Perspectief 2015-29

Perspectief 38 Dr. Pantelis Kalaitzidis reformations, insofar as they do not affect the fundamental doctrines of our faith, i.e. Trinitarian or/and Christological doctrines, and the growing consensus among distinguished Orthodox theologians regarding the non-theological character of “Orthodox” arguments against women’s ordination, it is clear that the Orthodox Church is constantly refusing to seriously consider and discuss this issue, appealing to the criterion of “tradition” which is in fact identified with the structures and perceptions of the traditional patriarchal societies of the Middle East in which Orthodoxy is mainly shaped, and to which it owes its historical and cultural physiognomy. In addition, as it is well- known, the adoption of women’s ordination by the Old Catholic, Anglican, and mainstream Protestant churches, and its rejection by the Orthodox Church, constitutes a source of serious discordance and friction in their ecumenical relations. With regard to the relationship of the Orthodox Church with the Old Catholic Church, it was even one of the reasons of failing to achieve full sacramental communion, despite the initial theological agreement which was reached between the two churches in 1987. If the Orthodox Church could be criticized for its rejection of a “new” canonical practice on the basis of its fixation on non-theological/cultural factors, the Western churches on the other hand, which adopted the ordination of women, could in their turn be criticized for their lack of ecumenical sensitivity, since they had not tried to raise this issue in their dialogue with the Orthodox Church prior to the final adoption of this practice. In addition, by adopting women’s ordination without taking into account Orthodoxy’s difficulties in this matter (even of cultural order), Western mainstream churches demonstrated once again their Eurocentric spirit and their feeling of cultural superiority and sense of progress, insofar as they expect that the Eastern Christians can walk within a few decades a journey for which Western Christians needed many centuries and the landmarks of Enlightenment, modernity, and post-modern pluralistic societies. As a result of the above lack on behalf of the Orthodox of a clear distinction between theological and non-theological factors, every different practice or belief in the life of the non-Orthodox churches, every diverging formula or wording in the latter’s dogmatic tradition immediately acquires for many of the Orthodox faithful the status of doctrinal distortion, which must be abandoned and overcome if we aspire to union and communion in the same Eucharistic chalice. For many Orthodox it is still difficult to see unity in diversity