Russian Orthodox statement on The Church of England's decision to allow female bishops

[pablope]

Isn’t it true that women were traditionally and in accordance with Scripture required to wear headcovering in Church? I have seen many women without headcovering in Eastern Orthodox Churches in the USA.

There is a distinction between practices customs and local traditions versus Tradition…also called Sacred Tradition or Apostolic Tradition.

Headcovering would fall under local practice or local tradition.

 

[Seraphim73]

Isn’t it true that women were traditionally and in accordance with Scripture required to wear headcovering in Church? I have seen many women without headcovering in Eastern Orthodox Churches in the USA.

And men used to always wear suits and women wore dresses to church.

Headcoverings are not part of the deposit of faith although I wish it was still a common practice. It would be akin to saying “well we’re going to no longer teach that Jesus is God. We know that has always been the teaching of the church but don’t forget, women used to be required to cover their heads in church and they don’t do that anymore so obviously teachings change.”

 

[Novocastrian]

And men used to always wear suits and women wore dresses to church.

Headcoverings are not part of the deposit of faith although I wish it was still a common practice. It would be akin to saying “well we’re going to no longer teach that Jesus is God. We know that has always been the teaching of the church but don’t forget, women used to be required to cover their heads in church and they don’t do that anymore so obviously teachings change.”

Well this is entirely the issue. Women bishops are a problem if, and only if, the maleness of the clergy is part of the deposit of the faith. I fail to see how and why it might be. Roman Catholics and Orthodox beg to differ.

 

[Seraphim73]

The Church of England is the ancient Church in this country, reformed during the sixteenth century. The Anglican Communion is a worldwide fellowship of Churches which mostly began as overseas provinces of the Church of England within British colonies. The Episcopal Church is one of these.

The Church of England is no longer a “church” as it has no bishops and no Eucharist.

 

[Novocastrian]

The Church of England is no longer a “church” as it has no bishops and no Eucharist.

Obviously I, and the members of the Church of England, see things rather differently.

 

[dissurnmnt]

The ordination of women is heresy plain and simple.

:clapping: :tiphat:

Bravo to the RO’s for standing up for the truth. They’ve got guts.

 

[Seraphim73]

Well this is entirely the issue. Women bishops are a problem if, and only if, the maleness of the clergy is part of the deposit of the faith. I fail to see how and why it might be. Roman Catholics and Orthodox beg to differ.

How can it not be part of the deposit of faith? It is explicitly taught in Scripture and has been the unanimous practice of all the ancient Apostolic Churches from the very beginning.

 

[Tomdstone]

And men used to always wear suits and women wore dresses to church.

Headcoverings are not part of the deposit of faith although I wish it was still a common practice. It would be akin to saying “well we’re going to no longer teach that Jesus is God. We know that has always been the teaching of the church but don’t forget, women used to be required to cover their heads in church and they don’t do that anymore so obviously teachings change.”

Scripture does not require for men to wear suits in Church. Scripture and Tradition do require that women wear headcovering in Church. This has been overturned after 2000 years of constant and traditional practice. Similarly, there are those who say that the restriction on women priests should be overturned, as they claim that this is a disciplinary issue.

 

[SteveVH]

How can it not be part of the deposit of faith? It is explicitly taught in Scripture and has been the unanimous practice of all the ancient Apostolic Churches from the very beginning.

Thank you.

 

[pablope]

Okay…how do you propose Christ will let His truth be known? Do you expect Him to appear and speak? If not, then who do you think should speak on His behalf on earth?

Through his Church, holding the faith and correctly interpreting Holy Scripture.

Who in the Church would speak for the Church? Who mouth the truth of Christ for the Church?

And what is your standard for the correct interpretation of Scripture?

I think we’re all capable of speaking the truth…So we are all infallible? You are infallible?.

No. I explicitly denied that.

Then who is capable of speaking the truth for the Church?

Human fallibility means that the authority is conditional…Authority is conditional on teaching the truth. This is what Roman Catholics hold; a manifest heretic has no authority in general. A misinformed cleric or theologian has no authority to teach a mistaken belief or error.

But again, what is the standard for teaching the truth? How do you distinguish the truth from error?

Do you think JPII was teaching authoritatively on the ordination of women priests…not to ordain women?

In real terms, I imagine that would depend on what exactly he was teaching. If he denied the Trinity, then I reckon almost any Christian would be able to tell him that he’d lost his authority!

But the the JWs, would then say he is teaching the truth, according to them…

This goes back to this question: But again, what is the standard for teaching the truth? How do you distinguish the truth from error?

 

[GKC]

The Church of England is the ancient Church in this country, reformed during the sixteenth century. The Anglican Communion is a worldwide fellowship of Churches which mostly began as overseas provinces of the Church of England within British colonies. The Episcopal Church is one of these.

And there are Anglicans outside all these parameters, to add spice.

And you are now at 4 figures in posts.

GKC

 

[Tomdstone]

There is a distinction between practices customs and local traditions versus Tradition…also called Sacred Tradition or Apostolic Tradition.

Headcovering would fall under local practice or local tradition.

Oh. Do you say that in the early Church, there were places where women did not wear headcovering. Have you ever seen an icon of the Mother of God where she was not wearing a headcovering? Why do you suppose that the Mother of God is always depicted in icons as wearing headcovering? Why do Catholics and Orthodox today reject the ancient and Scriptural tradition of the Church that women wear headcovering? Shouldn’t Catholic and Orthodox women follow the perfect example of the Mother of God and wear headcovering in Church or is this just a disciplinary issue which can be changed later on? If it is only a disciplinary issue, subject to change, and does not affect the essential questions of the Faith, then people are going to argue the same for a female priesthood.

 

[Tomdstone]

Do you think JPII was teaching authoritatively on the ordination of women priests…not to ordain women?

 

[KP3243]

Jesus didn’t ordained women to the priesthood and Church isn’t going to either.

 

[Tomdstone]

The Church of England is the ancient Church in this country, reformed during the sixteenth century. The Anglican Communion is a worldwide fellowship of Churches which mostly began as overseas provinces of the Church of England within British colonies. The Episcopal Church is one of these.

Thank you. So does that mean that they are all part of the same Church which ultimately is under or at least in some union with the archbishop of Canterbury?

 

[KP3243]

Oh. Do you say that in the early Church, there were places where women did not wear headcovering. Have you ever seen an icon of the Mother of God where she was not wearing a headcovering? Why do you suppose that the Mother of God is always depicted in icons as wearing headcovering? Why do Catholics and Orthodox today reject the ancient and Scriptural tradition of the Church that women wear headcovering? Shouldn’t Catholic and Orthodox women follow the perfect example of the Mother of God and wear headcovering in Church or is this just a disciplinary issue which can be changed later on? If it is only a disciplinary issue, subject to change, and does not affect the essential questions of the Faith, then people are going to argue the same for a female priesthood.

I know women who wear mantillas, and if I go to a Latin mass I would put one on just because not all women wear them doesn’t mean the Church eliminated it. Any female who visits the Vatican wears one when she meets the Pope, Mrs. Obama even wore one and there is a HUGE difference between a mantilla and sacred Holy Orders given by Jesus himself.

 

[Tomdstone]

I know women who wear mantillas, and if I go to a Latin mass I would put one on just because not all women wear them doesn’t mean the Church eliminated it. Any female who visits the Vatican wears one when she meets the Pope, Mrs. Obama even wore one and there is a HUGE difference between a mantilla and sacred Holy Orders given by Jesus himself.

Catholic women without headcovering are also reading Epistles, giving sermons, celebrating the entire Catholic communion service and in general are not observing the Scriptural requirement that women be silent in Church. So the discipline mandated by Scripture has changed since Vatican II.

 

[KP3243]

Catholic women without headcovering are also reading Epistles, giving sermons, celebrating the entire Catholic communion service and in general are not observing the Scriptural requirement that women be silent in Church. So the discipline mandated by Scripture has changed since Vatican II.

Like I said before, there is a Huge difference between mantillas, reading the lectionary and Sacred Holy Orders ordained by Christ. Women have been spreading the Gospel message outside of the mass since the beginning. Our little first century hostesses with the mostest whose Feast Day is on Wednesday is one of my favorites! Catherine of Siena, Theresa of Avila and Saint Faustina are some of my other favorites!

 

[Peter_Plato]

At one time, it was unanimous and the witness of Tradition and Scripture for women to wear headcovering in church. However, that has changed.

Women wearing head covering may have been a common practice even in Pre-Christian Judaism, but it never was definitively prescribed in the Torah or anywhere else in Scripture. Male priesthood, however, has been the definitive practice in every covenant from the Patriarchs, through Moses with the Levitical priesthood and continued in the Kingdom of Israel. It wasn’t merely cultural practice, but clearly required in Mosaic Law and Scripture.

Jesus continued the requirement by choosing all-male Apostles for the founding priesthood of Christianity.

Merely because human beings do not understand the warrant for it, does not mean God does not have good reason for doing so. Neither do we understand, for example, why only women can bear children. There are some good grounds for accepting it as God’s will, even though we do not fully comprehend it.

Peter Kreeft outlines some very thoughtful reasoning for why the Church will not and cannot change this practice.

youtu.be/kgou9QDR4KM

 

[KP3243]

Catholic women without headcovering are also reading Epistles, giving sermons, celebrating the entire Catholic communion service and in general are not observing the Scriptural requirement that women be silent in Church. So the discipline mandated by Scripture has changed since Vatican II.

/-]]

I have never seen a women give a homily/sermon in my life and I don’t know what you mean by “celebrating the entire Catholic communion service” are you saying you have seen a woman consecrate the Eucharist during the sacrificial offering of the mass?