Talk:Eastern Orthodox Church/Archive 3

message: It seems that it would make more sense for this entry to be titled "Eastern Orthodox Churches" as opposed to "Eastern Orthodox Church" because the church isn't under one hierarchial structure as the Roman Catholic church is. (This is nitpicking, but I think it's worth discussion.)
: "One hierarchical structure" may be what defines the unity of the RCC, but it is not for Orthodoxy.  Both in terms of self-understanding and in terms of the outer functioning of the Church, the Orthodox Church is one, not many.  The fact that there may be disagreements and multiple administrative structures does not impair the Church's unity.  ——Preost talk contribs 13:21, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
: Yes, the head of the Orthodox Church of course is Christ; the various 'administrative structures' recognize this and recognize each other as part of the one Orthodox Church. Its membership also includes members who are now living and those who have 'fallen asleep in the Lord', as the Orthodox Church does not draw a distinction between the "Church militant" and the "Church triumphant" as does the RCC. Wesley 16:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On the title of the page 

message: *  "Eastern Orthodox Church" is the term used in the article introduction, and is consistent with "Roman Catholic Church".
::Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
#Support. For reasons above. --Xiaopo ℑ 06:51, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Add any additional comments
I moved the page to Eastern Orthodox Church, as per consensus. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Sorry I missed moving the talk page, and the archives; this has now been fixed. Lachatdelarue (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move to "Eastern Orthodox Church"

message: ::Add any additional comments
I moved the page to Eastern Orthodox Church, as per consensus. Lachatdelarue (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed moving the talk page, and the archives; this has now been fixed. Lachatdelarue (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I just came to this page to clarify for myself the main differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, with only a high-school history background on either.  (A friend of mine is going to Moldova as a Peace Corps volunteer and I wanted to have some fun because he is a devout Roman Catholic.  "Do you know the actual differences between Moldovan catholicism and your catholicism?"  I wanted to ask.)  And I was astounded at the wonderful clarity of the explanation in this Eastern Orthodoxy page!  So thank you all for your perseverance on this page.  :))  ---Rednblu | Talk 23:09, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations for great work on this page 

message: I've looked on the discussion in the Archives and I've seen an iteresting issue: the fact that the access of the women in the Altar area is not forbidden and that NO ONE is allowed to enter the Altar area without the Bishop's blessing. Actually as far as I know men are generally allowed to enter the Altar area on certain conditions (serious reason, clean body, clean thoughts etc). I remember that once when I visited a church with the school when I was younger, the priest said that all the boys can enter the Altar area. Also in my country (Romania) ordinary women do not usually have the blessing to enter the Altar area (although many nuns have). 
Oh and considering the time of the year, "Christ is risen!" to all of you. 
Ioan
:No one may enter the altar without a blessing at least from the priest in charge of the temple.  In the case you cited, the priest was effectively extending a blessing for all the boys to enter.  Women may not enter the altar for ligurgical service except under certain conditions.  As you said, many nuns have.  That's because in a women's monastery there's no one else to act as servitor.  The conditions you cited are simply not sufficient even for men; a blessing must be given, and of course even the priest does not enter for casual reasons.  There are certain positions in the Church where a blessing is generally extended (lower clergy, wardens, etc.) and women may be blessed to enter at times other than the services for cleaning, decorating, etc.
:I cite the general rule.  Perhaps some other rule obtains in Romania, or in your local diocese.
:Adevarat a inviat! Csernica 22:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women in Altar 

message: There are large gaps in the text, and i havne't been able to edit a few grammar mistakes, because the links marked edit direct me to edit other parts of the text than what i want.  I'm also very worried that the tone is not objective throughout the text.  It is, honestly, psychophantic.  Whereas the (Roman) Catholic Pages are marked as controversial, these breeze by with comments that start with "unlike the roman catholic church" and go on to criticize the Catholic Church, which is fine by me but not objective enough.  I don't know anything about Eastern Orthodoxy, I'm not the one to edit this stuff, but the tone needs to be toned down!
:You are not the first one to point this out.  It was discussed in a part of this page that is now archived.  The article is being worked on to correct this issue, if I'm not mistaken but the problems IMO run fairly deep and will take a while to fix.
:I'm not sure why you're having trouble with the "Edit" links.  They work just fine for me.  Are you sure you're clicking on the right ones? Csernica 22:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large gaps in the text 

message: The following lines were added at the end of this section and are notably not Orthodox in their content and for this reason have been changed: 
::The same fire that purifies the saints will be a torment for the damned. It is the state of the soul that determines how it will experience the presence of God.::
First of all, the fire that purifies the saints is far too close to a reference to purgatory to be comfortable. Orthodox Christians do not believe in purgatory.
Second, we have established that Gods mercy alone is what determines the souls ultimate experience, not the other way around.
Phiddipus 18:56, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is definitely a disputable point. There are explicit patristic references to the divine presence of God purifying the saints in the afterlife, and the idea of the state of the soul determining how it will experience God's energies is well-established in Orthodoxy. The essential objection to purgatory is that it involves a created fire, and is needed to obtain some sort of satisfaction for sins already forgiven, which is unlike the Orthodox conception of the presence of God purging any impurity from the soul. I would recommend re-adding the text with some additional explanation as to how it differs from Catholic conceptions of the afterlife. YBeayf 23:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree that the lines should be re-added with some clarification. I believe Fr. Thomas Hopko for instance has described the love of God as a fire that torments those who reject God's love. He is a former dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary and noted author and speaker. Isaiah 6 also gives us the image of a burning coal being used to purify Isaiah's tongue, and various church fathers have talked about a "river of fire" proceeding from God's throne. But yes, all this should certainly be distinguished from Purgatory. Wesley 16:25, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salvation and the Afterlife 

message: Nothing in this is drastically incorrect, but the whole passage comes across (to me) as saying the Orthodox Church is relativistic, with regards to doctrine and morals and in general. For example, that the Orthodox do not require the Old Testament to be taken literally: If I'm not mistaken, this is a misleading statement based on some Church fathers' speculations that the "days" of Creation were perhaps not 24-hour days as we know them, but instead eras. This is not a case of literal vs. allegorical, however; I believe the Hebrew word used in Genesis for "day" can mean either day or period, both literal renditions. Orthodox are to take the Old Testament literally where it is meant to be read literally, and allegorically when the author intended allegory.
Also, "The Orthodox Church does not seek any conflict with science" is vague, and perhaps misleading as well. While of course Orthodoxy does not seek conflict, it also does not-should not-accept something just because scientists say it is true. The revelation of God (the creator of all truth and all things studied through science) generally takes precedence over second-hand scientific interpretations of often imperfect evidence. I understand that much of the tone in this passage is meant to contrast the East with the West to some extent. However, this should not be done to the point of twisting the facts. Tix 8 July 2005 19:59 (UTC)
:That is not exactly what is being said here. First of all, it is always a mistake to refer to the entire Old Testament as if it were a single book the actual text in question reads:
::While many parts of the Old Testament are considered edifying (teaching moral lessons about hospitality and the result of sin) it is not a requirement that everything be taken literally.
:This is in opposition to Christian denominations who hold the bible to be the center of all their teaching and insist on absolute literal interpretation. The Orthodox Church does not require such a literal acceptance of the texts especially the earliest ones. This does not mean that Miracles do not occur, but if one were to do a survey of the various miraculous events in the bible one would find that from Moses onward, they seem much more plausible. God merely uses the laws of physics to his advantage, sometimes in a spectacular way (the parting of the red Sea, Elias calling down fire from heaven, etc.) But one has only to consider the book of Genesis and one is faced with some rather implausible stories (Creation, Noah and the Ark). If one were to accept as literal the creation “Poem” then one must believe: 
:::A. that the earth and water existed before anything else; 
:::B. that grass existed before the Sun, Moon, and Stars which themselves weren’t created till the 4th day. 
:::C. that birds and fish existed before land animals, etc. 
:If that were the case then science would support it. If one were to accept as literal the Noah story one would have to Account for Billions of cubic kilometers of water that simply do not exist on earth (To cover even the highest mountain – Everest – 23,000 feet), How plant life survived submergence under 1000’s of feet of water and tons of pressure for nearly a year, and how Noah could have saved the millions of species of animals (Do the math, he could have only fit a few hundred species on that ship – The dimensions are given) and the ones he did save, where did he keep the food?
:What this amounts to is simple, the Orthodox, as is stated, are NOT bibliocentric, and it is not important that we take everything literally. text of scripture is filled with Moral storytelling and Poetry. This does not in any way diminish its Truth.Phiddipus 8 July 2005 22:45 (UTC)
:: To be fair (but off topic), Protestants like me don't force an "absolute literal interpretation" on the Bible. It's not really possible to do so.  There's only, more or less literal - but even this doesn't quite get to it, does it.  
:: As some of us say, a Christian reads and understands the Bible according to "the analogy of faith".  For some, whose sense of the faith is no deeper than a few hundred years at the most, and encompassing the experience of no more than a few Western European peoples, the Bible tends to be read in light of a very narrow example.  But for others (like the Orthodox, if I may say so) there is a long and richly diverse Tradition.  
:: Wouldn't it be wrong to say that those Orthodox who believe in a young earth, and creation in 6 24hour days, are not Orthodox?  (Fr Seraphim Rose ?)  Aren't some more aware of the breadth, and immersed into the depth, of the Church's mind than others are? (Florovsky maybe, compared to ... I hesitate to say.)  Aren't others so broad that it's hard to find their edges?  (Alexander Men ?)  Which is Orthodoxy?  None? All?  In other words, different belief isn't the same as different unbelief, as someone told me once:  Belief is all the same in different ways.  Unbelief is not belief. Mkmcconn (Talk) 8 July 2005 23:22 (UTC)
My use of protestant was incorrect and by far too general. Of course I was referring to those groups of Christians which do rely on scripture alone and insist on its literal interpretation. My apologies. As to the last paragraph you wrote: While it would not be proper to say that an Orthodox Christian who believes in a young earth and a literal 6 day creation is not Orthodox, it would be proper to say that his belief (naïve or not) is completely unimportant to his salvation. 
We, you and I, and indeed everyone here is guilty of wasting time. I, in particular, am addicted to arguing over minutia and hoping to sound like I know something, but the fact is none of this is important. I happen to have a little knowledge both in theology and in the sciences and find that in order to function, these fields must reconcile. I cannot dispute the wisdom of a man such as Fr. Seraphim in such matters as Faith and I therefore attribute his possible belief in a literal Genesis as perhaps due to a lack of knowledge in scientific fields, this does not lesson his brilliant incite into the field he was an expert in.
On the other hand, Fr Florovsky was a scientist and this is evident in the brilliant streams of logic in his writings. But in the end, all this is academia and unimportant to our salvation. And so my original point remains, the bible is not central to Orthodoxy, Christ is.Phiddipus 05:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to pretend to know something; but thank you for clarifying. It is relevant to the article. Mkmcconn (Talk) 22:44, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eastern Orthodox Approach" - a little off? 

message: I believe this to be incorrect: "Incense is burned during all services in the Eastern Orthodox Church except during seasons of Lenten abstinence."  First, it's not used at all services -- not at the Hours, for example; nor, I believe, at Little Vespers.  Second, I just looked through Bp. Kallistos' Triodion, Apb. Dmitri's Sluzhebnik, the Order of Divine Services book from St. John of Kronstadt Press, the Horologion from Holy Trinity Monastery, and the old Abridged Typikon and can find no support for the idea that incense is not offered during Lenten services. Certainly lots of incense is offered at the Presanctified Liturgy in any event, but even when there's no Entrance at Vespers as in Daily Vespers the church is censed at "Lord I have cried".  So unless you can come up with a cite, I'm going to be fixing this bit. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incense 

message: While many people may agree that the pinnacle of “Russian” iconography may be “the Trinity” (really, “The Hospitality of Abraham”) by Andrei Rublev, I find it a bit disturbing (and he probably does too) that he acquired such fame, considering that he was a monk. I wonder on what they base his recognition as a saint. Phiddipus 15:57, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most widely venerated saints are also famous, monastic or otherwise.  Why should St. Andrei the Iconographer be any less famous than any well-known preacher? for what are icons but sermons in paint or tile?  But perhaps this will answer your question. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Icons and Famous Painters 

message: How can it be said that the OT isn't used extensively in the services?  At Vespers there are often three Old Testament reading called for, mostly from the Wisdom literature, and other books of the OT are read during Great Lent. The comparison to Protestantism here is misleading, since there is always an OT reading during the RC mass as well.
It is also not true that the Apocalypse is not used at all; it's read in its entirely in monasteries during Great Lent. (It's not part of the regular parish lectionary because it was a relatively late that its canonicity was universally agreed upon and by that time the lectionary was already set.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the Key word here is Extensively. Being a Psaltist myself I am aware of the few times I use the OT. On the other hand, most Protestants use the OT continually and somewhat (from an Orthodox point of View) inappropriately. As the Orthodox understand it, the OT was a Testament for the Jews and was part of that covenant between God and the Jews to which we Christians do not participate. We have a new covenant with Christ. Therefore the OT is simply not as important as the NT which has very much more bearing on our lives. While it is true the RC do have a few OT readings, most would agree with my assessment as compared to Protestants. As to the Apocalypse, it is only read in monasteries during meals, not services. There are simply no readings from it in any service I ever have seen or heard of, in or out of a monastery. Phiddipus 21:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bible 

message: It is my hope and realization that those of us who spend our little bits of free time here correcting errors realize that our work is useless and fruitless. The concept of the wikipedia may work for some subjects but not one that has “enemies”. Since there is no scholarly review, since there is no need to back anything up with hard data, since anyone can express his opinion, this particular subject, The Eastern Orthodox Church, should be considered by those who read it to be a mixture of truth and falsehood, unreliable as an information source. There have always been those who express their POV about certain aspects of the EOC in radical and innovative terms, and this has become their forum for a continual attack on what the Orthodox Church truly and traditionally believes. I have had numerous discussion here with highly intellectual members of the church who themselves see clearly the problems that occur when the less knowledgeable manage to undo all the work we have done with a simple edit. The current state of this subjects listing is appalling. What we have carefully stated to the wikipedia audience in order to be very clear, in order to be precise in what we say, in order not to invoke a theological error in the mind of the reader has been undone and rewritten by wishy-washy dilatants who have, at best, a new converts impression of things. I believe I have had done with it. It was a foolish venture to try and add to this base of knowledge. This wikipedia should be considered in the minds eye to be nothing more than a chalkboard of nonsense, at least in subjects such as this. Adieu, adieu. Phiddipus 22:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Unfixable Problem - I am not Don Quiote 

message: While I think this information is of considerable value, I question whether describing the rite in such detail belongs in an article that should really be an overview, as it takes a disproportionate amount of space.  I suggest it be moved to a seperate article, with perhaps a "See also" link on the present page. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  208.199.85.30's Marriage edits 

message: At the risk of appearing self-serving -- I recently clashed with this editor at Quartodecimanism and the process there is not yet complete -- I fail to understand why this link was not only restored and retained, but given the prominence of its own section.  I have no problem with "outside perspectives" as such (a well-balanced Wikipedia article should be one of them) but since when do we tolerate vanity links in articles?  The link was added by the webmaster of the site to which it points.  The target page adds no real information; rather, it appears to serve no purpose but to allow the writer a forum for his own POV. How can this be justified? TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I submit that this perspective isn't really even "notable."  The link doesn't seem to be either very well written or represent the official stance of any major group.  I'm removing it.  ——Preost talk contribs 20:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside perspectives 

message: Wow, all I can say is whoever wrote this either has very little grasp of Orthodox Theology, or very little understanding of the words he uses to express himself.
He/She states:
::”Man will never become a god nor should he seek to become a god. This was the cause of the fall of Satan.”
Theosis is our Goal. St Basil states: We are to strive to become little gods, within God, Little Jesus Christs within Jesus Christ”. In other words we must seek perfection in all things in our lives, We must strive to acquire Godly Virtue. God through participation in mankind makes it possible for man to participate in Divinity. While it is true that we will not become “separate” gods in the pagan sense we will participate in the divine energies of God (which are not separate from God) and still retain our individuality. 
Also He/She/ states:
::“that Jesus Christ, the Word of God, fully became a man through the complete submission of the Mary the Mother of Jesus while she was still a virgin.”
This phrase alone is so badly constructed that it both implies that The Theotokos, was nothing more than the mother of Jesus (Nestorianism) and that she did not retain her virginity. Pretty much, the rest of what is written shows a very dim and clouded understanding of the process of salvation even while it claims to be at the very core of Orthodox Faith.
Phiddipus 21:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely; Theosis should be affirmed in the article, though qualified, in that man cannot attain the Essence of God, and he cannot become equal to God. Athanasius' statement is not as misconstrued as the article currently says it is.
Tix 02:39, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Incarnation 

message: For those who are interested, there has been created :Category:Eastern Orthodox Wikipedians.  To include yourself in that category, edit your user page to include:  Category:Eastern Orthodox Wikipedians.  ——Preost talk contribs 17:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedians category 

message: Could someone please add a sentence or two on the subject to Women as theological figures (and any other religious viewpoints etc). Jackiespeel 23:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Eastern Orthodox Church and Women

message: I thought it was worth mentioning again that OrthodoxWiki exists, a wiki dedicated explicitly to Orthodox Christianity.  You are all welcome to come and contribute.  We're now up to almost 1300 articles.  —Preost talk contribs 02:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[OrthodoxWiki]] 

message: I was just reading the reasons why the article failed when it was nominated. It was so long ago and so many edits have been made since then, that it seems a certainty that issues have been sorted out. Could it be time to consider this article again as candidate for FA? Anagnorisis 03:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nowhere near ready.  There are no references, the organization and subject headings are sometime questionable, there are POV issues, and it needs a thorough copyedit. And that's without looking at the old nomination to see if the problems raised then really have been addressed. TCC (talk) (contribs) 18:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ditto what Csernica said.  —Preost talk contribs 21:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidate for FA?

message: There's a new template for Eastern Orthodox Wikipedians.  Just add this code to your userpage:  
—Preost talk contribs 14:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added that template to the user box list at Wikipedia:Userboxes, in the section "Religion".  --Aquarius Rising 01:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New user template 

message: Given the idiosyncrasies which seem to keep creeping into this article and the general mess that other articles pertaining to Eastern Orthodoxy are in on Wikipedia, what would everyone think of putting together a WikiProject titled WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy?  —Preost talk contribs 20:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject? 

message: A new article is titled Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church in America.  It used some inappropriate first-person language, some of which I've fixed.  It is deficient in other articles linking to it and probably could still use some cleanup.  It seems to have been created by a new Wikipedian who hasn't yet done anything else.  Perhaps readers of this page can help. Michael Hardy 00:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like yet another article on a start-up "uses Orthodox in its name" denomination. Most such groups get their articles deleted due to non-notability.  Most of the links have nothing to do with the group in question.  —Preost talk contribs 03:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help a new user?

message: No offense, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why this article isn't a featured article. Right now I'm trying to clean it up, and I hope people will cooperate and help, and let me know if I do something wrong. Tix 02:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done!  Looking over your edits, they're all essentially things I myself would do, had I world enough and time (and lack of sloth).  —Preost talk contribs 13:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean Up 

message: To place the term Original sin in context: God created man perfect with free will and gave man a direction to follow. Man chose rather to disobey God thus changing the perfect nature of man to the flawed nature of man. Therefore this flawed nature and all that has come from it it a result of that Original Sin. Because we participate in humanity, we share in the sin of Adam as we are human as he was human. This change of Nature in humanity is the reason Christ God united his divine nature to man, to alter that nature and thus save man from Hell. All humans participate in human nature including the Virgin mary (Why we reject the immaculate conception) That Original sin is cleansed in humans through baptism or, in the case of the Theotokos, the moment Christ took form within her.--Phiddipus 03:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understanding Original Sin 

message: The following language was inserted in the article and changed:
:Based on numbers of adherents, Eastern Orthodoxy is the third largest grouping of Christians in the world, after the Roman Catholic Church and Protestantism.
with the edit summary that Protestantism is not a grouping in the relevant sense. This is strongly debatable; more seriously, the changed language will mislead many English-speakers, who will see an implication that Protestantism has fewer adherents than Orthodoxy. 
Another sentence may be warranted, saying that there are fewer Orthodox than Protestants as a whole, but more than Lutherans or Calvinists or any other variety - but that may be an unnecessary lengthening. Septentrionalis 04:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: S'okay, I fix. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:01, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It seems to me that you are using "Protestntism" which is an artificial construct (there is no Protestant Church) to encompass all those religions who reacted in protest to Papism as if they were in agreement with one another, which they aren't. Also, most of those classified as "Protestant" are not in fact protesting the Roman Catholic Church at all, albeit the major groups thatwere formed in this manner are, Lutherns, Anglicans, Calvanists, and a few others. My guess is, since it is such an ambiguous grouping, those who count their numbers as greater than the number of Eastern Orthodox are simply including the majority of the 30,000 or so Non-Orthodox and Non-Roman Catholics churches to suit their needs. What it remains is a rather silly thing to say, you might as well say there are more Non-Orthodox Christians than Orthodox. Roman Catholics are in communion with one another and do not include Non-RC, it is one church. The Orthodox, likewise, is a single body that does not commune outsiders, it is one church. this cannot be said of the "Protestants" therefore they cannot be counted as one church.--Phiddipus 15:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You're not wrong when you characterize Protestantism in my opinion, but others will see it differently which is why it's presented the way it is.  And "group" is a very general term, that applies just as well to the assembly of local Orthodox Churches as it does to the Protestant miscellany. TCC (talk) (contribs) 07:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protestantism

message: This article is VERY long.  I have moved the full text of the marriage section to a new article - Marriage in the Eastern Orthodox Church - and put a cut down version in this article.  Both the new summary here, and the new article, of course, still need a bit of tidying up.  --DogsBreakfast 16:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relocating full text of Marriage section 

message: I realize that this issue has been hashed and rehashed a few times, but the current article is still not accurate. I also realize that many of the contributors to this article may not be aware of the scope of the traditions of the Orthodox Church and may be judging based on what their local church practices or what their particular “jurisdiction” is used to. I do not mean to sound inflammatory or nit-picky, but in order to reflect the teachings and practices of the Orthodox Church and present them to the world, it is necessary to encompass, as best we can, all of the conditions possible when relating to a subject, especially when such a condition is not uncommon. Many problems arise within this article because of language, the church being fairly new to the English speaking world, and the attempt to use pre existing terminology borrowed from western Christianity. So please, bare with me and look to the meaning of what I say, not necessarily the terminology I use. I will attempt to state it simply:
God forgives sins. Within the Church, ideally, in order to receive communion one should confess and have the prayer of forgiveness read over one by a priest. Only a priest can perform this function, and the priesthood is male. But to clarify, this reading of the prayer is not the Mystery itself, but only the last step before communing. The major part of the mystery occurs when the individual seeks out his spiritual “father” and confesses his sins. The mystery is that God speaks through the spiritual guide and that the follower must take it to heart exactly what his guide tells him. It has been said that no one, not even the ecumenical patriarch can override the words of a spiritual guide since this would be to deny the mystery. While a priest is necessary to read the prayer of forgiveness, he is not necessarily the person’s spiritual guide, nor is it necessary for him to hear ones confession. In such cases the priest usually asks the communicant if he has confessed to his spiritual guide, and then simply reads the prayer. This completes the mystery as a period completes a sentence, the mystery occurs as God working through the spiritual guide.
Now to the point; as it states in the article, sin must be dealt with on an individual basis. It must be filtered through human understanding. The Orthodox Church accomplishes this by the enlistment of spiritual guides. What it needs to state is that the spiritual guides can be male or female, spiritual fathers and mothers. A spiritual mother is not an uncommon thing. Women do hear confession. God works the Mystery as easily through women as through men. And there are many, many instances where women have more authority (abbesses in their convents) than even the Patriarch of Constantinople.
The terminology: Confessor, may be itself misleading. But to redefine it in Orthodox context, a Confessor is one who hears confessions, whom God speaks through, who guides spiritually his or her charges, who's authority cannot be overridden, and does all of this before having a priest (or himself) read the prayer of forgiveness before communion. This definition can apply to men as well as women.--Phiddipus 16:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women as spiritual mothers and confessors