GOA now tonsuring women as clergy?

[尼古拉前执事]

Eve Tibbs being tonsured as a Reader by Metropolitan Anthony (GOA/EP), June 8, 2003 from http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/parishhistory.htm

[bogoliubtsy]

How does one even respond to this? I could say "that's crazy!" but it would be like declaring the sky to be blue. I suppose i'll just let the picture speak for itself.

[Makis]

Well, judging on what I can see from their pictures, they are not what one can call the most "orthodox" parish.
Just take a look at their "iconostasis":



Can anybody tell me why I have the idee that some people have lost it somewhat?
It seems to me that they would feel much more at home in a (ofcause non-traditional) RC parish.

In Christ,

Makis

[TomS]

Really. You all MUST teach me this trick of seeing around that HUGE log in your eye.

What I have read from googling the internet is that a Reader is NOT a member of the clergy. One OCA site for readers uses the terms "he or she" interchangebly when referring to Readers.

[Joseph D]

Even if the top photo were of a woman being tonsured as clergy, I am not certain it would mean trouble in heaven.
You see, the Orthodox Church holds a rite for Deaconesses,
Traditionally speaking-- now how ironic is that?

Sincerely:
Joseph

[Seraphim Reeves]

TomS,

What I have read from googling the internet is that a Reader is NOT a member of the clergy. One OCA site for readers uses the terms "he or she" interchangebly when referring to Readers.

Reader is a minor order, hence a Reader most certainly is a "cleric."

I'd be interested in learning more about the propriety of this seemingly curious act by the GOA (making a woman a Reader). I know there were female deacons at one time (though apparently their role differed significantly from that of male deacons.) Honestly, I don't know whether what the GOA has done here really is incorrect, or simply something very unusual (hence the reaction on the part of so many.)

Seraphim

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

On the one hand, we could get into the specifics of whether this is canonically correct, that is, the "iconostas" (or the lack thereof) and the "ordaining" of a woman reader...

But the thought occured to me, since when has canonical correctness and maintaining the faith meant anything to these people? Must we debate these issues while their "canonical" "bishops" are running around signing Balamands agreements, recognizing a miriad of heretic "mysteries", and teaching a whole hosts of unorthodox teachings and practice?

These Protestizations are quite simply just another manifestation of their independence and rebellion against God which began in the 1920's.

If this is not plainly obvious then I doubt a discussion about ordained woman and Frank-Loyd Wright looking churches will do much good.