GOA now tonsuring women as clergy?

[Jean-Serge]

I f you feel so uncomfortable, just launch a petition... I will be happy to sign it too...

I've got a better idea. Why don't we just get three Bishops together into a Synod and pronoune all Slavonic Churches schismatic for continuing to officially teach heresy for over 200 years.

Well you make a confusion between slavonic church and Russian church... The Serbian church is slavonic but uses the correct words, like the Bulgarian one for example...

[Priest Siluan]

Are you a "World Orthodox"? When did you leave Met. Kyprianos? Or do you maybe think that the Kyprianites are a part of the "World Orthodoxy"?

Answer the question I asked first, then I'll answer yours. Which is the true Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church? Is it that priests have no power to forgive sins, or that they do have the power to forgive sins?
Surely if you are an Orthodox Priest, you should know whether or not you have the power to forgive sins. Especially since you belong to a group which claims to be one of the few which upholds Holy Tradition. So answer my question that I may know whether "Traditionalists" uphold Holy Tradition or simply the customs of 18th century Russia, even when they contradict Holy Tradition.

You continue without answering my question and you seek to put on a debate that it doesn't interest me and it is not essential to own Faith.

I only say that, Russian, Greek, Serbian... (some people sustains that the tradition of the Slava has pagan roots) we have different customs, the important thing is that all of we should have one same Faith.

[Priest Siluan]

The question is...with this difference, you pointed out, were and are all the people who went to confession, not absolved of sins, by God because of the wording?

If the answer would be affirmative, this would be truly "Latin" on behalf of George.

[George Australia]

we have different customs, the important thing is that all of we should have one same Faith.

And obviously, it doesn't matter to you that the Russian Church professes a different Faith about the Priesthood to the rest of Orthodoxy. But it does matter to you that the 2nd of the Month is not counted as the 15th- that is the kind of thing people should be anathemised for....
So professing a different theology about the Priesthood is just "different customs"? Then why is a different calendar so threateneing a "heresy" that the Church should be divided over it? If we can profess different truths about the Priesthood and still be one Church (and I don't know how much more different saying Priests "can" and "cannot" forgive sins could possibly be), then why can't we have two different calendars and still be one Church? And why can't some in the Church hold dialogue with the non-Orthodox and we still be one Church? What gives us the right to be selective about which professed heresies should be condemned?

[尼古拉前执事]

Dear George I agree that the English tranlation of the Slavonic that you site as being in use in certain Russian Churches is an issue that should be discussed in a Great Council and straightened out. Just like the issue that has been raised in the Liturgics section of the presanctified communion.

That being said, the new calendar was anathematized in a Great Council, as you very well know. It also was adopted for the sake of Ecumenism and Ecumenism was also anathematized by a Local Council of the ROCOR which was received and accepted by all of the Traditional Orthodox Churches as well.

Now if you will give me an hour or so, I will attempt to find the canons showing that women in fact did not serve in the altar and this has long been banned. Please forgive the fact that this is an old discussion (perhaps 2002) on the cafe and currently the search engine is not working on threads not posted to in a year's time.

[George Australia]

That being said, the new calendar was anathematized in a Great Council, as you very well know.

Which Great Council anathemised the New Calendar?
The Calendar which was anathemised was the Gregorian Calendar. The New Calendarists do not follow the Gregorian Calendar, because, if they did, their Pascha, and all the moveable feasts dependant on it would always fall on the same date as the Latins, and Novemebr the 1st would be the feast of All Saints as it is in the Gregorian Calendar, rather than the Feast of Sts. Cosmas and Damien as it is in the New Calendar Orthodox Churches. So, it is hyperbole to say the "New Calendar" was condemned, and this line of argument would depend on the New Calendar and the Gregorian Calendar being the same thing.

I agree that the English tranlation of the Slavonic that you site as being in use in certain Russian Churches is an issue that should be discussed in a Great Council and straightened out.

Then a Great Council needs to be summoned to sort out the Calendar...but then, a Great Council was summoned, and agreement reached to use different Calendars..... But if you want to summon another Great Council to settle the Calendar matter, I would support the idea. And the same Council could clarify what constitutes the heresy of "Ecumenism", because the ROCOR anathema defined it as the Branch Theory, which is a doctrine that most "World Orthodox" Churches accused of being "Ecumenist" have openly rejected as heresy.

[尼古拉前执事]

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.

Just a few comments from other threads I found trying to find the canons:

There is no tradition of consecrating women as Priests in the Orthodox tradition. The only place such a practice is found in the early Christian period, was in gnostic sects. That the gnostics did make women "priests" and that the Orthodox did not, has a lot to do with their respective views of gender, and God's creation in general. As far as Orthodoxy is concerned, the created order (minus it's fallen condition, obviously) are works of God, thus they are good. This includes the real differences between men and women, and their respective roles - the gnostics on the other hand believed the observable, corporeal, created order was the work of a "lesser god" (the demiurge), who was in fact a demonic monster, who created this world as a way of imprisoning the "sparks of divinity" which supposedly constitute our souls. Obviously then, such a belief system would have nothing but contempt for the created order. Not only would it be disinterested in observing it, but would in fact be motivated to do what it could to violate it intentionally (which is precisely what many gnostic sects did to an extreme.)

Strictly speaking, the tradition argument should be sufficient for Orthodox Christians - that there has never been a practice of making Priests of women is indisputable. However, for some this is not a complete enough answer, so some rational should be given.

The more complete answer has to do with the imitation of Christ, and gender roles. Christ was a man, thus Priests are men. Of course, this is not the lynch pin of the argument, and it cannot be taken too far. Some may object, saying "well, Christ was also a Hebrew...can that mean only Jews can be made Priests?" Of course, the rejoinder to this was that Christ called for the diffusion of the Church throughout the world, amongst all nations - this strongly implies a "multi-ethnic" Priesthood, even if not a mixed gender one.

Part of the answer has to do with gender roles, which is something harder for most people to accept in our day (both men and women, actually.) First, there is the evidences of this in Scripture and Orthodox custom. According to the Epistles, women are not supposed to preach in the Churches - it would be a little hard to be a Priest and not do such; thus an implicit, scriptural denial of the legimacy of Christian "priestesses." Traditionally the altar is also off limits to females, and women are not supposed to commune during menstruation - this would weigh against any idea of a woman ministering in the altar.

Getting closer to the heart, is the basic difference between men and women. True, there are lots of "un-manly men" and many "masculinized women" in our day - but both are betraying their true nature, and do not remove the calling of nature. No matter what her vocation, the true woman lives more in the heart than in the head (which has it's advantages from a spiritual p.o.v. obviously), is maternal, and is more yielding than expansive. Those ideals (good ones they are too), are not best suited to the Priesthood, which in varying degrees (particularly in the Episcopate) must judge and be decisive - be able to weigh matters, and to command. This is why, besides women not being called to the Priesthood, not all men are called to be Priests either. It is a calling, by God through the Church, aimed at certain males (by no means all, and not necessarily because they are morally or spiritually unfit either.)

First, this question needs to be put within a proper context. Ordinarily, the priesthood is not something that one should seek out. Now, some can do so piously (St. Athanasius and Met. Philaret to name two). For most of us, though, seeking the priesthood probably means that we either have improper motives or that we don't understand what we are seeking. I don't mean to judge anyone here, this is just what I've gathered from tradition. The Saints themselves fled from ordination as though they were fleeing for their lives. Because they were. Because the priesthood is such a heavy burden, and can cost many their souls. St. John Chrysostom used trickery to avoid being ordained (at first). St. Ambrose went into a whorehouse, thinking that the scandal would prevent people from consecrating him. One monk cut off his hand so that he would not be able to be ordained. And the examples go on and on.

Again, I'm not saying that it's absolutely a sin to seek the priesthood, but only pointing out that the Fathers considered it dangerous (especially if you aren't called to it). Not only is the priesthood not a "right," but for 99.99999% of people it's not even soemthing that they should want! The Church protects people from getting involved in this dangerous but so very holy vocation, if it is not for them. The Church tries to protect the souls of those who are under her--both male and female. Therefore, those who are not to be priests (under ideal circumstances) never ever become priests.

Of course, the question here then is, how do we know that God never wants a woman to be a priest? I think the point Seraphim brought up is good: the historical witness is a good one. There is always the argument that, as St. John Chrysostom put it, "it is a tradition, seek no farther." (Homily 4 on 2nd Thessalonians) Some of us struggle with doubts though, so more evidence is helpful. The fact that the Church didn't allow female priests is significant. Almost everyone else did. The Pagans did. The gnostics did. So why didn't the Church? There are theological reasons, and the reasons are not (as some argue) ones having to do with "male domination" (that's another subject).

"Archbishop" Lazar Puhalo, in his essay Gender as Prophecy and Revelation, says: "The role of priest in the Church belongs only to Christ. he is the priesthood of the Church. He is also the spouse and husband of the Church. Christ's visible priesthood in the Church is fulfilled through the ordained priests, more precisely, though the bishops of the Church." (Emphasis his) He then says that "the prophetic role of men is in revelation about Christ, and the prophetic role of women is in revelation about the Church." And he concludes: "while the women fulfil a ministry in the Church (first of all, the prophetic ministry) they do not enter the priesthood, which is a revelation about Christ, not about the Church. A woman in the priesthood would have to be presenting a revelation about the husband of the Church, the spouse of the 'spotless, pure bride of Christ.'" (Lazar Puhalo, The Mystery of Gender and Human Sexuality, [Synaxis Press, 1996], p. 27)

In an essay titled "Male and Female He Created Them:" An Examination of The Mystery of Humand Gender, also in the same book as quoted above, Dr. Kharalambos Anstall also makes some pertinent comments: "There is only one priesthood, the priesthood of Jesus Christ. Christ is 'priest unto the ages, according to the order of Melchisedek.' Priesthood does not 'belong' to the one who receives ordination. It is Christ Who is present and acts, it is His sacrifice that is offered. The ordained priest is just 'a type in the place of Christ.' He is an icon of the one and only Priest. He has to be a man, not a woman, because Christ is a man."

Dr. Antall continues: "Let us examine the significance behind this fact. In the same way that marriage is a type of salvation, the mystery of the relationship between God and the creation is reciprocally revealed as a marital relationship. The Church, representing all Creation, is revealed as a bride, as a woman dressed the sun, with her feet onthe moon. Our representative in the mystery of the incarnation, our most honorable offering and participation is again a woman, a bride, the Theotokos. The bridegroom of the Church is Christ. The fruit of this unity is salvation and life everlasting."

Therefore, Dr. Antall concludes: "It is impossible to change the tradition of the Church to ordain only men to the priesthood, without damaging this icon of Christ as bridegroom, and the icon of salvation as a marital relationship between Christ and the Church. Since this icon is language for revelation deeply rooted in the tradition of the Church, it has profound dogmatic significance. On the other hand, the observance of the type of Christ by the priest in everything, and in gender, is obviously related with the deep theology of the Holy Trinity. Christ is an icon of His Father. With His appearance as a man, he wanted among other things, to reveal the ineffalbe Origin of Divinity, the Source of the Personal God, according to the human image of a 'Father'. Divine names are given by God as a revelation of His properties and distinctions, and as such they should be revered and respected." (Dr. Kharalambos Antall, The Mystery of Gender and Human Sexuality, [Synaxis Press, 1996], p. 59-60)

I'm sure that there are books out there on this subject, with even more information. Unfortunately the only one I can mention is the only one I've read, Women and the Priesthood (edited Thomas Hopko). In this book, Bp. Kallistos, Thomas Hopko, and others say a few rather astounding and difficult things, but for the most part the book is informative.

October, 2004

To the Reverend Clergy, Monastics, and Faithful of the Orthodox Church in America,

Recently, questions have arisen on numerous internet forums concerning the position of the Orthodox Church in America [OCA] with regard to those who serve in the Holy Altar in parishes. The questions and ensuing controversy arose as a result of photographs appearing in two parish web sites depicting robed girls performing duties traditionally delegated to males. This has led to a great deal of confusion and discussion as to the policy of the Orthodox Church in America [OCA] in this regard.

In their concern for maintaining the integrity of the Church and its traditions, the Holy Synod of the Bishops of the Orthodox Church in America [OCA], meeting at Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk Monastery in South Canaan, Pennsylvania, October 18-21, 2004, reaffirms the ancient practice of the Orthodox Church that only males are to be admitted to service within the holy altar. Any practice to the contrary in this regard is strictly forbidden.

While reaffirming the Orthodox Church's practice concerning sacred ministers and others called to serve within and care for the holy altar, the Holy Synod of Bishops also wishes to encourage all Orthodox Christians to offer their services to Christ's Holy Church, in keeping with their baptismal vocation.

Thanking you for your generous and devoted service to the Church,

I remain
In Christ,

Protopresbyter Robert S. Kondratick, Chancellor
Orthodox Church in America [OCA]

I also must ask, has your Church kept fast to the tradition that after Baptism a male is taken through the altar while a female is taken to the Royal Doors?

And finally the canon you ask of:

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