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

[KP3243]

Oops Saint Martha’s Feast day is tomorrow, I am getting it confused with the name day we have in our family I have on Wednesday.

 

[Seraphim73]

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.

Men used to be and still are in Old Believer parishes required to wear a beard. All Orthodox bishops wear beards. Do you think if one of them shaved one morning he would be deposed and excommunicated? Churches also never had pews, men and women stood on different sides and women were not allowed to attend liturgy during their period. These are all disciplines. Many of them still in place in parts of the world. But putting head coverings on par with dogmatic truths is simply ridiculous and a waste of time.

 

[GKC]

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?

No. All 38 Churches forming the Anglican Communion are auto-cephalous, totally independent and self-governing. The union is merely that they are in communion, with each other and Canterbury, as the figurehead of the Anglican Communion.

Other Anglican jurisdictions, such as those referred to as the Anglican Continuum, are equally independent, if not more so.

GKC

 

[dzheremi]

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

It has?

Anyway…I wish I could get a sense of why the Church of England has done this. All of the media reports I’ve read point out how ‘historic’ the decision is, and how it affirms the CoE’s commitment to the concept of equality as defined by secular society, etc. None of it says why they decided this, though. I was even just on the church’s website and could find a lot of press releases about how they’re writing up some kind of directive on how to implement the decision, but nothing on why they made the decision in the first place. Not that I would be swayed by any particular idea they could appeal to, but I would at least like to know what motivated them to break with 2,000 years of Christian tradition.

While it is in no way to my own credit, I will say that controversies and potential ruptures like this make me glad that I am Orthodox. We have of course many examples in our church of women in leadership and teaching roles, both in the ancient history of the church (i.e., the Desert Mothers) and in the modern day (i.e., Tamav Erini, the Abbess of the convent of St. Philopateer Mercurius/Abu Seifein in Old Cairo), but none of these involve women becoming priests or bishops, as far as I am aware. We do not know better than our holy fathers and mothers.

 

[James82]

The ordination of women is heresy plain and simple. The Orthodox/Eastern and Catholic Churches cannot ordain women because it is heretical. Since one of the Churches which has possibilities of an Apostolic order within it has begun to ordain women these orders are now fast becoming nullified. We are dealing here with heresy regarding the ordination of women within an Apostolic Church. The problem with heresy is the heretics would never change once they make up their minds. Even the great councils of the past did not change those heretics when the councils brought out more the truth. Those councils had to wait until the heresy died out with those heretics. Since the councils brought out more the truth than it was the job of the Church to teach this truth to the people. Since more people understood what the truth was and to what the heresy was than those who had known the truth become more involved within the Church and those who went along with the heresy just died out. It is sad when we are dealing with heresy here because we need to focus more on the saving Graces of our Lord as He pours them out through His Church. The Eastern/Orthodox and Catholic Churches need to make more statements acknowledging that the ordination of women is not possible. We need to move on towards the goal of witnessing to our Lord working towards a more unified Church within Catholicism and the Eastern Churches. It seems that the goal of a unified Church with the Anglicans and other Protestant groups is fast becoming impossible. Too many changes within those Communions cannot be acceptable to the Orthodox/Eastern and Catholic Churches.

Couldn’t of put it better myself!

 

[James82]

A few posters seem to be befuddled as to the ‘why’; as in …“Why would the Church of Enger-land do this?..”.

The short and brutal answer is: spend some time in the UK.

I have, and while there is much to cherish of it’s history, the UK is shot through and through on every societal level. Absolutely barbaric and secular.

 

[Tomdstone]

Tomdstone;12210666:

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?

Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was cardinal, authorized women to conduct a communion service when a priest was not available. Although a Mass may be scheduled at that time, a woman may celebrate the communion service in the absence of the priest.

 

[Tomdstone]

It has? .

If you will attend a Roman Mass in the USA, you will not see women wearing headcovering. Even at the Eastern Orthodox liturgy in the USA I don’t see women wearing headcovering, even when the ecumenical patriarch His All Holiness Bartholomew was present.
This was a tradition of 2000 years as we see in the icons of the Mother of God, for women to wear headcovering. The proof of this is that you are not going to find many, if any, icons of the Mother of God without headcovering.

 

[Tomdstone]

Men used to be and still are in Old Believer parishes required to wear a beard. All Orthodox bishops wear beards. Do you think if one of them shaved one morning he would be deposed and excommunicated? Churches also never had pews, men and women stood on different sides and women were not allowed to attend liturgy during their period. These are all disciplines. Many of them still in place in parts of the world. But putting head coverings on par with dogmatic truths is simply ridiculous and a waste of time.

Not really, because you have not given me one example of an icon of the Most Holy Theotokos where she is not wearing headcovering. Why do you suppose that the icons of the Mother of God always show Her wearing headcovering? The wearing of headcovering for women is a Scriptural command given in the New Testament. The wearing of beards is not, AFAIK and correct me if I am wrong here, but the wearing of beards by men is not required in the New Testament or is it? I thought it was an Old Testament requirement, but I could be wrong on that. Also, I don’t see in the New Testament where it is forbidden for Churches to have pews. I could also be wrong on that, but I haven’t seen the Scriptural reference from the New Testament where it forbids all Churches to have pews.

 

[SyroMalankara]

KP3243;12210727:

Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was cardinal, authorized women to conduct a communion service when a priest was not available. Although a Mass may be scheduled at that time, a woman may celebrate the communion service in the absence of the priest.

This is a misleading statement. A communion service may be lead by any lay person baptized and able to read, there is no distinction between man, woman, child or elderly. A communion service is not to be pre-planned and is used in an emergency, when a priest cannot make or doesn’t show to a scheduled Mass.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Not really, because you have not given me one example of an icon of the Most Holy Theotokos where she is not wearing headcovering. Why do you suppose that the icons of the Mother of God always show Her wearing headcovering? The wearing of headcovering for women is a Scriptural command given in the New Testament. The wearing of beards is not, AFAIK and correct me if I am wrong here, but the wearing of beards by men is not required in the New Testament or is it? I thought it was an Old Testament requirement, but I could be wrong on that. Also, I don’t see in the New Testament where it is forbidden for Churches to have pews. I could also be wrong on that, but I haven’t seen the Scriptural reference from the New Testament where it forbids all Churches to have pews.

Oh, you’re one of those “show me literally in the Scripture types…”, you seem to be missing the point of who you are directing this view toward.

Also, you are missing the point of iconography and the message that is conveyed.

 

[josie_L]

]Cardinal Ratzinger, when he was cardinal, authorized women to conduct a communion service when a priest was not available. Although a Mass may be scheduled at that time, a woman may celebrate the communion service in the absence of the priest.

If you’re going to write something like this on a Catholic forum, it’s best you site a source.

 

[dzheremi]

If you will attend a Roman Mass in the USA, you will not see women wearing headcovering. Even at the Eastern Orthodox liturgy in the USA I don’t see women wearing headcovering, even when the ecumenical patriarch His All Holiness Bartholomew was present.
This was a tradition of 2000 years as we see in the icons of the Mother of God, for women to wear headcovering. The proof of this is that you are not going to find many, if any, icons of the Mother of God without headcovering.

Okay. I was just wondering because I was not aware that any of the EO had abandoned headcovering. To the best of my recollection, most women were covered whenever I visited the OCA church back home. Hmm. I suppose you can find variation everywhere, but I would be surprised if this was some kind of synodal decision comparable to that of the Church of England on women bishops.

 

[Tomdstone]

This is a misleading statement. A communion service may be lead by any lay person baptized and able to read, there is no distinction between man, woman, child or elderly. A communion service is not to be pre-planned and is used in an emergency, when a priest cannot make or doesn’t show to a scheduled Mass.

Yes. What you say is true. I did not intend to mislead. You are correct in this. However, my point was that I have witnessed a case where a lay baptized woman did give the communion service which was used when the priest was not present. I don’t think that what you have said negates my point that women are allowed to give this service, without headcovering, in Church, but that Scripture and tradition mandate that women wear headcovering and that they be silent in Church. For 2000 years, however, the rule for women in church was different. All of a sudden this rule was changed with no warning. Women are still not allowed to be priests, but can it be argued that the new roles for women in conducting a communion service without headcovering, in distributing Holy Communion without headcovering, in reading the epistles and announcements without headcovering, are a movement in that direction?

 

[Tomdstone]

Okay. I was just wondering because I was not aware that any of the EO had abandoned headcovering. To the best of my recollection, most women were covered whenever I visited the OCA church back home. Hmm. I suppose you can find variation everywhere, but I would be surprised if this was some kind of synodal decision comparable to that of the Church of England on women bishops.

OCA may enforce the rule. I don’t know about that. But I saw examples in EO Churches where women do not wear headcovering even though His All Holiness was present.

 

[Tomdstone]

Also, you are missing the point of iconography and the message that is conveyed.

OK. Can you then kindly tell us why the Mother of God is always depicted in icons as wearing headcovering and why St. Paul says that women should wear headcovering in Church?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

OK. Can you then kindly tell us why the Mother of God is always depicted in icons as wearing headcovering and why St. Paul says that women should wear headcovering in Church?

Head coverings were, at the time, worn to be symbolic of a truth. This symbolism is explicitly stated where St. Paul makes the requirement, but it is still symbolism. Since then the truth has not changed, but as the effectiveness of symbolism depends on both what it symbolizes and on those who it is supposed to be symbolizing it to, a certain type of symbolism can become less useful as cultures change - despite the truth that it points to remaining constant. And so those in authority have decided that since the symbolism in head coverings is no longer as strong as it was, the requirement to always treat this symbol seriously and abide by the rules that treating it seriously would require can be dispensed with. But the symbol of head coverings is not entirely impotent, and still survives in icons of Mary and the practice of veiling and similar where such practices are still maintained.

The priesthood, however, is not a merely a symbol. Ordination imparts an indelible mark on the soul. Saying that this cannot happen to a woman is very distinct from saying that a certain symbol of an unchanging truth should be respected in one time when the symbolism is strong, or need not be when the symbolism is weaker. What Paul said is, essentially, “head coverings and bare heads mean this to us, so let them be used in this way.” But they no longer mean that to us, or at least not as strongly, so there is no need for the instruction on how they be used to be enforced. Again, symbols are subjective. Whereas the priesthood is not subjective - it is and remains what it always was, and so cannot change as our perspectives do.

 

[Cavaradossi]

If you will attend a Roman Mass in the USA, you will not see women wearing headcovering. Even at the Eastern Orthodox liturgy in the USA I don’t see women wearing headcovering, even when the ecumenical patriarch His All Holiness Bartholomew was present.

America is a strangely liberal place, but I can tell you from experience that women who visit services at the monasteries founded by geronta Ephraim always cover their hair. Why exactly this doesn’t seem to translate over to the parish life of the GOA, I don’t know, but I have hope that the monasteries will purge Orthodoxy in America of some bad American influences.

 

[KP3243]

Tomdstone;12211427:

This is a misleading statement. A communion service may be lead by any lay person baptized and able to read, there is no distinction between man, woman, child or elderly. A communion service is not to be pre-planned and is used in an emergency, when a priest cannot make or doesn’t show to a scheduled Mass.

A communion service means the host was already consecrated by a priest. Any lay person can assist in a communion service. This happens in areas like Iraq, China and rural parts of Africa where there isn’t another mass anywhere near them or the priests are in hiding because of persecution he won’t do a mass so that he won’t get arrested and then lay faithful would be without the Eucharist. Communion service is only to be used in extreme circumstances most of the world does not fall into this category, Praise God! During the Reformation, the laymen would dress like priests when they met out in the woods for mass so if they were caught the layman would get arrested so the rest of the community could still have the Eucharist. Old homes in England will have priest holes in them if they were in Recusant Catholic areas.

 

[KP3243]

I am still not sure why some people are comparing disciplines like wearing mantillas with a vocation and sacred Holy Orders like the priesthood which is a vocation that only the Holy Spirit can awaken.