Eve Tibbs being tonsured as a Reader by Metropolitan Anthony (GOA/EP), June 8, 2003 from http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/parishhistory.htm
GOA now tonsuring women as clergy?
- 尼古拉前执事
- Archon
- Posts: 5118
- Joined: Thu 24 October 2002 7:01 pm
- Faith: Eastern Orthodox
- Jurisdiction: Non-Phylitist
- Location: Euless, TX, United States of America
- Contact:
GOA now tonsuring women as clergy?
在基督 My Original Blog
尼古拉 My Facebook Profile
前执事 My Twitter Page
-
- Sr Member
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Wed 16 April 2003 4:53 pm
- Location: Russia
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
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.
----------------------------------------------------
They say that I am bad news. They say "Stay Away."
- Seraphim Reeves
- Member
- Posts: 493
- Joined: Sun 27 October 2002 2:10 pm
- Location: Canada
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
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.