GOA now tonsuring women as clergy?

[George Australia]

Their agenda is to accept other religions and they don't want to step on any un-Orthodox toes.

So basically you are condemning them not for what they did, but for what you think their motives were for doing it......

It's a political issue...nothing to do with spiritual worship; it's business, not faith.

I'm afraid one could say that about anyone joasia. A small group has a vested interest in maintaining it's membership by creating the illusion that they are the only "legimate" group by making it's members believe that every other group is "illegitimate"...Isn't that the "business" of dirty "politics"?

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.

So then, shouldn't you praise the non-Chalcedonians? Should they not be honoured for tearing the Church apart over what they believe in? Should I tear the Church apart over the Russian absolution heresy as well?

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.

That's your opinion. The opinion of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council however saw fit to put "faith matters" hand in hand with "solar matters" rather than oppose them in that they chose an astronomical event (the Vernal Equinox) to determine the date of Pascha. So, are you saying that sticking to a date on which the Vernal Equinox no longer occurs and calling it the Vernal Equinox means that you somehow have more faith than one who counts the date of the Vernal Equinox to be the day the Vernal Equinox actually occurs?

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.

Again, these are simply value judgements based on nothing more than opinion. If you don't agree with the New Calendar because of it's merits then fine, but just don't keep saying that you disagree with it because of the motives of those who introduced it, because, firstly, you have no way of proving what those motives were, and secondly, because they are immaterial. One could easily accuse the Byzantine Empire of" Political Motives" and "worldly ambitions" at Chalcedon, and in fact, most non-chalcedons do...and guess what? people are listening to them. The best way to dupe people into hating the same group you do is to make them believe that you know the "enemy's" evil motives....

My humble response is that they decreed this for the fact that it was after the feast of the Jewish Passover.

Nope. The Jewish Passover also follows the Vernal Equinox. The algebraic Calculation of Pascha, no matter what method you use, will sometimes make Pascha fall before the Jewish Passover, and when this occurs, the Fathers decreed that Pascha should fall on the following Sunday. So no, it was not simply to make Pascha fall after 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?

I may equally ask you why you think Christians should never correct a Calendar instituted by a pagan Emperor?

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.

And there were plenty of Saints that didn't follow the Julian Calendar. For example, the Fathers of Scetis and St. Mary of Egypt who all followed the Alexandian Calendar. So guess what? Calendars don't save. Christ does.

It's not about changing the calendar...it's about the reason why the calendar was changed.

Here we go again. The New Calendar isn't wrong, the motives are....

Look into the heart and you will see the motive.

I do not have the charism to look into the heart and see motives. I always thought only God can judge men's hearts. Now I know that only God and Old Calendarists can judge men's hearts.

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?

The Fathers also accepted the Alexandrine Calendar, so why don't we use that one? Is it because 18th Century Russia didn't use it? Apparently, anything used in 18th century Russia is Orthodox, including heretical absolution formulas...

[joasia]

Here's an interesting website for those who want to follow the true path of Orthodoxy.

http://ecumenizm.tripod.com/ECUMENIZM/id24.html

Joanna

[George Australia]

So the "true path of Orthodoxy" isn't defined by the Gospel then, but rather by a contemporary book written by a layperson. From what I have seen on this thread, this is the path of schism, heresy and passing judgement on the hearts of others; and all done under the false guise of "traditionalism". And why is it that all Old Calendarist "theologians" who write the "must read" books of you guys are "Reader so-and-so" or "Prebyetera so-and-so"?
I think I'll stick with the Gospel and the Fathers thanks.

[Myrrh]

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.

The canons are not laws of the Church, they are rules (from measure)which people made up as they went along for the most part.. Certainly canons such as that you've quoted are simply ridiculous. They should not be mistaken for Holy Tradition, but seen to be what they are, traditions of men. Notice how in the course of time these changed traditions which were around during the Apostolic age and having put them in their place then decide whether they're worth keeping or not...

We touched on this in the married bishops discussion earlier - Christ chose married men and Paul says, or rather complains because he hasn't got a woman with him 'to lead around' as they do, missing the point completely. So, how come the rule against married bishops? That has gone so far from the point it's measuring that it's become the opposite - is that Holy Tradition now?

I'll take a look at the women deacons thread...

One woman who stands out in the New Testament is Phoebe, a worker with St Paul, who was the first woman deacon. She was called both diakonos and prostatis, which in those days denoted someone in authority. In the 3rd and 4th centuries, women deacons were common. St John Chrysostom was an advocate of the female diaconate, and letters between him and female deacons have survived. Tombstones serve as another reference. Many can be found bearing witness to female deacons and their ministry. One such example is a tombstone on the Mt. of Olives which bears the inscription, "here lies Sophia the Deacon, a second Phoebe". link

What has happened in the history of women deacons is the men deacons became more involved in the sacramental side of the liturgy at the same time that the clergy were putting a distance between the sacraments and the rest of the laity, and the women especially began to be marginalised but more so in the West. So, now, we laity worship, we offer the sacrifice, but hey, if there's no other member of the laity who communes, the priest, whose role is to lead our communal liturgy, eats and drinks alone. Is that what Christ meant?

And why does he do this? Because all kinds of rules where made restricting the laity in communing until the 'laity' have become practically spectators... He might as well be RC, their priests have taken the lot, no longer even members of the laity; the priest offers the sacrifice, or rather confects and until very recently, for some 800 years, refused the wine for the laity - and this is still the majority practice.

Myrrh

[Myrrh]

That's going too far. Once you start labelling them as professing a different Faith, on any Orthodox subject, you are stating that they are completely outside the true Orthodox Church of Christ. That demise belongs to the papists and protestants.

Joasia,
Is the statement "I have no power to forgive sins on Earth" the same as the statement "I forgive and absolve all your sins"? Are they professing the same understanding of the power given by Christ to Orthodox Priests? One says that they cannot forgive sins, and the other says they can. How is this the same Faith being professed? Those who say that Orthodox Priests can forgive sins are professing the same belief that "papists" have of their Priests are they not? And who professes this other than Russian Priests who use the absolution formula of Peter Moghila?
...

The 1917/18 Sobor was called when the Church in Russia found itself free from the tsarist control which introduced such Latin teachings, it's been called the Western Captivity of Russian theology, with a view to eradicating them.

Myrrh

[Myrrh]

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.

This is about women priests, you brought it in to show that women aren't allowed at the altar table - but as we've seen this is a change from Apostolic tradition so can't be used an an argument against them serving at the altar table, so can't be used against women as priests, and it is certainly not "indisputable".

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.

The reasons given are all quite arbitrary, that is, there's no cohesive doctrine of why there shouldn't be women priests, just a mixed list of whatever Seraphim can find to prove his argument from whatever source regardless of its pertinence or accuracy - because women weren't allowed to commune when menstruating is a case in point. This comes from the Jewish tradition regarding 'spiritual purity' during menstruation, yet when it suits Jewish traditions are thrown out, do you eat blood?, and I think it's Chrysostom or Basil who said that menstruation shouldn't be a reason for a woman not communing. And if 'multi-ethnic', does that mean priests can be beardless? In some races the men don't grow beards. Women not being allowed to preach in church? Ah, according to the epistle.., yet Paul isn't consistent here. And so on, none of the reasons given would convince anyone who didn't want to be convinced, hardly a complete answer...

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.)

And oh dear, we've covered this before - what was the word for this kind of misogyny? Men are men and women are women, so full of praise for the women, but nevertheless, implying that they don't have the qualities necessary: to command, judge, be decisive .. Didn't they have women judges in their tradition? What desperately needs to be taken into consideration here is the quality of the men who thought like this in the early Church ( http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/womenfathers.html ).

First, this question needs to be put within a proper context. Ordinarily, the priesthood is not something that one should seek out. ...

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).

Why didn't the Church allow women priests? Because the men had taken control? It's very hard not to think that misogyny came to represent 'the Church' in many of our traditions when we see clear examples as given above. We fought to keep married clergy, do we really have proof that the Church always had married clergy?

The eucharist began in house churches, a team of husband and wife presided and how this came to be incorporated into the later liturgy of St James in anticipation of the destruction of the Temple is not now readily discernible. There is a letter from Rome to Gaul which forbids the practice some visiting Britons showed, of a man and woman together officating at the altar table - this is put forward as an argument against women at the altar table, but could just as well show that the custom in Britain was truer to the orginal as the influence of Rome hadn't taken hold.

"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)

So Lazar has decided the prophetic role of men and women is different, from where this conclusion? In Christ there is no male and female has to be avoided in these arguments against women, but here especially it becomes nonsensical, if women have a different role then - Christ chose women to proclaim Him resurrected, and when the men didn't take any notice of them, He chose one woman, St Mary Magdalene Equal-to-the-Apostles, he didn't then choose a man. And historically, especially the prophetess was approached for information/help in discerning God's will, for her prayers and guidance.

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."

The usual Christ is a male argument, when Christ became human is convenient to put aside...

At Melchisedek's time there were both priests and priestesses in Jerusalem. And I won't go into the El and his consort..

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)

Again a mix of reasons regardless of context or source. And illogical. If the Church is the bride then men shouldn't be priests since the priests role is not to represent Christ who is not absent in the Orthodox Church, but to be the leading voice in communal worship and offering of the sacrifice and if that is the bride then a man just won't do to represent us... The Church being the body of Christ is male and female, either can lead us in that. Christ is only a priest at the Temple of Jerusalem through His Mother, who entered the Holy of Holies, etc...

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.

Has anyone read the book? Or know what's been said in it?

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]

Again, this "traditionally delegated" is not proved to be correct. It is merely stated ad nauseum and without any logic in the arguments to bolster it. And really, it is quite offensive that these bullying, illogical males continue to lay down the law, forbidden indeed..

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?

Yes. And when did this start? We know we had women at the altar table as deacons well into the eighth century? Wasn't it Chrysostom's mother who died clasping the altar table? Or was that on of the Gregories? Anyone know the story here?

Myrrh

[Myrrh]

Re Canons: The first canon of the Church's ecclesiology was given by Christ himself - "It shall not be so among you". This is the basic Orthodox understanding from which "conciliarity" became the norm for us because it gives each of us equal weight in the Church - from which come such examples as St Maximos and our rejection of Florence. Bishops do not rule over us; those who think they do, whether singly or in 'council', have broken Christ's rule.

Myrrh