GOA now tonsuring women as clergy?

[George Australia]

Why was the "new" calendar implemented in the mid-1500s;

It wasn't implemented until the 1920's. You are thinking of the Gregorian Calendar in reference to the 1500's. You'd have to ask the Roman Catholics that one- it has nothing to do with me. The proof of this is that the New Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar will no longer be the same after AD 2800. The New Calendarists and the Gregorian Calendarists will never celebrate Pascha and Easter on the same day after AD 2800.

Exactly how did any of these implementations benefit the UNITY of the Orthodox Church?

As stated, there was only one implementation of the New Calendar. It doesn't seem to have effected the unity of the Church except for a small group which has decided to schism over it. The Serbian Patriarchate, the Moscow Patriarchate, the Jerusalem Patriarchate etc all follow the Old Calendar and all managed to stay in Communion with the New Calendarists. It was a small group, in fact only three bishops, who decided they couldn't tolerate it and schismed over it. So perhaps you need to ask the followers of those three bishops how they have benefited Church Unity through schism? If the Church can maintain unity in diversity of customs, why couldn't they?

What was the Orthodox purpose behind the "new" calendar's inception, implementation?

To correct the solar astronomical innacuracies of the Calendar and re-connect it to the realities it was originally meant to reflect. This may come as a shock to many Old Calendarists, but the Earth actually revolves around the Sun, and the date on the Calendar is supposed to reflect Earth's position in it's orbit. The Julian Calendar misplaces the position of the Earth in it's orbit by one day every 128 years. The Revised Julian Calendar, or New Calendar corrects this firstly by correcting the date to match the orbit of the Earth, and the New or Revised Julian Calendar avoids the error the original Julian Calendar makes in the future by not counting the century years which are not divisible by 400 as Leap Years. Thus, the year 2100 will be a leap year for the Old Calendarists, but not for the New Calendarists, and there will thereafter be yet another day's difference between them (14 days). At this rate, by the year AD 3800, the Seasons will all begin a month later according to the Old Julian Calendar, and eventually, Christmas will be celebrated in the Northern Summer and the Southern Winter- And we just don't have any Winter recipes for Christmas food here in Australia.

You may want to ask yourself this: If astronomical accuracy was unimportant to the Fathers of the Church, then why did they decree that the date of Pascha- the Feast of Feasts on the Calendar- should be deterimined by an astronomical event, namely the Jerusalem Vernal Equinox, or the exact time that the sun crosses the elipse in Spring from the point of view of the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem?

[Priest Siluan]

The New Calendarist uses the Papal "Mineya" which is a "PART" of the Papal Calendar and the Papal Calendar has been condemned in its ENTIRETY.

Could you please tell me which Feasts from the papal Menaion the New Calendarists have adopted?

All of the Immobile Feasts

And while you're at it, on the years that the latin Easter and Julian Pascha fall on the same day, does that mean that you guys have adopted the papal Paschalion? You might be justified in saying that the Uniates have adopted the papal Menaion, because, for example, they celebrate the latin "Feast of the Immaculate Conception" on December 8th. But you cannot possibly claim that the New Calendarists have "adopted the papal Menaion". Because if they have, then you guys have as well. The only thing that changed in the New Calendar was that the Orthodox Menaion as a whole was moved 13 days. You and I have the same Menaion, only the date of the Menaion is different.

But, it is the same thing, the New Calendarist Meneya is based on the dates according to the Papal Calendar. This is completely indefensible and innovative.

We must ourselves understand, and also declare for all to hear, that since1927, when Metropolitan Sergius signed his lamentable "declaration," and up to the present day, our Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia has not had and does not have any communion in prayer with the Moscow Patriachate, which is nothing other than the uncanonical creation of the former Soviet regime. By the same token we do not have spiritual communion with a single other autocephalous Orthodox Church which lives its spiritual and liturgical life according to the new calendar. What liturgical communion can we have, when we are still fasting, but they are celebrating the Nativity of Christ by the new calendar? According to our calendar we are praying to one saint, while the new calendarists in their way are praying to a completely different saint. In other words, any kind of communion has been destroyed, both in prayer and also even in the sacraments.

And so I, as First Hierarch, am calling upon all of you to remain forever faithful to our Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia and not to be confused by those appeals which we are all hearing more and more often that we should unite and concelebrate with others in the name of a loudly proclaimed "brotherly love." Where is our "brotherly love" when we are living, in that which is most important to us - our Divine Services - according to different calendars, and living a different spiritual life? Let us ponder the meaning of that most important phrase "Divine Service," which is to say, "serving God" and then we will understand that in fact we are serving God Himself in different ways.

Throughout the eighty years of the existence of our Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia we have not made one step into any dubious spiritual byways. No doubtful "teachings" or errors have come from our Church and our "Credo" - "I believe in One God ..." - which is sung at each Divine Liturgy, remains our unsullied faith, by which we live, and through which we dare to hope to share in the "life of the age to come." Amen.

Metropolitan Vitaly
Post-Conciliar Epistle, 1/14 August, 2000

[George Australia]

But, it is the same thing, the New Calendarist Meneya is based on the dates according to the Papal Calendar. This is completely indefensible and innovative.

There is actually no "innovation" in the New Calendar Menaion. According to the Orthodox Menaion, November 9th is the feast of St. Nectarios. The New Calendarists celebrate it on the 9th of November, and the Old Calendarists celebrate it on the 9th of November. The only difference is that they differ on which day they call "the 9th of November". The Feast of St. Nectarios does not occur in the papal Menaion which considers November 9th to be the Feast of the dedication of the Basilica of St. John Lateran, and, since neither the Old nor New Calendarist Orthodox observe this, neither of them observes the papal Menaion.
When you call it "the Papal Calendar," what you are saying is that the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is the sole property of the Pope of Rome! Whether there is a pope or not, the Equinoxes and Solstices will take place on the days that they take place whether you wish to aknowledge this fact or not. By AD 1582, the Vernal Equinox had moved back 10 days on the Juian Calendar. The Revised Julian Calendar moves it forward again back to March 21st- which is where it was when the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council used it to determine the date of Pascha. So what you are saying is that the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council also followed the "Papal Calendar".

[尼古拉前执事]

What was the Orthodox purpose behind the "new" calendar's inception, implementation?

To correct the solar astronomical innacuracies of the Calendar and re-connect it to the realities it was originally meant to reflect.

That is not what the EP said when it was implemented. it was to make union with "the rest of the Christian Church (i.e. Protestants, Roman Catholics, Nestorians, Monophysites, etc.)

At this rate, by the year AD 3800, the Seasons will all begin a month later according to the Old Julian Calendar, and eventually, Christmas will be celebrated in the Northern Summer and the Southern Winter- And we just don't have any Winter recipes for Christmas food here in Australia.

And using the New Calendar Menaion, which many years has no Apostles fast or a negative number of days of the fast, nor a Kyrio-Pascha, one day will also end up with its Pascha and the Nativity on the same day! So not only does it innovate in removing feasts and fasts of the Church, but it makes a new combination not in the Menaion. Of course you must also know what issues the New Calendar Menaion does to the hymns of Saint George's feast day as well.

That being said George, what about the Orthodox Church of Finland who uses the Gregorian Calendar for even its Paschalion just so it gets tax breaks, a Church given autocephaly from the EP and a blessing to use this calendar. How do you defend this? Do you think all of World Orthodoxy should do this?

If the Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists, can all keep their own liturgical/ecclesiastical calendars for 1,000s of years, why do we have to be the weak ones to fall inline with the secular calendar in the name of modern science and heretical ecumenism and branch theorism?

[joasia]

George wrote:

The Serbian Patriarchate, the Moscow Patriarchate, the Jerusalem Patriarchate etc all follow the Old Calendar and all managed to stay in Communion with the New Calendarists.

This union has nothing to do with calendar issues. Their agenda is to accept other religions and they don't want to step on any un-Orthodox toes. It's a political issue...nothing to do with spiritual worship; it's business, not faith.

It was a small group, in fact only three bishops, who decided they couldn't tolerate it and schismed over it. So perhaps you need to ask the followers of those three bishops how they have benefited Church Unity through schism? If the Church can maintain unity in diversity of customs, why couldn't they?

Sometimes, there's a need to speak up against inconsistencies and I believe that that was their stance. If something doesn't seem right, then something has to be done. They didn't feel right about what was going on. As much as you have the right to voice your opinion..so do we.

To correct the solar astronomical innacuracies of the Calendar and re-connect it to the realities it was originally meant to reflect. This may come as a shock to many Old Calendarists, but the Earth actually revolves around the Sun, and the date on the Calendar is supposed to reflect Earth's position in it's orbit

From what I see, it's not so much the arguement about where the sun stands, but about the meaning of why the changes were made. It was not decided on faith matters but on solar matters, and although God created the universe, He wants us to follow by faith, in our hearts. The changes were a result of falling away from God and conforming to the world's(westernized-controlled) views...it was a political maneuver...for power and worldly ambitions....there was nothing spiritual about the changes.

You may want to ask yourself this: If astronomical accuracy was unimportant to the Fathers of the Church, then why did they decree that the date of Pascha- the Feast of Feasts on the Calendar- should be deterimined by an astronomical event, namely the Jerusalem Vernal Equinox, or the exact time that the sun crosses the elipse in Spring from the point of view of the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem?

My humble response is that they decreed this for the fact that it was after the feast of the Jewish Passover. It is more important to consider the spiritual context of the time. But, when a tradition is set over many centuries...then, I ask you, why do you think that the pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople have the right to just wave their hands and say: make it so? There were centuries of saints that followed the Julian calendar and then all of a sudden, it was wrong. Tell that to St. John Chyrsostom, St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory the Theologian.

It's not about changing the calendar...it's about the reason why the calendar was changed. Look into the heart and you will see the motive. Do you think that God doesn't know about the cycle of His sun and moons? He set it in one way and that should be accepted. It's man that creates the dilemma.

So it's no surprise that there are people that want to keep the Julian calendar traditon. Why change it? The holy fathers accepted it... the same holy fathers that I think you believe in. If they accepted it..being saints and knowing God as we don't, then shouldn't that be an affirmation of what is right by God?

Joanna

[Myrrh]

Myrhh that simply is not true. When I have the time I will repost the ancient canons showing that women are not allowed at the altar except in a monastery for purposes of cleaning.

Oh please do.

And finally the canon you ask of:

CANON XLIV of the 60 CANONS:
That women must not enter the sacrificial Altar.

I'll try and get back to the rest of the post over the weekend, but re the canons -

the 4th Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church speaks of their ordination, using the same term "cheirotonia" as for deacons, priests and bishops

Here is Canon 15:

"A WOMAN shall not receive ordination [cheirotonia is the word used] as a deaconess under forty years of age, and then only after searching examination. And if, after she has received ordination and has continued for a time to minister, she shall despise the grace of God and give herself in marriage, she shall be anathematized and the man united to her."

And we find in the Apostolic Constitutions...

Apostolic Constitutions III/15

"For which reason, O bishop, do thou ordain thy fellow-workers, the labourers for life and for righteousness, such deacons as are pleasing to God, such whom thou provest to be worthy among all the people, and such as shall be ready for the necessities of their ministration. Ordain also a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the ministrations towards women."

NOTE that the word used to ordain a deacon and to ordain a deaconess is identical here - cheirotonia.

"For sometimes he cannot send a deacon, who is a man, to the women, on account of unbelievers. Thou shalt therefore send a woman, a deaconess, on account of the imaginations of the bad. For we stand in need of a woman, a deaconess, for many necessities; and first in the baptism of women, the deacon shall
anoint only their forehead with the holy oil, and after him the deaconess shall anoint them: for there is no necessity that the women should be seen by the men; but only in the laying on of hands the bishop shall anoint her head, as the priests and kings were formerly anointed..."

Ordination for women deacons:

http://www.anastasis.org.uk/woman_deacon.htm

ORDER FOR THE ORDINATION OF A WOMAN DEACON

After the completion of the holy Anaphora and the opening of the doors, before the Deacon says, Having commemorated all the Saints,[1] the one to be ordained is brought before the Bishop. As he declaims the invocation, Divine grace,[2] etc., she bows her head, on which he lays his hand.

He makes the sign of the Cross three times over her and prays as follows:

Holy and All-powerful God, through the birth in flesh of your Only-begotten Son and our God from a Virgin you sanctified woman, and granted not only to men but also to women the grace and visitation of the Holy Spirit. Now, Master, look upon this servant of yours also, call her to the work of your service[3] and send down upon her the rich gift of your Holy Spirit. Guard her in your Orthodox faith in a blameless way of life in accordance with what is well pleasing to you, as she fulfils her ministry[4] at every moment.[5]

For to you belong all glory, honour and worship, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, now and for ever, and to the ages of ages. Amen.

After the Amen one of the Deacons prays as follows:

In peace, let us pray to the Lord. And the rest, as in the ordination of male Deacons, with the necessary changes of gender in the petition for the candidate.

While the Deacon is saying this, the Bishop, with his hand still resting on the head of the one being ordained, prays as follows:

Master and Lord, you do not reject women who offer themselves, and by divine counsel, to minister as is fitting to your holy houses, but you accept them in the order of ministers. Give the grace of your Holy Spirit to this servant of yours also, who wishes to offer herself to you, and to accomplish the grace of the diaconate, as you gave the grace of your diaconate to Phoebe, whom you called to the work of the ministry. Grant her, O God, to persevere without condemnation in your holy churches, to give careful attention to her way of life, to chastity in particular, and show her to be your perfect servant, that, when she stands before the judgement of Christ, she may also receive the fitting reward of her way of life.[6]

By the mercy and love for humankind of your Only-begotten Son, with whom you are blessed, etc.

And after the Amen the Bishop places the Deacon’s Orarion on her neck, under the Maphorion, bringing the two extremities round to the front.[7]

The other Deacon stands outside the Sanctuary and says:

Having commemorated all the Saints, again and again in peace, let us pray to the Lord, etc.

After she has received Communion of the holy Body and Blood, the Bishop hands her the Chalice. When she has taken it, she places it on the holy Table.

---

[1] The ordination takes place at the same point of the Liturgy as that for male Deacons and the role of the diaconate as the minister of the Chalice is stressed by the giving of the Chalice to the newly ordained woman Deacon. This clearly indicates that the newly ordained was admitted to the Sanctuary and stood near the Altar. The 14th century canonist Matthew Blastares notes that, ’except for a few things, the ordination of women deacons is to be performed like that for male deacons’. He notes particularly that ‘she is brought to the Holy Table’. The rubrical details in the older books are few and the actual formula of ordination is not given in full. As a result we do not know how the candidate was described or what her ecclesiastical status was before ordination. I do not think the fact that she only bows and does not kneel has any theological signifance.

[1] This prayer is less specific than that for male Deacons and makes no reference to the ‘service of the Mysteries’. On the other hand there is no distinction between the sexes with regard to the ‘gift of the Holy Spirit’ conferred by ordination.

[2] See the rite for male Deacons.

[3] Greek diakonia.

[4] Greek leitourgia. Here and elsewhere translated by ‘ministry’. The verb by ‘minister’.

[5] This prayer is less specific than that for male Deacons and makes no reference to the ‘service of the Mysteries’. On the other hand there is no distinction between the sexes with regard to the ‘gift of the Holy Spirit’ conferred by ordination.

[6] Whereas the model for the male diaconate is St Stephen, that for women Deacons is St Phoebe of Kenchreae, who is clearly described as a ‘Deacon’ in Romans 16. In contrast to the prayers for male ordinands, the prayer underlines that fact that the woman has offered herself for ordination, which is more reminiscent of the rite of monastic profession.

[7] The woman Deacon is specifically said to be vested in a ‘deacon’s orarion’, but she wears it with both ends hanging down in front, like a western stole, rather than over the left shoulder. This difference appears to be purely practical, since the woman Deacon would be wearing the maphorion, or ample monastic veil, which would make wearing the orarion over her shoulder difficult.

---

Archimandrite Ephrem

Sorry, the first piece is from a list the page ref I've mislaid, will look for it.

Note the sentence I've put in bold and enlarged.
Myrrh

[尼古拉前执事]

Deacons and Deaconesses were completely different offfices. We actually already have a whole thread on this at http://www.EuphrosynosCafe.com/forum/vi ... .php?t=189 in case you would like to discuss this specific issue further.

Of note, although a deacon must be 25 before being ordianed, a priest 30 and a bishop 35, a deaconess had to be at least 40, which also identifies the office as different. If a married priest were to be come a bishop, the canons say that if his wife was of great character, after she goes to a convent and becomes a nun, she may be elevated to a deaconess.