If you want to have a female priest, you have a vast choice of denominations to go to. No need to drag holy Orthodoxy down with the rest unless that’s the goal... dragging Orthodoxy down
The first ecumenical council used didascalia as a template and replaced the word deaconess with καλόγρια in the corresponding section with the same requirements, widows and virgins age 40. Literally, female monastics subsumed the role of female servants (deaconesses) and never had parochial liturgical roles equivalent to ordained deacons who MUST be eligible in all manners and impediments to become priests. Nuns can carry the Eucharist to women, and distribute it in the monastery and even go into the altar area to assist a priest, but would never wear the vestments of a deacon signifying an order of priesthood and eligibility to become a priest. This is on a Schismatic level.
The whole thing about crossing one’s legs is just considered TOO casual and thus rude in God’s house. What’s also interesting is, the Russian Old Believers cross their arms while standing in church, whereas among Greeks (and I think all of the Mediterranean, standing with one’s arms crossed is considered highly casual and very inappropriate, i.e. rude).
We've also been told by our Rocor Bishop that it would be rude to cross our arms during service so it seems like it's a universally negative thing outside of the Old Rite.
@@alexschexnayder8624 It's generally viewed as very aggressive or judgmental. Related: the difference between crossing your arms at the wrist in front of your body as opposed to doing it behind your back. Holding one wrist with your other hand in front of you is an act of submission, whereas holding your hands behind your back is dominant and aggressive, because you are exposing your viscera and genitals without guarding them, revealing a lack of fear or caution. Awareness of these old standards of body language is all but lost in America.
I think Jay is right. Here in Japan and in some other Asian countries, it's considered v rude. Hence no crossing legs on trains, at meetings, no lying down in airplanes erc
Crossing ankles isn't bad however. Sometimes one has to to stop their legs from shaking (or at least I do). But, we don't have pews so there's no sitting anyway. I've never seen anyone in my Russian Parish cross their arms so it must be an Old Believer thing. It does seem rude.
As Russian I can confirm. We allowed cross legs in most relaxed casual situations. You can't cross your legs when you sit in front of higher authority, so it's seen as inappropriate in church also.
Curious Jay what you think about the things talked about in 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor. 14 being cultural instead of directives for all churches at all times. I ask because I have been reading Craig Keener’s book, “Paul, Women and Wives.” He makes the argument that because women were already prophesying in Corinth and he doesn’t tell them to stop. M, how could he be arguing for them to be silent in the same letter? Also, could it have been something pertaining to Corinth and Ephesus alone like women prophetesses that Paul wanted to make sure weren’t being confused with female Christians ( the Greek goddess Artemis for instance, apparently had these types of priests). Just curious if you had heard that argument or what Orthodox feel about that possibility.
Codex Barberini, manuscript of the ordination of female deacons, shows that it was identical to the ordination of men. It took place at the Divine Liturgy, Bishop put hands on candidate calling down the Holy Spirit, she was vested in the orarion, and given the chalice. Women were ordained to the deaconate. I would argue that a revived women's deaconate would help to heal the skittles nonsense we see in the culture.
The Didascalia Apostolorum from the 3rd century states... “Deaconesses should carry out the anointing of women in the rite of baptism, instruct women neophytes, and visit the women faithful, especially the sick, in their homes. They were forbidden to confer baptism themselves, or to play a part in the Eucharistic offering"
![Unitarian & Karen vs Jay Dyer | [heated] debate on authority & Trinity](/img/1.gif)
If you want to have a female priest, you have a vast choice of denominations to go to. No need to drag holy Orthodoxy down with the rest unless that’s the goal... dragging Orthodoxy down
Exactly..🧐
Same with the B, the L and the M thing.
As though the Orthodox Church isn’t already a massive blessing in a fallen world. Don’t fix what ain’t broke.
Fr John is a great treasure to the Church!
Love it! when you have Father John on the show.
Great clip Jay
God has honoured us already, why would we need more?
The first ecumenical council used didascalia as a template and replaced the word deaconess with καλόγρια in the corresponding section with the same requirements, widows and virgins age 40. Literally, female monastics subsumed the role of female servants (deaconesses) and never had parochial liturgical roles equivalent to ordained deacons who MUST be eligible in all manners and impediments to become priests. Nuns can carry the Eucharist to women, and distribute it in the monastery and even go into the altar area to assist a priest, but would never wear the vestments of a deacon signifying an order of priesthood and eligibility to become a priest. This is on a Schismatic level.
The whole thing about crossing one’s legs is just considered TOO casual and thus rude in God’s house.
What’s also interesting is, the Russian Old Believers cross their arms while standing in church, whereas among Greeks (and I think all of the Mediterranean, standing with one’s arms crossed is considered highly casual and very inappropriate, i.e. rude).
We've also been told by our Rocor Bishop that it would be rude to cross our arms during service so it seems like it's a universally negative thing outside of the Old Rite.
@@alexschexnayder8624 It's generally viewed as very aggressive or judgmental. Related: the difference between crossing your arms at the wrist in front of your body as opposed to doing it behind your back. Holding one wrist with your other hand in front of you is an act of submission, whereas holding your hands behind your back is dominant and aggressive, because you are exposing your viscera and genitals without guarding them, revealing a lack of fear or caution.
Awareness of these old standards of body language is all but lost in America.
We are taught not to stand casually- no hands in pockets, chewing gum, crossing legs, etc
I think Jay is right. Here in Japan and in some other Asian countries, it's considered v rude. Hence no crossing legs on trains, at meetings, no lying down in airplanes erc
Crossing ankles isn't bad however. Sometimes one has to to stop their legs from shaking (or at least I do). But, we don't have pews so there's no sitting anyway.
I've never seen anyone in my Russian Parish cross their arms so it must be an Old Believer thing. It does seem rude.
☦️☦️☦️
10:10 Can verify. When I went to Russia in 1995 I crossed my legs in a church and got some seriously hard stares. I didnt find out until later.
As Russian I can confirm. We allowed cross legs in most relaxed casual situations. You can't cross your legs when you sit in front of higher authority, so it's seen as inappropriate in church also.
Curious Jay what you think about the things talked about in 1 Tim 2 and 1 Cor. 14 being cultural instead of directives for all churches at all times. I ask because I have been reading Craig Keener’s book, “Paul, Women and Wives.” He makes the argument that because women were already prophesying in Corinth and he doesn’t tell them to stop. M, how could he be arguing for them to be silent in the same letter?
Also, could it have been something pertaining to Corinth and Ephesus alone like women prophetesses that Paul wanted to make sure weren’t being confused with female Christians ( the Greek goddess Artemis for instance, apparently had these types of priests). Just curious if you had heard that argument or what Orthodox feel about that possibility.
Codex Barberini, manuscript of the ordination of female deacons, shows that it was identical to the ordination of men. It took place at the Divine Liturgy, Bishop put hands on candidate calling down the Holy Spirit, she was vested in the orarion, and given the chalice. Women were ordained to the deaconate. I would argue that a revived women's deaconate would help to heal the skittles nonsense we see in the culture.
The Didascalia Apostolorum from the 3rd century states...
“Deaconesses should carry out the anointing of women in the rite of baptism, instruct women neophytes, and visit the women faithful, especially the sick, in their homes. They were forbidden to confer baptism themselves, or to play a part in the Eucharistic offering"