively was a guarantee that individuals weren't going to go off the rails or abuse trust or abuse other people.
When Baptists say they believe that the Holy Spirit guides them to 'find the mind of Christ' in the 'church meeting' they aren't saying that this leaves no room for individuals to err or sin.
A belief in the Holy Spirit's guidance doesn't obviate the need for vigilance, for proper safeguarding procedures and so on. There is a responsibility to listen to those who hsve suffered abuse and act upon their accounts to reduce the risk of these things happening again.
I hope that last post doesn't breach the injunction to prioritise female voices. There are female voices in the article that @Ruth provided about sexual abuse in the Orthodox Church.
It's something that the Orthodox and other churches need to address irrespective of how we understand the guidance of the Holy Spirit- or even if we don't believe in the Holy Spirit at all - which people are entitled not to do if they wish.
Elaine Storkey’s book “Scars Across Humanity” is a well-researched and reliable guide re violence against women. It also contains an extensive critique of religious understandings, past and present.
(Elaine Storkey is a Christian feminist from an evangelical background)
Elaine Storkey’s book “Scars Across Humanity” is a well-researched and reliable guide re violence against women. It also contains an extensive critique of religious understandings, past and present.
(Elaine Storkey is a Christian feminist from an evangelical background)
The above video is only about 15 mins long and well worth a watch. I learned a lot.
I can't speak for Orthodoxy as a whole but in the circles I'm familiar with some of the more egregious issues around the supposed 'uncleanness' of women's (and indeed male) bodies at certain times appear to have receded.
Here's a longer video from a conference and which I've not watched all the way through:
Elisabeth Behr-Siegl is best known for her book co-authored with the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church. I've not read it, I'm afraid.
Finally, Dr Elena Narinskaya who leads the Women's Ministry Initiative as part of the work of the Fellowship of St John the Baptist here in the UK.
Which would be a fair comment if the Orthodox or anyone else were claiming that the Holy Spirit guiding people collectively was a guarantee that individuals weren't going to go off the rails or abuse trust or abuse other people.
...
A belief in the Holy Spirit's guidance doesn't obviate the need for vigilance, for proper safeguarding procedures and so on. There is a responsibility to listen to those who hsve suffered abuse and act upon their accounts to reduce the risk of these things happening again.
@josephine is saying there isn't an argument for or against ordaining women in the Orthodox Church. There's an explanation -- it's always been this way, and the Orthodox trust Tradition and the Holy Spirit. My objections to this as a defense for not changing, for not ordaining women, are that Tradition seems to have done nothing other than incorporate oppressive cultural norms and the Holy Spirit is demonstrably not a reliable guide against or protector from oppression and abuse. Most churches recognize this and have adopted safeguarding procedures against various forms of abuse. They don't simply say "God will guide us" -- and the ones that do just say that, that won't apply reason and think about why and how abuse takes place and do something about it, we know to stay away from.
I'm saying all churches should apply reason in the case of women's position in the church, not simply say it's always been this way and we trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The claim that not ordaining women does not imply a value judgement is frankly laughable. Of course it does. It always has, it always does; there are no grounds for saying the church is somehow different in this regard from every other institution that has kept women out of the formal leadership. Comparisons to the matter used in the sacraments are inapt -- cider and oats don't stand by and watch during services and know that they will never be deemed suitable.
Where have any of us here said that a belief in the guidance of the Holy Spirit means we shouldn't have proper safeguarding procedures against sexual or other abuse in the Orthodox or any other Christian church?
I've posted some links to comments by female theologians within Orthodoxy, not to convince you that everything's ok and there's nothing to see here, but to indicate that there is a growing debate about women's ministry and roles within the Orthodox Church which wasn't there to the same extent a generation ago.
But I can't speak for them. Follow some of the links and let these women speak for themselves.
Where have any of us here said that a belief in the guidance of the Holy Spirit means we shouldn't have proper safeguarding procedures against sexual or other abuse in the Orthodox or any other Christian church?
I haven't said anyone did! I'm saying if you can apply reason to that problem, which you have, you can apply reason to the position of women in the church.
I used to be in a protestant church, where a married couple ( woman & man) were the leaders, And having a woman in leadership did not prevent misogyny or spiritual abuse. As an unmarried woman, the only appropriate role available for me was to make tea & look after children. There was an extra special layer of misogyny due to my marital status. It was like being a frog in water being slowly brought up to the boil
On Holy Thursday, May 2, 2024, Angelic Molen was ordained to the diaconate in Harare, Zimbabwe. The Orthodox Church in Zimbabwe is part of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa (the Orthodox Church in the continent of Africa). Metropolitan Serafim Kykotis of Zimbabwe laid hands on Deaconess Angelic in St. Nektarios Mission Parish at Waterfall. A few days later, Metropolitan Serafim elevated her to the status of Archdeaconess and she took the additional name of “Phoebe” in honor of the Church’s first deaconess saint.
Also on that site, there's a short article by Dr Grace Hibshman about priestly ministry, which concludes:
In light of these ways that the priest represents the Theotokos and the Church, it’s not obvious from the fact that the priest represents Christ, that the priest ought to be male. If a male priest can represent the Church, the Bride of Christ, then by the same token why can’t a female priest represent Christ? We might ask similar questions about the priest’s representation of the Theotokos. Those who would like to continue advancing symbolic reasons for not ordaining women ought to supply clear answers to these questions. Of course, there are other reasons on the table for not ordaining women, (e.g. arguments from tradition.) I am not arguing that we should ordain women. However, as a church, especially as a church with such a rich theology of images and of the human person, we ought to be more careful about proclaiming that women are not fit to liturgically represent Christ.
Hi @Cactus I've not seen you before on this board. As host can I say please don't be discouraged from contributing. It's an entirely valid contribution which is on point for this board. Thank you for posting.
And can I remind other posters that this isnt Purgatory? Other people's lived experience of sexism is valuable and hearing it is important.
When other posters share their own voice experience about abusive misogynistic and sexist situations they've lived through - that can be hard to do - so let's please try and make more room for that.
I headed off what I thought you might say because multiple times on this thread people have argued against things I didn't say. I did not mean to imply you should shut up.
Comments
But I think it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that it didn't exist in the West prior to the Crusades, if indeed that is what Karen Carpenter is saying.
Nor am I saying that Western and Eastern Christianity were identical im every respect before the Great Schism, nor that they were unrecognisable to one another thereafter.
Tangent over.
What I hadn't realised was that the full quote actually credits Catholic religious orders as at least giving her something worthwhile to do. I do wonder how many times the Church has sought to "quench the Spirit" in women over the centuries.
But at some point there was a reason, even if in some cases it's been forgotten today. Someone or a group of someones made the decision, based on criteria of some kind, that women shouldn't be ordained. In the case of church traditions, usually somebody has written down the reason or criteria somewhere and they often aren't hard to find out.
Also, birthday parties are (usually) nice. Patriarchy has a body count, every day. If a religion, any religion's, traditions lead to misery and death, and they refuse to reconsider that part of their tradition in order to save human life, those deaths are on their hands.
Yeah, but when the works of service are assigned based solely on anatomy, it's a distinction without a difference. And presumably none of those kids was ordained yet, so it's not a matter of ordained persons vs. not ordained. It's just boys vs. not boys. I think the kids understood the situation perfectly clearly.
Plenty of groups have emergency exemptions to the rules. Catholics allow lay people to baptize or make confession to each other in life-threatening emergencies; a Reform Jewish friend once told me they're allowed to eat prohibited foods if there's no kosher food available and they're in danger of starvation. It doesn't mean the rules don't exist or that people are happy to break them.
I checked with a couple of people who had seminary training (which I have not had), and it seems that the answer to this question has varied (as you might expect for a church that has been around for 2000 years, across pretty much the entire globe). It seems to have been generally (but not universally) agreed, if the situation is dire, and it is absolutely impossible to get grape wine, or wheat bread, then the principal of economia would apply, and whatever was possible would be allowed. The differences over time and place seem to have been mostly about how dire the situation has to be, and how impossible the possibility of getting bread and wine would have to be, before substitutions could be made. And waiting for the bread or wine to arrive is a legitimate solution to the problem.
In ordinary times, under any but extreme conditions, the answer is no.
Legend has it that Lord Strathallan received the last rites with oatcakes and whisky at the Battle of Culloden, suggesting that Episcopalians applied a similar principle.
If it is indeed not hard to find the reason that women are not ordained to the priesthood in the Orthodox Church, perhaps you would be willing to provide it?
FWIW, I don't believe that "the reason" exists - I expect that there were many reasons that interacted in various ways over centuries and across cultures. Some of the reasons might have been written down somewhere, but they might have been considered so obvious at the time that no one thought it worth writing down. Or it was written down, but the manuscripts haven't survived for 2000 years. And given that we're looking at 2000 years, even finding something written somewhere doesn't mean you've found the reason. You've found a reason, which is not at all the same thing, and you have absolutely no way of knowing whether, when you read it, you have a clue what the writer meant by it.
And, perhaps more to the point, as I've said at least once on this thread, "We've always done it this way" is a perfectly legitimate reason for doing something in the Orthodox Church. The Holy Spirit has been our guide from the beginning, and we trust him to guide us in the way of truth.
It's true, of course, that as times and customs and cultures change, we might need to change directions in order to maintain our true course. It's possible that we change more slowly than some would like. Sometimes, that slowness is a good thing - fads and fashions usually pass us by. Sometimes it would be better if we changed faster. But, like ents, we're not hasty, and we want to make sure we've talked it all the way out, and understood every side of an issue, before we change. So we argue amongst ourselves, and trust that the Holy Spirit will keep us on a good path.
And the Holy Spirit hasn't been any more reliable in guiding the Orthodox than the Catholics, the Baptists or a number of other Protestant churches:
https://religionnews.com/2025/09/25/new-website-alerts-orthodox-church-to-clergy-sex-abuse-problem-it-must-reckon-with/
Although I did hear of one bishop who, when pressed by clergy to get a move on with safeguarding measures across the diocese, replied, 'That's a Roman Catholic problem, not ours ...'
Yes, Orthodoxy believes that the Holy Spirit will guide us into 'all truth.' It sounds glib to say that this doesn't mean that individual clergy aren't going to become abusers nor that structural issues may even facilitate that abuse.
One hopes that the Holy Spirit is at work though as this kind of abuse is exposed wherever it takes place, whether within Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism or the Protestant churches.
I have a distinct sense that you and @Gamma Gamaliel are using "through" in a subtly different way here.
There's the "through" of "teaching reading through phonics" and there's the through of "got home eventually through the dreadful traffic"
Although on second reading I notice that @Gamma Gamaliel said "though", not "through".
I’m afraid that second usage makes no sense to me in the context of saying the Holy Spirit works through a particular situation.* That second meaning would, in my experience, require a sentence along the lines of “The Holy Spirit works to enable us to get through this kind of situation.”
* I realize now, thanks to you, @KarlLB, that I misread what @Gamma Gamaliel wrote. My apologies, GG.
It's been a very long while since I participated in a thread in Epiphanies, so I could be misremembering norms, but this post seems rather more fitting for Hell. If this is expected behavior for Epiphanies, I am bowing out. I came here expecting a conversation. I do not have the time or energy to deal with whatever this is.
Ruth is entitled to that view, and it is up to Hosts and Admins to determine whether it is Hellish or within the bounds of Epiphanies.
I will observe though, that some posters on this thread have taken some of @Josephine's analogies out of context and used them to challenge me on the now closed Hell thread about my supporting sexism by joining the Orthodox Church.
I do wonder why they didn't seek clarification from josephine here rather than misrepresenting what she'd written elsewhere and using them as a stick to poke me with.
I hope josephine will feel able to contribute here as she offers an 'own voice' perspective from within one the historic Churches in a way that cgichard and myself can't.
It is, of course, up to her whether she feels able to do so.
Are you seriously suggesting that Josephine and by extension the Orthodox Church believes that m and women are different species?
FWIW, here is an interesting piece by an Orthodox Christian on the particular issues Orthodoxy faces in getting to grips with modernism in the way that 'Western' Christianity has been doing for some considerable time.
It's not 'own voice' as it's written by a man but it does provide some context and much food for thought for us Orthodox I think:
https://publicorthodoxy.org/2022/01/11/inequality-orthodox-christian-responses/
Categories are known to have subcategories. Wheat and rice, for example are subcategories of the category cereal grain. They are both types of grass.
Over-analysing metaphors is rarely helpful.
Pointing out that churches have ongoing and historic problems with child abuse which survivors are speaking out about, does not constitute a personal attack, even if another poster belongs to the church in question. Smearing churches with false/ distorted accusations from poor sources however would break the guidelines and probably C1 under sectarianism. But this isnt the case.
Can I remind posters that survivors of sexual abuse and survivors of sexual abuse in churches are posting on the Ship? It's a serious issue which needs to be treated seriously with own voice testimony from survivors.
Dragging in spats from Hell is not OK @Gamma Gamaliel If you've a beef with @Antisocial Alto for what she posted there, then starting a new hell thread with her or stopping it entirely are the options. Please stop this line of discussion and only refer to posts on this thread and this board.
Similarly accusing other posters of posting Hellishly or breaking the guidelines is junior hosting which also derails the thread - please do not do that on this board.
[Edited to add - people who really don’t like what another poster has posted have the option of calling them to Hell, if they think that the post though within the rules, warrants it]
If people want to question hosting or the guidelines then that belongs in the Styx.
Hosting with tags - warning
Finally if men want to discuss misogyny in the church it needs to centre women's voices and those of other minority genders who are most affected. Remember male voices are usually heard disproportionately in the media and in male led churches and organisations. We dont need another link to what men say about women in churches even if the man is own voice to a given denomination being discussed. Please do the extra work of finding what the range of views among women is.
I've now had to raise this multiple times on this thread and the other and will be consulting Admin about it.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
Hosting with tags off
Yes, but men and women and nb people are all the same subtype of grass.
In my first post on the subject I said Josephine's analogy implied that "the Orthodox view of men and women is that they're so different from each other that they might as well be different species." Gamma, you might want to think about why you keep jumping on me for restating the plain implication of the analogy. If you don't like what it implies, your problem is with the person who came up with, not with me.
Hi @Antisocial Alto
Pointing you to my host post above which you might have missed. Discussing Josephine's posts made here is fine, but not getting personal with @Gamma Gamaliel who's been hosted for importing disputes from Hell. The Hell element of the dispute needs to stop or go back to Hell.
Thanks!
Louise
Epiphanies Host
I can't say how they are the same species, of course, because they are not, I never said they were, and I do not understand how you could have gotten that out of what I said. I don't think I have ever given you any reason to think I was so stupid as to not understand that rice and what, or grapes and cherries, are different species, and that men and women are the same species. At the same time, I expected Shipmates to know that there are more ways to categorize things than by species, and it never occurred to me that you would not realize that the categories in my analogy were not species, but "things you can make bread out of" and "things you can make fermented beverages out of" and (by analogy) "things you can make priests out of."
I thought it was clear. If you genuinely didn't understand what I was saying, I apologize.
Louise, I have not been following or participating in the Hell thread, it was not until after I made my last post that I realized that I may have imported something back from Hell. I tried to do a "just in case" edit and failed for lack of "Vanilla.Comments.Edit" permission.
I apologize.
Yes, but (as I understood it) the categories are "different things you can make bread out of" and "different things you can make wine out of". A distinction can be drawn between grapes and blueberries. Your point seemed to be that the Orthodox consider men and women to be different from each other in some important way, something that's important enough to affect the sacraments. That's what I was responding to.
As far as I know, no synod or council has ever said that grapes are different from blueberries in any way that is important enough to affect the sacraments - only that grape wine is what we use (except, as noted previously, in absolutely dire situations). The point I was trying (and apparently failing) to make is that, as I understand it, the difference between grapes and blueberries, when it comes to the sacraments, is in fact utterly trivial. There is nothing about grapes that make them more suitable than blueberries for being fermented into communion wine. Nevertheless, grape wine is what we use, mostly because that's what Jesus used at the Last Supper. An accident of history, if you will. No value judgment implied.
As I understand it, the differences between men and women for the purposes of the sacrament of ordination are likewise trivial. Nevertheless, men are the matter we use for the sacrament. An accident of history. No value judgment implied.
And, yes there are people in the Church, both men and women, who would disagree with me. Some of the folks who agree with me have left the Church and found their homes elsewhere. At this time, I intend to stay in the Orthodox Church, where we are allowed to disagree with each other, to argue our respective opinions, to work things out.
But the way we do things, working things out takes time, and I think the horizon for changing anything about the priesthood would be very long indeed. I'd rather focus on the diaconate, where it is clear, from within our framework for deciding such things, that women should be deacons, that excluding women from the diaconate is a novelty and an aberration, and that it needs to be made right.
It's okay with me if it's okay with the hosts.
Gwai,
Epiphanies Host
Are you saying that churches with female clergy have less sexual abuse? Do you have research on that?
No. I'm saying the Holy Spirit has not proved to be a reliable guide.
When Baptists say they believe that the Holy Spirit guides them to 'find the mind of Christ' in the 'church meeting' they aren't saying that this leaves no room for individuals to err or sin.
A belief in the Holy Spirit's guidance doesn't obviate the need for vigilance, for proper safeguarding procedures and so on. There is a responsibility to listen to those who hsve suffered abuse and act upon their accounts to reduce the risk of these things happening again.
It's something that the Orthodox and other churches need to address irrespective of how we understand the guidance of the Holy Spirit- or even if we don't believe in the Holy Spirit at all - which people are entitled not to do if they wish.
Elaine Storkey’s book “Scars Across Humanity” is a well-researched and reliable guide re violence against women. It also contains an extensive critique of religious understandings, past and present.
(Elaine Storkey is a Christian feminist from an evangelical background)
Apologies for linking to a piece by a male commentator on the issue of gender roles within Orthodoxy.
Here are some links to female voices from within the Tradition.
First up, Dr Carrie Frederick Frost:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DREfWxFUJDc
The above video is only about 15 mins long and well worth a watch. I learned a lot.
I can't speak for Orthodoxy as a whole but in the circles I'm familiar with some of the more egregious issues around the supposed 'uncleanness' of women's (and indeed male) bodies at certain times appear to have receded.
Here's a longer video from a conference and which I've not watched all the way through:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XVI_KZASK8
There's also Dr Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald author of Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church.
Biog here: https://www.axiawomen.org/wow/kyriaki-karidoyanes-fitzgerald-notable-woman
Elisabeth Behr-Siegl is best known for her book co-authored with the late Metropolitan Kallistos Ware The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church. I've not read it, I'm afraid.
Finally, Dr Elena Narinskaya who leads the Women's Ministry Initiative as part of the work of the Fellowship of St John the Baptist here in the UK.
See: https://forerunner.org.uk/what-we-do/womens-ministries/
I have heard her speak at conferences.
An interview here alongside a friend who is a female Anglican priest.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cF2DU8IZA30
@josephine is saying there isn't an argument for or against ordaining women in the Orthodox Church. There's an explanation -- it's always been this way, and the Orthodox trust Tradition and the Holy Spirit. My objections to this as a defense for not changing, for not ordaining women, are that Tradition seems to have done nothing other than incorporate oppressive cultural norms and the Holy Spirit is demonstrably not a reliable guide against or protector from oppression and abuse. Most churches recognize this and have adopted safeguarding procedures against various forms of abuse. They don't simply say "God will guide us" -- and the ones that do just say that, that won't apply reason and think about why and how abuse takes place and do something about it, we know to stay away from.
I'm saying all churches should apply reason in the case of women's position in the church, not simply say it's always been this way and we trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The claim that not ordaining women does not imply a value judgement is frankly laughable. Of course it does. It always has, it always does; there are no grounds for saying the church is somehow different in this regard from every other institution that has kept women out of the formal leadership. Comparisons to the matter used in the sacraments are inapt -- cider and oats don't stand by and watch during services and know that they will never be deemed suitable.
Where have any of us here said that a belief in the guidance of the Holy Spirit means we shouldn't have proper safeguarding procedures against sexual or other abuse in the Orthodox or any other Christian church?
I've posted some links to comments by female theologians within Orthodoxy, not to convince you that everything's ok and there's nothing to see here, but to indicate that there is a growing debate about women's ministry and roles within the Orthodox Church which wasn't there to the same extent a generation ago.
But I can't speak for them. Follow some of the links and let these women speak for themselves.
I haven't said anyone did! I'm saying if you can apply reason to that problem, which you have, you can apply reason to the position of women in the church.
Just in case it's necessary, I will note that I didn't claim that it does.
And can I remind other posters that this isnt Purgatory? Other people's lived experience of sexism is valuable and hearing it is important.
When other posters share their own voice experience about abusive misogynistic and sexist situations they've lived through - that can be hard to do - so let's please try and make more room for that.
Thanks
Louise
Epiphanies Host
I headed off what I thought you might say because multiple times on this thread people have argued against things I didn't say. I did not mean to imply you should shut up.