.png "English"){kind=small}
THE
ROLE OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH, THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN, AND THE ORDER OF
DEACONESSES:
AN
ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL APPROACH
O ΡΟΛΟΣ ΤΩΝ
ΓΥΝΑΙΚΩΝ ΣΤΗΝ ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ, ΧΕΙΡΟΤΟΝΙΑ ΤΩΝ ΓΥΝΑΙΚΩΝ ΚΑΙ Ο ΘΕΣΜΟΣ ΤΩΝ ΔΙΑΚΟΝΙΣΣΩΝ:
ΟΡΘΟΔΟΞΗ ΘΕΟΛΟΓΙΚΗ
ΠΡΟΣΕΓΓΙΣΗ
The role of women in the Church, their access to the “sacramental”
priesthood, and the order of Deaconesses, are three different – though
inter-related – issues that occupy our current theological discourse. Within
the Orthodox world, the ordination of women by and large was vehemently
rejected as an issue of non-inner pastoral concern, and an alien western
phenomenon, mainly influenced by the ideals of modernity.
Having been engaged during my tenure as an academic theologian with other
more debated issues in Orthodox theology, [i] I was reluctant – as so many other
theologians in our time – to engage in a thorough scholarly research for such a
“non-issue” of my Church. However, quite recently, I have actively been
involved for more than two years with a seminar and an international conference
on “Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology,” and especially
with the editing of their Proceedings.[ii]
I therefore feel compelled – not to say responsible – to attempt an Orthodox
theological approach, especially after the courageous decision of the Patriarch
of Alexandria Mgr. Theodoros II to revive the order of Deaconesses in his
Church. Dedicating with gratitude this study to him I will try to responsibly
respond to the above delicate issues on the basis both of the latest decisions
of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, held in Crete in June
2016,[iii]
and of the latest scientific results of contemporary Orthodox theology.[iv]
*
The Holy and Great Council in its mission
document, “The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World,” has declared that the hope of the Church
“is
experienced and foretasted by the Church, especially each time the Divine
Eucharist is celebrated, bringing together (I
Cor 11:20) the scattered
children of God (Jn 11:52) without regard to race, sex, age,
social, or any other condition into a single body where there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female (Gal
3:28; cf. Col 3:11)” (Preamble).
And in its section E on “The Attitude of the Church toward
Discrimination,” that
“The Orthodox Church…believes that God has made from one blood every nation of
men to dwell on all the face of the earth (Acts 17:26) and
that in Christ there is
neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male
nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:28)”
(par. 2).
Of course, the issue of
deaconesses (and indirectly the ordination of women) were not in the agenda of
this vital Pan-Orthodox Council.[v] However, the issue the revival of the order of
Deaconesses was high on the agenda of the Russian Orthodox Church’s Sobor before the outbreak of the
communist Bolshevik revolution. And in addition, at the
March 2014 Synaxis of the Primates of
the Orthodox Church that decided this long awaited Council the Archbishop of
Cyprus, Mgr. Chrysostomos, had stated that
“we
should ask ourselves the question of the status of women in the Church. Great
Christian Denominations, like Anglicanism, have introduced the ordination of
women. With biblical and Patristic arguments we should consolidate our
position, and study seriously and proceed to the restoration of the order of
deaconesses in the Church, taking of course into account all aspects of the
issue.”[vi]
*
More than 60 years ago
Professor Emeritus Evangelos Theodorou, a respected Orthodox scholar, now 96
years old, opened the discussion within the Orthodox theological circles on the
thorny issue of the ordination of women to the sacramental priesthood with his
doctoral dissertation on deaconesses.[vii] The
semi-official, however, position till now of the Orthodox Church on all the
above issues was expressed at an ad hoc
inter-Orthodox Conference in 1988 at the Greek island of Rhodes. Convened on
the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, this conference has come to some
preliminary conclusions,[viii] the
relevant to our subject points of which are as follows:
On the place of women,
for the first time in official documents, an important self-critical assessment
of the situation was made:
“While recognizing these facts, which witness to the promotion through
the Church of
the equality of honour between
men and women,
it
is necessary to confess
in honesty and with humility, that,
owing to human weakness and sinfulness, the Christian communities have not always
and
in all places been able to suppress effectively ideas, manners and customs, historical developments and social conditions which have resulted in practical discrimination against women. Human sinfulness has thus led to practices which do not reflect the true nature of the Church in Jesus Christ”
(24).
Equally significant was the position taken with regard
to the order of deaconesses:
“The apostolic order
of deaconesses should be revived.
It
was never altogether abandoned in the Orthodox Church though it has tended to fall into
disuse. There is ample
evidence, from apostolic times, from the patristic,
canonical and liturgical tradition, well into the Byzantine period (and even in our own day) that this order was held in high honour” (32).
Finally, with regard to the
overall issue of the ordination of women:
“The impossibility of the ordination of women to the special
priesthood as
founded in the Tradition of the Church has been expressed in
these ecclesiastically rooted positions: (a) on the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who did not select any woman as one of His Apostles; (b) on the example of the Theotokos, who did not exercise the sacramental priestly
function in the Church, even though she was made worthy to become the Mother
of the Incarnate Son and Word of God; (c) on the Apostolic Tradition, according to which the Apostles, following the example
of the Lord, never
ordained any
women to this special priesthood in the Church; (d)
on some Pauline teachings concerning the
place of women
in the Church, and
(e) on
the
criterion of analogy, according to which, if the exercise of the sacramental
priesthood by women were permitted, then
it should
have
been
exercised
by the Theotokos” (14).
Recently, however, the
review of the views by His Eminence Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware), the first
modern Orthodox theologian who systematically formulated theological views on
this issue,[ix] the
studies by Elizabeth Behr-Sigel,[x] by
Nikolaos Matsoukas, the Orthodox Dogmatic Theologian of the Aristotle
University of Thessaloniki,[xi] as well
as some recent doctoral dissertations[xii] and
postdoctoral monographs[xiii] by
Orthodox, and especially the enormous developments in Biblical, Systematic,
Historical, Patristic, and even Sociological studies,[xiv] have
made a better documentation of the official theological position of the Orthodox Church a quite urgent need.
Several years ago His
Eminence Metropolitan of Pergamon John (Zizioulas), representing the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, and addressing the Anglican communion during their regular
conference at Lambeth, drew the attention of all, that the solution to this
thorny issue, which torments the Christian world, and has divided vertically
and horizontally the various Christian denominations, can be found neither by
arguments from sociology, nor
exclusively by arguments from tradition.
What the Christian community desperately needs is mainly theological arguments.
*
All these prompted the Center of Ecumenical, Missiological and
Environmental Studies “Metropolitan Panteleimon Papageorgiou” (CEMES) to
convene and international conference on “Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women
and Orthodox Theology”, held in Thessaloniki (20-23 January 2015). The conference covered all areas of Biblical, Patristic, Liturgical,
and Systematic theology, and also some other areas related to the theme of the
conference. Its main focus, and its basic concept, was the Orthodox theological
approach to the revival of the traditional order “Deaconesses.” However, the
conference also dealt with the thorny issue of the “Ordination of Women”,
especially with the theological perspective of the admission or not of women
into the sacramental priesthood, reversing somewhat the wording of the
Patriarchal invitation to the conference in Rhodes late in the 80s, with the
emphasis shifting from “exclusion” to
the “admission.”
This small but substantial change was prompted
by the reflections of the international symposium, held one year earlier and
based mainly on the thoughts and proposals by the Professor Emeritus Evangelos
Theodorou, to whom the conference was dedicated, who stated:
“In the debate on the
general ordination of women the Orthodox theology should not resort to
inappropriate use of human, biological concepts about the alleged male or
female sex of each of the persons of the Holy Trinity, thus destroying the
apophatic and inaccessible to human intellect character of the Trinitarian
doctrine. Ecclesiological rather criteria must be used aimed at building the
Church of Christ. We must also use the Christological theology, which teaches
about a Theanthropic God and in God’s salvific work which incorporated and
received the whole human nature, male and female. And so we must seek the
division of responsibilities of the Church’s ministers according to the variety
of their charisms. This variety of charisms has particularly brought forward
the ancient Church”. [xv]
Prof. Theodorou made
another important observation, namely that the interpretation in our canonical
sources, that the deaconess as a symbol of the Holy Spirit, had a higher
position than that of the presbyters, who were considered as symbols of the
Apostles, should at least upgrade the status of women regarding the theological
legitimacy of participation in the sacramental priesthood. None, of course, of
the Orthodox theologians who have been involved or engaged in theological
investigation of the matter (Metropolitan of Diokleia Kallistos Ware,
Metropolitan Anthony of Souroz of blessed memory, and Prof. Theodorou) dispute,
that on the basis of “tradition” and the current canonical order of the
Orthodox Church (“τό
γε νυν έχον”, as Prof. Theodorou brilliantly underlined) women are excluded from the
sacramental “hierourgic” priesthood;
but not from the “diaconal” one.
The argument,
therefore, “from tradition” (a concept so important in history of the Eastern
Orthodox Church – for many unfortunately, even nowadays, over and above the
teaching of Jesus Christ") continues to be, despite the warning by
Metropolitan of Pergamon I mentioned above, a powerful and largely
non-negotiable criterion for reopening of the theological debate on the issue;
in many cases, even without the necessary distinction between the Apostolic
"T"radition and the various subsequent “t”raditions.
But beyond this
necessary distinction, which officially the Orthodox Church has adopted –
namely the preeminence of the Apostolic
Tradition – just adding that she is its authentic bearer and custodian, modern
theological scholarship has advanced an equally important distinction: that of
authentic but latent tradition, and
that which was historically formed.
Classical example of this is the institution of the order of deaconesses.
However, even if we
stick into this “historical” Orthodox tradition, how can one ignore the gradual
degradation of women in the history of Western Christianity on three issues:
the position of Mary Magdalene, St. Junia the Apostle, and the order of
deaconesses, when the long tradition of the East took pride of these women and
institution? The most indisputable scientific result, the existence in the New
Testament and the first Christian centuries of women baring the solemn
attribute “apostle” (e.g. Junia), how can it be ignored by the Orthodox,
especially in the list of the theological arguments on the issue of restoring
the order of deaconesses (i.e. of the admission of women into the sacramental
“diaconal” priesthood)? And especially today, when it is indeed more urgently
needed than ever, as the Rhodes consultation has stated,[xvi] and the
Ecumenical Patriarch has openly declared at an international meeting in
Constantinople?[xvii]
Finally, it is worth
mentioning what revealing Patriarch Gregory of Antioch wrote in a speech on the
Myrrh-bearers, as late as the 6th century AD. There he clearly
connected women not only with the “ordination” but also with the “apostolic”
office, (Μαθέτω Πέτρος ὁ ἀρνησάμενός
με, ὃτι
δύναμαι καὶ γυναῖκας ἀποστόλους χειροτονεῖν, “Let Peter who has denied me learn that I am able to ordain also women
as Apostles”).[xviii]
This textual evidence, an indirect reference to the latent authentic tradition, perhaps proves that it is not
completely without evidence in the Eastern Christian tradition a different
attitude by the Orthodox regarding the liturgical status of women, at least
different from the conventional one. Interestingly – even ironically – enough
the same period in the West another Gregory, the famous Pope Gregory the Great,
had unconsciously been responsible for degrading the memory of St. Mary
Magdalene from an outstanding female leader of the Church to a repenting sinful
woman.[xix]
Notwithstanding what I
very briefly mentioned so far, there are also difficulties and problems in the
restoration of the order of the sacramental priesthood of deaconesses. Recently
in the Orthodox diaspora, mainly among the converts from the extreme
conservative Evangelical stream, the following argument is being developed: Any
rejuvenation of the order of deaconesses, although it is testified in the long
Eastern Orthodox tradition and despite its ecumenical, synodical and canonical
validity, is undesirable for the simple reason – the argument goes on – that it
may open a wide window for the adoption also of the ordination of women. Such
novel views, which as it happens in many issues have been imported to the
Orthodox tradition, especially among conservative circles, justifies the
importance of a theological approach also to the general issue of women's
ordination.[xx]
And to return to the issue of deaconesses, such
arguments – fortunately not officially formulated by the Orthodox Church –
create a feeling of an unacceptable theological inconsistency, which will
irreparably damage the reliability of Orthodox theology. How can some
theologians continue to rely basically on tradition for the general issue of
the ordination of women and at the same time ignore or reject it in the case of
the ordination of deaconesses?
With the exception of the
recommendation that the forthcoming Pan-Orthodox Council consider the
restoration of the Order of Deaconesses,[xxi] the
above conference did not come to other conclusions, choosing to leave any final
decision to the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities in the hope that they
will also consider other relevant parameters. The majority of the speakers
simply underlined the inconsistency in the current conventional Orthodox view.
To this end in the final communique the following theological concerns were
expressed:
1.
How important, for the Orthodox
Church’s theological arsenal, is the fact that the institution of deaconesses
has a conciliar ecumenical and canonical foundation, which in fact has never
been repealed by subsequent synodical decision?
2.
Since deaconesses were installed into their
ministry through ordination (hierotonia),
which was the same as that for the major orders of the clergy, and not by
simple laying on of hands (hierothesia),
and their ordination had an absolute likeness in form and content with the
ordinations of the major order of the clergy, does not the reluctance by many
Orthodox Churches to proceed to the rejuvenation of the order of deaconesses
affect the witness of the Church today?
3.
Can the clear assurance in the ancient prayers
that Christ did not ban women also
from having liturgical duties in the churches (see, “rejecting no woman…from
serving in your holy houses” [ὁ μηδὲ γυναίκας…λειτουργεῖν τοῖς ἁγίοις οἴκοις σου ἀποβαλλόμενος]) help the Orthodox Church to immediately proceed to the rejuvenation of the order of deaconesses?
4.
Can the proposed distinction of
the sacramental priesthood into “diaconal”
and “hierourgic,” i.e., a
quantitative rather than qualitative distinction, help the Orthodox Church to
restore her traditional ancient practice and ordain deaconesses?
5.
How can the interpretation in
the canonical sources that the deaconess, as a symbol of the Holy Spirit, held
a higher position even than that of the presbyters, who were considered symbols
of the Apostles, affect the possibility of upgrading the status of women in
relation to the theological legitimacy of their participation in the diaconal
sacramental priesthood?
6.
Can Orthodox bishops at any
time, without any relevant conciliar decision, ordain deaconesses and accept
them into the major orders of the clergy?
7.
If the Orthodox Church is
characterized by its liturgical (and Eucharistic) theology, how crucial is it
today to revive the order of ordained deaconesses for their necessary
missionary witness, particularly in the area of ministry?
8.
If the human person is
determined by his/her relationship with others, and if the Eucharistic
community is for the Orthodox the primary framework for constructive and
virtuous relationships, which are fully possible for both men and women, on what
theological ground can one today exclude women from even the diaconal
sacramental priesthood?
9.
Does the presence of “demonic”
elements (e.g., ideas about women being cursed for their culpability in the
Fall and their eternal punishment in subjugation to the man, as well as about
their impurity with their consequent marginalization in the Church’s life of
worship and administration, etc.) compromise the Church’s witness to the world,
additionally raising an enormous ethical problem?
10.
Throughout Western Christian history, there
has been a gradual, perhaps unconscious, degradation of women on three issues:
the status and position of Mary Magdalene, of St. Junia, and the institution of
deaconesses. The long-standing tradition of the East, on the other hand, takes
pride in these persons and institutions. How can this affect the position of
the Orthodox Church?
11.
How can the now academically indisputable
evidence in the New Testament and in the early Christian centuries of important
women “apostles” (e.g., Junia) affect the Orthodox theological argument on the
need for the rejuvenation of the order of deaconesses, and even on the
discussion of women's ordination?
12.
If Great Orthodox theologians, such as St.
Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom, speak about the priesthood with
metaphors based not on male paternal models, but rather on examples of virtue
for the community, and if both theses hierarchs use both masculine and feminine
metaphors to describe the method and the ministry of the priesthood, what theological
arguments can justify the exclusion today of women even from the diaconal
priesthood?
13.
Does Patriarch Gregory of Antioch’s reference
connecting women, until the 6th century, with the apostolic office
and ordination («Μαθέτω Πέτρος ὁ ἀρνησάμενός με, ὃτι δύναμαι καὶ γυναῖκας ἀποστόλους χειροτονεῖν» PG 88, 1864b) not demonstrate that
there is at least some evidence that the Church held a different attitude in
the Eastern Christian tradition regarding the liturgical role of women?
14.
Does the exclusive “male priesthood” – derived
from the historically indisputable male form of the Incarnate God – constitute
a binding element of divine grace? How strong this theological argument, and
how consistent to the dogma of Chalcedon, is?
15.
Is the exclusion of women from the sacramental
priesthood, especially from the “diaconal” one in the course of history, based
on human law (de jure humano) or
divine law (de jure divino)?
16.
What impact can the close
terminological connection that St. Basil the Great repeatedly makes in his
anaphora between “diaconal” and “sacramental” have on the liturgical role of
women?
17.
On the thorny issue of the
ordination of women, should the Orthodox Church and its theology use
liturgical, canonical, Trinitarian, Christological, ecclesiological,
eschatological or sociological criteria?
18.
In selecting theological
criteria, should priority be given – and if so, how much – to the long-standing
“primary” liturgical tradition of the
Church, over the various doctrinal
expressions that were subsequently formulated?
19.
Is it theologically legitimate
to use human, biological concepts of gender and the supposedly masculine or
feminine structures of each of the persons of the Holy Trinity?
20.
How and to what extent does the
basic Orthodox theological position, that at the eschaton there will be no
discrimination based on biological sex, influence the debate about the
liturgical and sacramental role of women?
21.
Does the invocation of elements
of ontological reduction and the division of the human being into two hierarchically
superimposed sexes negate the doctrine of the Divine Incarnation and annul its
objectives?
22.
If, according to Orthodox
Christian anthropology, the archetype of the human being is Christ, does the
invocation then of the male sex of the Word of God provide theological,
canonical, historical-critical, and liturgical grounds for the exclusion of
women even from the diaconal sacramental priesthood?
23.
If every human person is
created unique, complete and free, designed to achieve deification (theosis) through his/her virtuous life,
how is possible theologically to define the nature of man, or even his virtuous
life, on the basis of gender? Does this not lead to a denial of the
completeness of human nature at the crown of creation, as well as its call to the
“likeness”?
24.
Regarding the ministry of the
priesthood, does not the selective use and transfer of practices based on
gender—which theologically and anthropologically permit the impairment of the
human person—substantially undermine rather than encourage the achievement of
the Orthodox ideal of theosis?[xxii]
*
If Pope Francis,
addressing the issue of the ordination of women, seems to insist no longer on
the argument of the priest acting in persona
Christi, but on an understanding of priesthood in missiological and
certainly not clerical terms, thus relegating the secular demand of the
admission of women into the sacramental priesthood, the Orthodox (at least some
of them, as e.g. John Meyendorff, and of course some of the participants in the
Rhodes conference) give priority to the importance of a liturgical renewal with a
more active participation of the laity,
and in particular of women. And the reinstitution of the order of
deaconesses is one of the cases.
More recently, however, a great need for our theology
to focus on anthropology has been expressed. Metropolitan of
Diokleia Kallistos (Ware) has clearly stated that “the focal point in the
theological deliberations in the 21st century will be shifted from ecclesiology
to anthropology…The key question will not be only ‘what is Church’, but also
and more fundamentally ‘what is the human being’.”[xxiii] And
a prominent component of Christian anthropology is undoubtedly the overall status of women, especially their public role
in the liturgical life. The same is true with another specific characteristic
of contemporary Orthodox theology: the ecological
one, the care for the environment, God’s creation, on purely theological
grounds. The
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew with his global
ecological initiatives and his sensitivity for the environment, both at a
liturgical level (establishment of the feast of the protection of God’s
creation on September 1) and at a scholarly and theological one (the series of
the international ecological conferences), have rightly given him the nickname
“Green Patriarch.” The consequences of ecology
– as a projection of anthropology – for
the status and role of women are not insignificant.
Except for extreme cases,
Orthodox women are never entrusted with leading roles in the ritual, even
though the Early Church – especially in the East – extensively used deaconesses. The gender ambivalence of ritual
is revealed by the dichotomy between theology and practice. While the Orthodox
liturgy includes female saint veneration and reputes the Theotokos as “more honorable than the Cherubim, and more glorious
beyond compare than the Seraphim” – that is above the world of the celestial
beings – down on earth women are excluded from joining the superior clergy,
even to the rank of deaconesses.
At the bottom line, therefore, the issue at stake is
not the ordination of women as such, in other words as a sociological issue and
a demand of modernity, but the missiological, liturgical, anthropological and
ecological dimension of our understanding of the Christian priesthood.
A consideration, therefore, of the missiological, liturgical (i.e. Eucharistic), anthropological,
and ecological parameters, is what
constitutes an “Orthodox theological approach” to this burning and divisive
issue. And with these considerations I will conclude my short and by no means
exhaustive contribution.
*
(a) In a recent article
I argue for the need to contextualize the Eucharistic event, so that the
Orthodox Church can meaningfully witness to the Gospel in our contemporary
society.[xxiv]
The missiological
consequences of the Eucharistic theology derive from a proper understanding
of the Christian worship, the basic characteristics of which are full of
“prophetic” elements. The core of Jesus' teaching is based on the basic
principles of the Old Testament, something which we Orthodox usually forget,
using the First Testament only as an exclusive pre-figuration of the Christ
event. However, Jesus Christ himself had a different and more prophetic view
(cf. e.g. his inaugural speech at the Nazareth synagogue, Lk 4:16ff), and the
early Christian community have developed their liturgical, and especially their
Eucharistic, behavior in accordance with the idea of the covenant (or
covenants), particularly through the obligation of the people to a thanksgiving worship to God and a
commitment to one another in the memory of the liberating grace of God in
Exodus.
While
in the O.T. the worship of God was primarily a thanksgiving liturgy for their liberation from the oppression of
the Egyptians, at the same time was also a constant reminder for a commitment
to a moral and ethical life, and an obligation for resistance against any
oppression and exploitation of their fellow women and men. In this sense, the worshiping (and Eucharistic in the wider
sense, thanksgiving) community was also a witnessing
community. The same is true with the Eucharist of the early Christians, which
was incomprehensible without its social dimension.[xxv]
When,
however, the social and political conditions in Israel began to change and a
monarchical system was imposed upon God's people, there was also a tragic
change in their concept of communion, and consequently in their liturgy. The
latter lost its communal character and was gradually institutionalized. With
the construction of the Temple of Solomon the religious life of the community
turned into a cult incumbent with the necessary professional priesthood and the
necessary financial transactions. Jesus’ action against the money changers is
quite indicative of the new situation. His repeated appeal to “mercy/charity/eleon,” instead of sacrifice, is yet
another reminder of the real purpose of the true worship.[xxvi]
All
these developments, as it is well known, resulted in the strong protest and
reaction of the O.T. Prophets. Whereas previously the governing principle of
the communal life was divine ownership of all the material wealth, according to
the Psalmist’s affirmation: “the Earth is the Lord’s
and everything in it” (Psalm 24: 1), now the focus shifted from the justice of God to the personal
accumulation of wealth. Amos and Hosea in the Northern Kingdom before its
dissolution in 722 BC, and Isaiah, Micah, Jeremiah, Habakkuk and Ezekiel in
Judea, began to speak of the main components of liturgy: i.e. Law and Justice,
values that were lost because of the private ownership, which changed the
traditional concept of society and their worship. For the Prophets of the Old
Testament the abolition of justice and cancellation rights of the poor above
all meant rejection of God Himself. Prophet Jeremiah insisted that knowing God
was identical with being fair towards the poor (Jer 22:16). Prophet Isaiah even
carries further his criticism, on the issue of the greed and avarice, as
manifested by the accumulation of land: "Woe
to those who add to their home and joins the field with the field, so that now
there is no other place for them to stay and the only country holding”, 5:8).
He does not hesitate to characterize the greedy landlords “thieves” (1:23) and
characterize the confiscation of the land of indebted farmers grab at the
expense of the poor.[xxvii]
This highly
social and prophetic dimension of an authentic Christian worship, clearly
manifested in the teaching, life and work of Jesus Christ, and of course in
the early Church’s Eucharistic gatherings, is the model of ethics that any
consideration of the ordination of women should follow. As the official
documents of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church underline,[xxviii] the Church does not exist for herself but for the world.
(b) In terms of extending the consideration of the
ordination of women on the basis of a liturgical theology, of paramount
importance is our understanding of the sacramental and/or sacrificial character
of the Eucharist.
(i)
The term “μυστήριον” (mystery), which in Latin was rendered Sacrament, is
a clearly religious terminus technicus,
which is etymologically derived from the verb “μύειν” (meaning “to close the eyes and mouth”), and not from the verb “μυεῖν” (meaning “to dedicate”).[xxix] In antiquity it is recorded (primarily in the plural) in rituals with
secret teachings, both religious and political, and accompanied by a host of
exotic activities and customs. These mysteries may have originated in the
ritualistic activities of primitive peoples, but they took much of their shape
from the Greek religious world (Dionysiac, Eleusinian, Orphic, etc. mysteries) and then combined creatively
with various Eastern cults before assuming their final form during the Roman
period. Because Christianity has spread
during the height of the mystery cults, and because of some external
resemblances with them, the history-of-religions school of thought formulated
the theory of reciprocal dependence – and in particular the dependence of
Christianity on the mystery cults. Today such a theory is not so popular among
historians as it was few generations ago; after all an “analogy” can hardly be
identified with a “genealogy”.
In
biblical literature, as well as in the early post-biblical one, the term “mystery” was always connected with
cultic ritual or with the liturgical expression of the people of God. In the Septuagint it appears for the first
time in the Hellenistic literature (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Daniel, Maccabees),
where it is frequently used pejoratively to describe the ethnic mystery
religions (cf. Wisdom of Solomon 14:23: “secret
mysteries…connected with] child sacrifices”), or to imply idolatry.[xxx] In Daniel, the term “mystery” assumes, for
the first time, a very significant connotation, that of eschatology and in that
meaning it was further developed later.[xxxi]
The
only use of the term in the Gospels occurs in the Synoptic tradition, in the
famous interpretation of the parables – “the
mystery (-ies) of the Kingdom of God (of heaven)” (Mark 4:11 par). Here, as well as in the corpus paulinum,[xxxii] the term is connected with the kerygma,
not with ritual (as in the various mystery cults), and it was very often used
in connection with terms of revelation.[xxxiii] Generally, in the N.T., mystery
is never connected with secret teachings, nor do we encounter any admonitions
against defiling the mystery, as in the mystery cults.
There
is ample evidence in the letters of the St. Paul that, in certain circles of
the Early Church, the significance of the Lord’s Supper, and by extension the
profound meaning of the Eucharist, was interpreted in light of the Hellenistic
mystery cults’ rituals, and thus the mystery was believed to transmit an
irrevocable salvation. Paul attempts to correct this view on the basis of
ecclesiological criteria – his teaching on spiritual gifts and the Church as
“the body of Christ.”
According
to the sacramentalistic view of the mystery cults, the person acquires, via the
mysteries, a power of life that is never lost. In the mystery groups and the
syncretistic environment of Early Christianity, it was widely believed that the
human beings were connected with the deity through the initiation; they could
acquire eternal salvation only by participating in the deity’s death and
resurrection.[xxxiv] The Gnostics, being influenced by the mystery cults and adopting their
“sacramentalistic” view, even performed baptism for the departed in an attempt
to activate this indestructible power over death. St. Paul refuted this
magical/sacramentalistic view of baptism in his Epistle to the Romans (Rom
6:3-11). It is of course true that he interprets baptism in theological terms
as participation in Christ’s death on the cross, but at the same time he
insists, that this must have consequences in the moral life of the faithful.
For this reason, he exhorts the baptized to “walk
in newness of life” (6:4) “so that
(they) might no longer be enslaved to sin” (6:6).[xxxv]
Ephesians
3:3-12 is characteristic of the Pauline (and the New Testament in general)
understanding of μυστήριον. There Paul’s mission to the Gentiles is clearly described as “the plan of the mystery hidden for ages in
God who created all things through Jesus Christ; that through the Church the
manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the rulers and authorities in
the heavenly places” (3:9-10).
Mystery, therefore, is the hidden
plan of God for the salvation of the whole world. The Church, then, by
extension, is considered a “mystery,” because in her the mystery of salvation
is accomplished. And because the Church is the collective manifestation of the
Kingdom of God, the Divine Eucharist was also characterized as a “mystery,”
more precisely the mystery par excellence. Until the 4th century AD, the term
“mystery” and its derivatives were not connected in any way with that which
later came to be called Sacraments.[xxxvi]
Therefore it is a myth that
sacramentality in the conventional sense is the sine-qua-non characteristic, at least of the Orthodox Church.
(ii) As to the sacrificial (or not) character of the
Eucharist, the prevailing liturgical language used in the Orthodox Church (Αγία τράπεζα not alter, Ιερόν Βήμα, not
sanctuary, receiving communion not the sacraments, the eschatological perspective of the Eucharist, and not the
Eucharist as an enactment of Christ
sacrifice on the cross etc.) is quite revealing. Even from the time of the New Testament literature,
several ideas worked simultaneously in the use of priestly and sacrificial
vocabulary. People’s obedience to the gospel, their deeds of charity towards
each other, their prayer and thanksgiving, all were called “offerings” or “sacrifices,”
because in them honor was rendered to God in the freedom and power of the Holy
Spirit; and their worship was called a sacrifice
of praise (θυσία αινέσεως). And not only that: the
people themselves as an eschatological community were considered a “living
sacrifice”, a “royal priesthood”, a “temple holy to God” (1 Peter 2:4-10). Most
importantly the Church’s ministers were not given priestly names: they rather
bore secular designations, such as presbyteros
(elder) or episkopos (bishop) or diakonos (deacon) or proestos (presider), all intended to
underline their service to the community.[xxxvii]
The most powerful argument some Catholics – and
sometimes theologians from all the traditional Churches, the Orthodox included
– employ against the acceptance of women into the sacramental priesthood, is
the cultural taboo of the uncleanness of women during childbearing, and the ensuing inability to perform sacrifice.[xxxviii]
Sacrifice from the anthropological perspective
is an unnatural act that seeks to establish culture in the place of nature.[xxxix] It is by its nature exclusive and conservative.
Its function is to establish clear boundaries between the sacred and the
profane, between those who are pure and those who are impure, between those who
are in power and those who remain outside of it. The function of sacrifice is
to support and preserve an alleged God given social order. The problem is not
simply that allowing women access to the upper class grants them also authority
and power. Although this would be a worthy enough objective, it does not yet
explain the strong resistance of the traditional Churches to accept women in
the ecclesiastical sacramental orders.
The overall evidence of the N.T. literature, as
well as of early architecture and frescos, especially in the catacombs, testify
that women did have leadership
roles in the Christian worship. There is no doubt on this.[xl]
Women did occupy significant leadership roles within the community, but only
until Christianity remained primarily a religion of the private sphere.
However, the question should not be whether
women have been or can be ordained. The question should
rather be whether the one who presides – whatever his/her sex – was acting not
so much in persona Christi as in persona ecclesiae.
Evidence of women presiding at the Eucharist does not necessarily translate
into evidence that women were priests.
Even more important is the question, whether their role is related to a certain
non-sacrificial understanding of the Eucharist (as it is the case in the New
Testament and the early Church), and whether the ruling metaphors are
eschatological.[xli]
If the Eucharist was understood to be primarily a sacrifice, then there are
all sorts of anthropological reasons why women cannot preside over the Lord’s
Table. But the Eucharist originally was not
understood as a sacrifice as such, but rather, as David Power put it, a
“subversion of sacrifice;”[xlii] or, as Robert Daly has convincingly argued, it is
“an incarnational spiritualization of sacrifice that is
operative in the New Testament and the early Church.”[xliii]
(c) In the long history of the
undivided Church (the era of the Ecumenical Councils) the theological focus was
on Christology, related of course to soteriology. In the 20th
century, as a result of the fragmentation of Christianity and the ensuing
ineffectiveness of the Christian mission, the focus inevitably shifted to
ecclesiology. The most urgent demands in today’s witness to the Gospel of
Christ are undoubtedly of an anthropological character. However,
in order to formulate an Orthodox anthropology we need
to go beyond the widely accepted views in Christian literature. Metropolitan
Kallistos (Ware) argues that “many Fathers of the Church (Gregory the
Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa, Isaac the Syrian etc.) believe that ‘the divine
image in the human being should be associated with the soul and not with the
body, and even in the soul it is related to the power of self-knowledge and of
speech.’ But there are others - who may be a minority but a significant
minority - who adopt a more holistic approach, asserting that the divine image
includes not only the soul but the whole being, body, soul and spirit together.
In this way they agree with the view expressed in the 5th Ecumenical
Council and the Christian Creed. St. Irenaios of Lyon, e.g., writes: ‘The soul and
the spirit can be part of, but not the entire, human being; a perfect human
being is a clash and a union both of a soul, who has the spirit of the Father,
and held in the image of God, a merciful flesh.’[xliv]
According to Metropolitan Kallistos, “the reality of the (human) person is
beyond and above whatever explanation we choose to give it. The inherent
element of the person is the overcoming of him/herself, his/her ability to be
always open, his/her ability to point always to the other. The human person,
unlike the computer, is the one that fires every new start. Being a human being
means to be unpredictable, free and creative.”[xlv]
The very concept of
human identity, as it is developed in recent years, is quite ambiguous.
Previously, identity was considered as something “given.” Now, after a thorough
scientific research - though these findings are being questioned by some - it
is argued that it is a “construction.” That is why in the secular sciences they
are talking about “shaping” the identity of a person or group in the sense of a
“dynamic process” through which the individual (or the group) is constantly
affected by the environment, thus developing a new ethos.
Modern and post-modern
ethicists attempt in every way to impose an “inclusive ethos,” while
traditional societies, and especially religions, defend an “exclusive ethos.”
The former seek to integrate a group into its social context, which they often
attempt to shape, while the latter seek the necessary distance with persistence
in the traditional values. There are, of course, cases, even in the New
Testament texts, where the ethos of all groups is mixed, so its “exclusive”
side marks definite boundaries, outside of which everything is excluded as
heretic, while its “inclusive” side expresses the manifold and constantly
developing community[xlvi]
Christian
anthropology is related to human sexuality. On the secular side a new ethos is
being directly or indirectly affirmed:
“It
is impossible to predict what will happen with sexual variations in the future,
in two hundred or three hundred years. One thing should not be forgotten: men
and women are involved in a web of centuries of cultural determinations that
are almost impossible to analyze in their complexity. It is now impossible to
talk about ‘woman’ or ‘human’ without being trapped in an ideological theater,
where the multiplication of representations, reflections, recognitions,
transformations, distortions, constant change of images and fantasies cancels any
appreciation in advance.”[xlvii]
Also on the Christian
side there is a similar concern. In a “Letter from Sheffield,” the city in
which a WCC consultation was convened at the beginning of the Ecumenical
Decade: Christian Churches in Solidarity with Women, it was stated:
"We
welcome the recognition that human sexuality Does not contradict the
(Christian) spirituality, which is unified and relates to the body, the mind
and the spirit in their entirety ... Unfortunately, sexuality itself has been
for centuries and continues to be problematic for Christians”[xlviii]
In the Bible, of
course, the human being is never defined by his/her nature, whether the
physical self or the material world surrounding them, but by their relationship
with God and their fellow human beings. Therefore, salvation is not achieved
through any denial of body, including sexuality, or through escape to a
supposedly “spiritual” world. Their physical and spiritual functions are
perceived as an inseparable unity, and both can either remove them from God or
put them at his service, i.e. in communion with God. The human “flesh” does not
lead to evil, nor is it extremely dangerous. It becomes so only when humans
surrender the entire existence, not to God who created them, but to it.
But also in Eastern Christian
tradition, as J. Meyendorff has long ago argued, human nature is not a static,
closed, autonomous entity, but a dynamic reality. The human being is determined
by its relationship with God.[xlix] The
nature, therefore, of human beings did not lose their dynamism after the fall,
because by the grace of God it can be transformed. Indeed, the role of God's
grace is that it essentially provides them with their real and authentic
nature.[l] Even
more important and insightful, however, is Archbishop Lazar Puhalo’s recent
contribution, entitled On the
Neurobiology of Sin.[li]
(d) In addition to the anthropological dimension in dealing with the role of
women in Church and society, an ecological approach can hardly be
ignored. The male and (not or) female interrelatedness is also
mutually related to a Christian understanding of integral ecology.[lii] There
is an interesting concern in the Roman Catholic Church and her social doctrine,[liii]
recognizing that an adequate theological anthropology is required for social/ ecological
justice. So far the Catholic Church (and I will add all the traditional ancient
Churches) shows an ambivalent admixture of natural law and patriarchal
ideology. If man and woman complete each other in both Church and society, why
is patriarchal male headship still enshrined in the Church hierarchy, given
that man and woman are fully homogeneous in their “whole being”?[liv]
Of course, this is something that has been
consistently pursued by the secular “eco-feminist” movement. It has been long
stemming from a patriarchal ideology of male domination and female submission,
which for many scholars was the consequence of the Augustinian doctrine of the
original sin.[lv]
It is, however, also a Christian (and even ecclesiastical) anthropological
concern. This is not about what women (or men) want. This is about discerning
what Jesus Christ wants for the Church in the 21st century, for the glory of
God, for integral human development, for integral humanism, and for integral
ecology in light of an adequate theological anthropology, based on the
authentic, though latent, tradition of the Church, and not just on the
historically established one.
“As long as the
patriarchal binary prevails, subjective human development remains defective,
with pervasive repercussions in human relations as well as human-nature
relations….There can be no fully integral ecology as long as humanity behaves
as the dominant male and treats nature as a submissive female. There can be no
lasting social justice, and there can be no lasting ecological justice, as long
as human behavior is driven by the patriarchal mindset”.[lvi]
The
Old Testament exemplifies patriarchal bias in many ways, notably by the
metaphor of woman coming out of
man (Gen 1:22). It is inescapable, however, that this was corrected in the New
Testament, notably by the Pauline explicit statement that “when the set time had fully
come, God sent his Son, born of a woman” (Gal 4:4). God becoming incarnate “from a woman” is a reversal of woman “coming out of man”. Not
insignificantly, this seemingly innocuous clarification follows the summary of
the cultural progression that is now attainable, but yet to be fully attained,
in human history: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither
slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”
(Gal 3:28).
What I have so
far underlined is nothing more than a “contribution” to a theologically,
historically and scientifically permanent solution to a pending issue that
hinders the authentic witness of the Church in the 21st century. The
ages-old prejudices, pseudo-theological arguments, as well as cultural habits
can no longer persuade a rapidly changing society, hungry and thirsty for the
truth.
[i] In a number of
articles, of similar ecumenical concern, I examined “whether Eucharistic
theology, commonly agreed to be the foundational theological principle of the
official theological dialogue, can be reconciled with Baptismal theology” (“The
Biblical [N.T.] Foundation of Baptism [Baptismal Theology as a Prerequisite of
Eucharistic Theology], academia.edu/14657246, also published in GOTR, and here in this book ch.11). Also
with regard to intercommunion, without
questioning the theological difficulty in accepting it, on the basis of the
Eucharist being an expression of, not
a means towards, Church unity, I made
the following remark: “Jesus of Nazareth’s inclusive kerygma, and St.
Paul’s foundational teaching and praxis of a “Eucharistic inclusiveness”, remind
us that the original “open”, “inclusive” and above all “unifying” character of
the Eucharist somewhat challenge our contemporary views and demands a radical
reconsideration of our Eucharistic ecclesiology” (“The
Missionary Implications of St. Paul’s Eucharistic Inclusiveness,” in N. Mosoiu
[ed.], The Relevance of Reverend
Professor Ion Bria’s work for contemporary society and for the life of the
Church. New Directions in the Research of Church Doctrine, Mission, and Unity,
Sibiu 2010, 123-128, p. 128; cf. also my articles: “Beyond Intercommunion: The
Inclusive Character of the Eucharist in the New Testament”, to
be published in another memorial to the late Fr. Ion Bria;
“Eucharist as a Unifying and Inclusive Element in N.T. Ecclesiology,” in A. A.
Alexeev-Ch. Karakolis-U. Luz [eds.], Einheit
der Kirche im Neuen Testament, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 2008, 121-145; and “St.
Paul: Apostle of Freedom in Christ,” In the Footsteps of Saint Paul. An Academic Symposium, HC Orthodox Press: Boston 2011, 153-167). All
these and other articles of ecumenical concern in electronic form can be
retrieved at auth.academia.edu/ PetrosVassiliadis.
[ii]
The above conference was organized by the Center of Ecumenical, Missiological and
Environmental Studies “Metropolitan Panteleimon Papageorgiou” (CEMES), and
symbolically launched on July 22, 2014, the feast of St. Mary Magdalene, the
“Equal to the Apostles” in the liturgical tradition – or the “apostle of the
apostles” by certain Church Fathers – of the Orthodox Church. More on this below.
[iii] All the
documents-decisions of the Holy and
Great Council of the Orthodox Church are displayed in various languages in the
official website of the Council holycouncil.org.
[v] Nevertheless, 15 Orthodox missiologist in the pre-conciliar process
made some recommendations to the Synod in a document entitled: Some Comments by Orthodox Missiologists on
“The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World.” No 7 point reads as follows: “In the chapter on human dignity no reference at all is
made to women and their ministry, nor to the traditional and canonical
institution of deaconesses. It will be a
completely ineffective contemporary declaration on mission by the Orthodox Church,
if it fails to reaffirm the dignity of women, given the Church’s unique
tradition of allowing their access even to the sacramental diaconal priesthood,
in the still canonically valid institution of deaconesses. It is advisable,
therefore, the sentence: “The teaching of the Church is the source of all
Christian striving to preserve the dignity and majesty of the human person” to
be followed by “especially of women, so highly dignified in the patristic and
liturgical tradition, that they were welcomed to the sacramental diaconal
ministry as deaconesses, canonically testified and never annulled in times when a clear separation of duties and
commissions of the different sexes permeated social reality throughout.” (in academia.edu/26833426).
[vii] Ev. D. Theodorou, Ἡ «χειροτονία» ἤ «χειροθεσία» τῶν
διακονισσῶν, (The “Ordination” or the “Laying-on of hands” of the Deaconesses),
Athens 1954.
[viii] The papers and the conclusions of the conference in Gennadios (now
Metropolitan of Sassima) Limouris, (ed.), Place of Woman in the Orthodox
Church and the Question of the Ordination of Women, Katerini 1992. The
conclusions alone were also published in English as Conclusions of the Inter Orthodox Consultation on the Place of the
Woman in the Orthodox Church, and the Question of the Ordination of Women
(Rhodes, Greece-30 Oct.-7 Nov.1988), Light and Life Publishing Company
Minneapollis, Minnesota 1900. For a
recent assessment see Ioannis Lotsios, “The
Question of Women’s Ordination: Feminist Challenge or an Ecclesiological
Desideratum? (Comments on the Rhodes’ Document),” in P. Vassiliadis-E.
Amoiridou-M. Goutzioudis (eds.)
Deaconesses, Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology, CEMES Publications:
Thessaloniki 2016, pp. 339-348.
[ix] Metropolitan
Kallistos first wrote on the subject in his article “Man, Woman, and Priesthood of Christ,” in Peter Moore (ed.), Man, Woman, and Priesthood, London, SPCK, 1978, pp. 68-90, reprinted
almost identical in the classical for the Orthodox theology collective work: Thomas Hopko (ed.), Women and the Priesthood, Crestwood, NY, St Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1983, pp. 9-37. Nearly
20 years later (and 10 years after the Rhodes conference) Bishop Kallistos in
the revised edition of Women and the Priesthood, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1999, but also in a
booklet co-edited with Elisabeth Behr-Sigel under the title, The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church, Geneva 2000, he
stated: “οn the subject of women and the
priesthood, there exists as of yet no
pan-Orthodox statement, possessing definitive ecumenical authority,” commending
on the Rhodes conference that “its conclusions do not possess a formal and final
authority, binding upon the Orthodox Church as a whole; rather, they constitute
a contribution to a continuing debate” (p. 51).
[x] See on her contribution Eleni Kasselouri-Hatzivassiliadi, “The
personality of Elisabeth Behr- Sigel and the Order of Deaconesses,” in P.
Vassiliadis-E. Amoiridou-M. Goutzioudis (eds.) Deaconesses, Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology, pp.
349-355.
[xi] Maria
Hatziapostolou, “Deaconesses and
Ordination of Women in the Theology of Nikos Matsoukas,” ibid, pp. 357-370.
[xii] ConstantinosYokarinis, Ἡ
ἱερωσύνη
τῶν γυναικῶν
στό πλαίσιο τῆς Οἰκουμενικῆς
Κίνησης (The
Priesthood of Women in the Framework of the Ecumenical Movement,
Κaterini, 1995.
Maria Gwyn McDowell, The Joy of
Embodied Virtue: Toward the Ordination of Women to the Eastern Orthodox
Priesthood, PhD Diss diss., Boston College, 2010.
[xiii] Constantinos Yokarinis, To έμφυλο ή άφυλο του σαρκωθέντος Χριστού,
(The Gender or Genderness of Incarnated Christ),
Athens 2013.
[xiv] For a panorama
of these developments in P. Vassiliadis-E. Amoiridou-M. Goutzioudis (eds.) Deaconesses, Ordination of Women and
Orthodox Theology, Thessaloniki 2016.
[xvi] The reinstitution of the order “would represent a positive response to
many of the needs and demands of the contemporary world. This would be
all the more true if the diaconate in general (male as well as female) were
restored in all places in its original, manifold services (diakoniai) with
extension into the social sphere, in the spirit of the ancient tradition and in
response to the increasing specific needs of our time,” in Gennadios (now Metropolitan of Sassima) Limouris, (ed.), Place of
Woman in the Orthodox Church and the Question of the Ordination of Women,
Katerini, Greece 1992, pp. 31ff; Also in Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness
and Ministry, Holy Cross Orthodox Press:
Brookline 1999, pp. 160-67.
[xvii] In his Address to
the Inter-Orthodox Conference for Women,
(Constantinople, May
12, 1997) His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew said: “The
order of ordained deaconesses is an undeniable part of tradition coming from
the Early Church. Now, in many of our Churches, there is a growing desire to
restore this order so that the spiritual needs of the People of God may be
better served. There are already a number of women who appear to be called to
this ministry.”
[xviii] PG 88f .
1864b
[xix]
More in my “Mary Magdalene: From a Prominent
Apostle to a Symbol of Love and Sexuality,” in www.academia.edu/2024999.
[xx] More in Valerie
Karras, “Theological Presuppositions and Logical Fallacies in much of the
Contemporary Discussion of the Ordination of Women,” in P. Vassiliadis-E.
Amoiridou-M. Goutzioudis (eds.)
Deaconesses, Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology, pp. 93-103.
[xxi] See the Final
communique in P. Vassiliadis-E. Amoiridou-M. Goutzioudis (eds.) Deaconesses, Ordination of Women and
Orthodox Theology, pp. 497-502.
[xxiii] From his book Η
Ορθόδοξη θεολογία στον 21ο αιώνα
(The Orthodox Theology in the 21st century), Athens 2005, p. 25.
[xxiv]
"Eucharistic Theology Contextualized?" in
https://www.academia.edu/32859534/.
[xxv] Cf.
Acts 2:42ff, 1 Cor 11:1ff., Heb 13:10-16; Justin, 1 Apology 67; Irenaeus, Adver. Her. 18:1, etc.
[xxvi] See more in W.
Brueggemann, The Prophetic Imagination,
Philadelphia 1978. In chapter 8 of the First Book of Kings the conversation of
Yahweh with Samuel is highly instructive underlining the implications of this
radical change in the relationship between God and his people.
[xxvii] Is 3:14-15. See the detailed analysis of the
problem by Ulrich Duchrow and Franz Hinkelammert in their book Property for People, Not for Profit:
Alternatives to the Global Tyranny of Capital, London 2004, as well as
their more recent one, Transcending
Greedy Money. Interreligious Solidarity for Just Relations, New Approaches to Religion and Power, New
York 2012.
[xxviii]
https://www.holycouncil.org/home
[xxix] “They were
called mysteries because they close their mouths and nothing is explained to
anyone. And μύειν is the closing
of the mouth” (Scholia to Aristophanes,
456).
[xxxi] Ibid, p. 814.
[xxxii] For
more, cf. W. Bauer’s Lexicon of the New
Testament.
[xxxiv] Cf.
S. Agouridis’ commentary on 1 Corinthians, Chapter 10 (St. Paul’s 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, Hermeneia of
the New Testament 7, Thessaloniki 1982, pp. 161 ff. in Greek), which he aptly
titles: “The mysteries are not a guarantee for the future,” and “Christianity
is incompatible with idolatry.”
[xxxv] E. Lohse, Theology of the New Testament. An Epitome,
Greek Translation, Athens 1980, pp. 155ff.
[xxxvi] Cf.
G. Bornkamm, “μυστήριον, μυέω,” pp. 823 ff.
More on the non-sacramental character of the so-called mysteries of our Church
in my article dedicated to my colleague Fr. Paul Tarazi, entitled
“Mysteriology: The Biblical Foundation of Sacramental Theology (Christian
Mystery, Mystery Cults and Contemporary Christian Witness),” B. Nassif (ed.), Festschrift in Honor of Professor Paul Nadim
Tarazi. Vol. 2: Studies in the New
Testament, New York 2015, pp. 89-98.
[xxxvii]
David Power, The Eucharistic Mystery: Revitalizing the Tradition, New
York 1995, p. 115.
[xxxviii] Sociologists and anthropologists argue, that in
all known cultures the woman in her childbearing years are allowed to perform
blood sacrifices, and that sacrifice is in fact a remedy for having been born
of woman. And that only male child bearing establishes social genealogies, as
opposed to merely natural ones, which also include female child bearing. One might think of the importance of apostolic succession for valid
orders in this light. In the dialogue between Catholics and Anglican the
question regularly raised to the Anglicans is how they accept at the same time
sacrifice, and the ordination of women. It cannot be sacrifice the way the
Catholics (and one can mistakenly add the Orthodox) understand it. More in
Nancy Jay, Throughout Your Generations Forever: Sacrifice, Religion,
and Paternity, Chicago 1992.
[xxxix] More
on this in Damien Casey, “The 'Fractio Panis' and the Eucharist as
Eschatological Banquet,” in http://www.womenpriests.org/gallery/mast_cat.asp
(first appearance in the Mcauley University Electronic Journal on the 18th of August 2002).
[xl] B. Witherington, Women in the
Ministry of Jesus, Cambridge 1984; idem,
Women in the Earliest Churches, Cambridge 1988. Also my paper “Η
Πανορθόδοξη
Σύνοδος
και
η
παρακαταθήκη
του
Αποστόλου
Παύλου
για
τον
ρόλο
των
γυναικών» (The Panorthodox Council and St. Paul’s Legacy on the Role of Women),
in https://www.academia.edu/26833053 (in Greek).
[xli] According to
Damien Casey (“The 'Fractio Panis' and the Eucharist as Eschatological
Banquet”) there is a correlation between eschatological expectation of the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the final days and women’s prophetic
leadership. In the ecclesial typology of the East, the bishop was said to be in
the image of God of Father; the deacon, of Christ; the deaconess, of the Holy
Spirit; and the priests, of the Apostles. The priest, far from being in
persona Christi, is only in the image of the apostles, holy men to be sure,
but still only men, whereas the deaconess, as we stated above, are in the image
of the Holy Spirit.
[xlii] David Power, The
Eucharistic Mystery, pp. 140ff.
[xliii]
Robert, J. Daly, The Origins of the Christian Doctrine of Sacrifice,
p. 138. Though, according to Casey ("The 'Fractio Panis' and the Eucharist
as Eschatological Banquet") “the
question arises as to whether sacrifice can undergo an “incarnational
spiritualization” and still be sacrifice” (n. 8).
[xliv] Ad. Heresies 5:6,1 (Η δε ψυχή και το πνεύμα μέρος του ανθρώπου δύνανται είναι, άνθρωπος
δε ουδαμώς· ο δε τέλειος άνθρωπος σύγκρασις και ένωσις εστι ψυχής της
επιδεξαμένης το πνεύμα του Πατρός και συγκραθείσης τη κατ' εικόνα Θεού
πεπλασμένη σαρκί). This same view is also to be found in the celebrated passage of Michael Choniatis, attributed wrongly to St Gregory Palamas, «...μή άν ψυχήν μόνην, μήτε σώμα μόνον λέγεσθαι άνθρωπον, αλλά το
συναμφότερον, όν δη και κατ' εικόνα πεποιηκέναι Θεός λέγεται» (Προσωποποιίαι, PG 150, col. 1361C ).
[xlv] From the first
paragraph of his ceremonial speech as an affiliated member of the Academy of
Athens, “Ο άνθρωπος ως μυστήριον.
Η έννοια του προσώπου στους Έλληνες Πατέρες” (The Human
Being as a Mystery, The Concept of the Person in the Greek Fathers), Academy of
Athens publications 2006.
[xlvi] Eberhard Bons
and Karin Finsterbusch (eds.), Konstruktionen
individualueller und kollektiver Identität Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
2016.
[xlvii] Helene Cixous
and Catherine Clement, La Jeune Née,
1975, and also in English (The Newly Born
Woman, 1986).
[xlviii] Connie Parvey
(ed.), The Community of Women and Men in
the Church: The Sheffield Report, Geneva, 1981, p. 83.
[l] Idid, pp. 143 and 138.
[lii] On integral
ecology see my paper “The Witness of the Church in Today’s World, Three
Missiological Statements on Integral Ecology,” in www.academia.edu/28268455.
[liii] Cf. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church in http://www.vatican.va /roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html.
[liv] From a recent
working draft (22 December
2015) – among so many others, encouraged by Pope Francis’ willingness to
promote gender equality in his Church - by Luis T. Gutiérrez, entitled: “Gender
Balance for Integral Humanism & Integral Ecology”.
[lv] Based mainly on Genesis 3:16. See also my
article “Ο ιερός Αυγουστίνος ως ερμηνευτής του Αποστόλου Παύλου και το πρόβλημα της ανθρώπινης σεξουαλικότητας” (St. Augustine as Interpreter of St. Paul and the problem of Human
Sexuality), posted with all publication details in academia.edu/1992336/.
[lvi] Luis T. Gutiérrez, “Gender Balance for Integral Humanism & Integral
Ecology.”
