By Protopresbyter Angelos Angelakopoulos,
Rector of the Church of Panagia Myrtidiotissa, Piraeus
Rector of the Church of Panagia Myrtidiotissa, Piraeus
November 2012
The Entrance of the Lady Theotokos into the Temple of the Law causes a wondrous and universal celebration for Orthodox Christians, because it happened in a strange way and is a prelude to the greatest and most awesome mystery of the incarnation of God the Word, which was to happen in the world through the Theotokos. The occasion for the feast of the Entrance was the following incident. The most-illustrious Saint Anna, because she spent almost her entire life barren, without giving birth to a child, begged the Lord of nature together with her husband, Saint Joachim, to grant them a child and, if they succeeded in their desire, they would immediately dedicate to God the child they would give birth to. And so, Saint Anna gave birth, paradoxically, by promise and with the seed of a man, to her who became the bringer of the salvation of the human race, the reconciliation and harmony of God with mankind, the cause of restoration, resurrection, and the divinization of the fallen Adam, that is, the Most Holy and Lady Theotokos Mary. Therefore, when she was three years old, her parents took her and, after gathering the virgins of the neighborhood, who accompanied the Panagia with torches, offered her on this day in the Temple. And, fulfilling their promises, they dedicated their daughter to God, who gave her to them. That is why they handed her over to the priests and even to the then high priest, the prophet Zechariah, the father of Saint John the Baptist, who began to praise both the Virgin and her parents, Joachim and Anna, who, addressing the prophet Zechariah, said to him: “Receive, High Priest, my daughter, rather the daughter of God. Receive her pure and undefiled and higher than heaven. Put her in the Temple, because that is where she should reside. She is the Temple of God, in a Temple it is fitting for her to reside. She is holy, put her in a clean place. Deliver her into the hands of God. Add her to a holy place, so that she may be sanctified. Take, Zechariah, my daughter and dedicate her to the Temple, for so we have ordered.” When Zechariah heard that she had been offered to God, he took her to the Altar. There were the jar of Moses, which once held the manna, Aaron's rod, the golden censer, and the tablets on which the law was written. As soon as the Panagia entered, they all fell down and venerated her. So when Zechariah received her, he placed her in the innermost part of the Temple, where the high priest entered alone once a year. And he did this according to the will of God, who was soon to be born of her, for the correction and salvation of the world.
Some have wrongly maintained that there was a separate place in the Temple, where only virgins lived, and with them the Theotokos also lived. The other virgins went out after the dismissal and went to their homes, but only the Theotokos stayed in the Temple. This view is incorrect, because the Theotokos entered not into the house of the virgins, but into the Holy of Holies and remained there, fed by the angel. And if this seems inappropriate, that is, for a woman to enter the innermost part of the Temple, this seemingly inappropriateness was corrected by Zechariah, telling the people that God shows in the Logeum, which was hung before him, that He wants the Virgin to enter into these Holy of Holies and thus He convinced the people to accept to place the Virgin there. However, after the Lady Theotokos gave birth to the Lord, Zechariah counted her among the virgins who were serving in the Temple, because she was a Virgin after giving birth, and for this reason he was killed.
There, then, the Virgin resided for twelve years, nourished in a hospitable manner by the Archangel Gabriel with heavenly food, and worthy of the appearance of God and of speaking with the Angels, until the time of the divine Annunciation and those heavenly and supernatural messages approached, which announced that God deigned to become incarnate through her as a lover of humanity, in order to recreate the world, which had been corrupted by sin. Then the Theotokos, after leaving the Holy of Holies, was entrusted to the betrothal of Saint Joseph, so that he might be the guardian and witness of her virginity and to serve both in her seedless childbirth and in the flight to Egypt and the return to the land of Israel.[1]
We would like to make a short comment regarding this strange, heavenly nourishment of the Theotokos by the Archangel Gabriel. In this case we have a practical application of the word of the Lord: “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”[2] Here the relationship between physical and spiritual nourishment becomes apparent. Both are necessary, in order to nourish the body and the soul. However, the superiority and preeminence in the hierarchy is held by spiritual food. When God says man can live without physical food, as happened and is happening in the lives of holy ascetics, this could also be an answer, a solution, in the face of the global economic crisis that is plaguing the world, which is essentially a deeply spiritual and moral crisis, based on unbelief, atheism, apostasy from the will of the Holy Triune God and impenitence, within the framework of which very many of our fellow human beings are deprived of even the means of livelihood and physical food. That is, we must focus our attention and our care more on the spiritual food of the soul. If someone is as spiritually organized as possible by listening, studying and applying the divine word, the divine will, by a sacramental life, i.e. by frequent and unceasing prayer, repentance, confession, church attendance and Holy Communion, then he has nothing to fear from the lack of physical food. For the lack of spiritual food, spiritual famine, is incomparably worse than the lack of physical food, physical famine. And the Lord Himself says: “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”[3] That is, do not be afraid of persecutors, who kill the body, but do not have the power to kill the soul. But, fear God more, who can condemn both soul and body to the abyss of hell. But also in the case of physical famine, the lack of physical food, Christ has again given the solution to the question of how we will be fed with miraculous interventions. In the Old Testament, he gave manna to the Israelite people in Egypt. He sent the raven to the Prophet Elijah, who carried him meat. At the Entrance of the Theotokos, he sent the Archangel Gabriel, who fed the Panagia with heavenly food. But also in the New Testament, the same Christ performed the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. God can accomplish anything, as long as we constantly confess, cooperate, and have absolute faith in His divine providence.
Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite refers to the Panagia as a hesychast, relying on Saint Gregory Palamas, according to whom the Panagia lived a hesychast and ascetic life for all the twelve years she spent in the Temple, from the Entrance to the Annunciation, as the first hesychast and ascetic. She was so devoted to the work of prayer that the marble floors of the Temple were dented by the many prostrations she made.
Also, according to Saint Gregory Palamas, the Theotokos, having been in the Holy of Holies for twelve years, listened to the divine Scriptures, i.e. the Old Testament, which were read in the Temple during the services, and from them she learned the transgression and the fall of the forefathers and the prophecies concerning herself and her Son.[4]
Just as all the Despotic and Theometoric feasts have an impact and offer many lessons for the spiritual benefit of us Christians, so does the Theometoric feast of the Entrance. The Holy Fathers speak of three types of entrances of man. The first type of entrance is the entrance of man into earthly life with his natural, biological birth. This entrance is called the nocturnal entrance, because man is born in sin. The Prophet David, referring to this entrance, says characteristically in the 50th Psalm: “For behold, I was conceived in iniquities, and in sins did my mother conceive me.” The second type of entrance is the entrance of man into the Orthodox Church and spiritual life through the birth of Holy Baptism. This entrance is called illumination. Finally, the third type of entrance is the entrance of man into the true Holy of Holies, i.e. into the heavenly and eternal Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ through the worthy communion of the Holy Body and Blood of Christ, by which he receives the foretaste and betrothal of the Kingdom, and through the universal Resurrection at the Second Coming, by which he participates in the marriages of the Kingdom.
The entrance of the Theotokos into the Holy of Holies is indeed a novel and unrepeatable event in history. Novel because it was the first time a woman was allowed to enter the Holy of Holies, but unrepeatable because since then no woman has been allowed to enter the Holy Bema, the Sanctuary. This prohibition has even taken on a rigid synodal character with canonical ratification.
In the Service of the Entrance of the Theotokos is the Oikos with its salutations, which begins with the letter “M”, and the sacred hymnographer states: “Let no woman dare to enter the Holy Bema, where she alone entered, the Holy One among women, into the Holy of Holies, where the High Priest alone entered, once a year.” Also, in the Oikos with the letter “Ψ”, it says: “Rejoice, you who alone were found worthy to enter the Bema; rejoice, for you alone are permitted to dwell in the Sanctuary.”
The 69th Holy Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod states: “Let no one of the laity, while performing the rites, enter the inner sanctuary of the altar.” The Holy Bema is dedicated to the priests. Therefore, this Canon prevents the entry of the laity into it. And Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite notes: “Therefore, let the priests and spiritual leaders be encouraged to put an end to the unlawful custom that prevails in many places, of laypeople entering the holy bema, which custom, failing to distinguish priests from laypersons, causes the laypeople to fall under the penalty of King Ahaz, who, being a layperson himself, dared to attempt the works of the clergy. In a certain manner, they too, entering the place appointed for the priests, appropriate what belongs to the priests.”[5]
Unfortunately, this event of the Theotokos' entrance into the Holy of Holies is exploited by progressive, modernist, renewalist, and ecumenist clergy and theologians, who speak about it and fervently argue that the Orthodox Church should break the higher barriers and allow the ordination and sacramental priesthood of women, even proclaiming through conferences that allegedly Orthodox tradition lacks strong arguments against the ordination of women.
The priesthood, however, as is known, originates from Jesus Christ Himself, that is, His high priestly office, which is why He Himself is called the Great High Priest. The priesthood of Christ was prefigured in the Old Testament, both by the priestly tribe of Levi and by Melchizedek, whom the Apostle Paul speaks of in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The High Priest Christ delivered the priesthood by ordaining the Holy Apostles, and they in turn “laid their hands upon”[6] other men worthy of the priesthood and not upon women, as is wrongly the case with the withered leaves of the heretical sects of Protestantism, indeed of the Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed, who, influenced by the foolish feminist movement, allow women to participate in the Mystery of the Priesthood, which unfortunately is adopted even by academic ecumenical “theologians”. This unceasing succession of the priesthood has continued throughout the centuries and reaches even to our days, but also to the end of the age. This is why in the Orthodox Church we also speak of apostolic succession.
The emeritus professor of Christian Ethics at the School of Theology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Mr. George Mantzaridis, notes the following regarding the subject:
“The interest of the subject from the perspective of Christian ethics consists mainly in the view that the denial of the ordination of women is connected with some more general underestimation of them in the Church. However, this view also overlooks basic elements that are related to the liturgical superiority of women in the life and teaching of the Church. And above all, it sets aside the priority of women in the salvation of man and the crushing of the devil. The enmity between man and the devil is mainly an enmity between woman and the devil. It is also characteristic that there is also talk of a 'seed' of Eve, which will crush the devil.[7] Eve received the first gospel of salvation and the Panagia accepted the Annunciation of the divine incarnation.
Therefore, the woman who took the lead in the fall also takes the lead in the restoration of man. The man is dragged along in the fall and accompanies in the restoration. The first role is not in him, but in the woman. In both cases, the woman takes the lead and the man follows. In particular, the Panagia becomes a co-causer of the divine incarnation, together with God Himself. She lends to God the human nature, which becomes the beginning of the new creation. From this point of view, the Panagia is 'after Christ who is the first Hierarch, another Hierarch.'[8] However, the exclusion of the woman from the sacramental priesthood has a real and symbolic meaning. The woman collaborates in the mystery of salvation, while the man ministers. Priestesses were widely known in the pre-Christian world outside of Israel. In particular, they existed in the religions of the Greeks and Romans, with which the Church, as well as Israel, came into direct contact. Therefore, from a social point of view, the absence of priestesses in the Judeo-Christian world seems paradoxical, where the position of women was indeed higher. Moreover, in the entire Christian literature, where most ecclesiastical issues are presented, the issue of priestesses never arose. Only the Gnostic heresy of Montanism accepted women in the episcopal and presbyteral ranks, which Saint Epiphanios of Cyprus characterized as an 'idolatrous pursuit' and a 'diabolical enterprise'.[9]
Saint Epiphanios’s characterizations should not be considered accidental, but rather indicative of the Church’s attitude towards the sacramental priesthood of women. From the beginning, bishops and presbyters had not only a liturgical, but also a symbolic position in the body of the Church. They exist 'in the type of the Father' or 'in the type of God.'[10] While the 'royal priesthood'[11] consists of both men and women indiscriminately, only men are admitted to the sacramental priesthood. The presence of priestesses would indicate the existence of female deities, as was the case in pre-Christian religions. The denial of idolatry, which also implies the denial of deities of both sexes, goes hand in hand with the absence of priestesses. The Church had only deaconesses, who served practical liturgical needs, and not priestesses with a sacramental priesthood of a symbolic nature, which is characterized as an 'idolatrous pursuit' or a 'diabolical enterprise' i.e., idolatry. And it is no coincidence that Montanism, in addition to the priesthood of women, also preserved other pagan elements, while its proponent Montanus was originally a priest of the goddess Cybele. But even today, the promotion of women to the priesthood is not unrelated to the spread of neo-gnostic and neo-pagan concepts, which characterize the general spirit of our era.”[12]
There are many other arguments against the ordination of women, which we list below, as recorded by Mr. Christos Livanos[13]:
a) The root of the truth that only males should receive the priesthood is found in God’s command in the Old Testament, “every male that opens the womb shall be called holy unto the Lord.”[14]
b) The priesthood according to the Old Testament was given only to men.
c) Christ did not choose any woman as His Apostle. And His twelve Apostles were men.
d) The traitor Judas was not replaced by a woman, but by a man, the Apostle Matthias.[15]
e) At the Secret Supper, Christ invited only the Twelve and to them He delivered the Mystery of the Divine Eucharist.
f) The command to baptize “all nations” was given by Christ only to the Apostles and not to the wider circle of His followers, who were also women.[16]
g) Christ gave the power of “binding and loosing sin” only to His Apostles and not to women.[17]
h) The Panagia, although coming, according to Saint Germanos of Constantinople, “from a priestly lineage, of the Aaronic tribe, of prophetic and royal root,”[18] did not receive the priesthood. Her Son Himself did not include her among the Apostles.
i) The Apostles never ordained women.
j) Paul’s teaching is a true catapult against the priesthood of women. “Let your women be silent in the churches,” he commands the Corinthians,[19] “and I do not permit a woman to teach,” he writes to the Apostle Timothy.[20] How then shall we ordain women, since the Lord Himself[21] forbids them to “teach,” which is an integral part of divine worship and one of the most basic duties of the presbyter and the bishop?
k) The presbyter must be “the husband of one woman,”[22] the Apostle advises, but without adding the reverse, “the wife of one man.”
l) The bishop stands “in the type and place of Christ.” Christ is a man. Can a woman stand in the type and place of the man Christ?
m) The priest is “alter Christus,” another Christ. Christ is the Bridegroom, and the Church is the Bride. Can a woman be considered a Bridegroom? Shall we dare to symbolize the supernatural relationship of Christ and the Church with the perverted relationship of a homosexual couple? This is exactly what those heterodox who confer the priesthood on women do.
n) Sacred Tradition, which Protestants do not accept, testifies against the ordination of women, since for 2012 years now all bearers of the priesthood have been and are men.
o) A multitude of holy women adorn the luminous firmament of our Church. Among them are the Myrrhbearing Women, the Equal-to-the-Apostles Photini and Helen, as well as holy mothers of great Fathers of the Church. None of them was a celebrant of the divine Mysteries. None of the ancient deaconesses or the nuns throughout the centuries demanded to receive the office of priesthood.
p) The Apostolic Constitutions are clear and categorical: ““We do not allow a woman to teach in the church, but only to pray and to listen to the teachers. For even our teacher, the Lord Jesus Christ, having sent us, the twelve, to make disciples of the people and the nations, sent no woman to preach… And if we do not allow them to teach what has been foreordained, how could anyone permit them to serve as priests against nature? For this is the misreckoning stemming from the ungodliness of the Greeks, appointing women as priestesses in the theaters, but not the ordinance of Christ.”[23]
q) Tertullian writes: “It is not permitted for a woman to speak in the church, nor to teach, nor to anoint, nor to perform ordination, nor to claim for herself any office held by men or any priestly office.”[24]
r) Saint Epiphanios of Cyprus asks: “How is it clear that the doctrine and form and the argument are of demons”? And he adds: “For God has never ordained a woman a priest from time immemorial.”[25]
s) Saint John Chrysostom advises “women to distance themselves from such a service, as well as most people,” adding that "the divine law excludes women from the priestly office, yet they seek to attain it assertively."[26]
Finally, the Orthodox Church has not adopted and should never adopt the ordination-priesthood of women, in order to distinguish itself and not be assimilated to the heretical parasynagogue of Protestantism, namely the Anglicans, Lutherans and Reformed. In the face of the above irrefutable theological argument against the ordination of women, what excuse do the Ecumenists have, who shamelessly and unashamedly participate in the pan-Protestant World Council of the so-called “Churches” or better, of the Heresies, embracing each other, gathering together, eating together, consorting with and, above all, praying together with pastors and priestesses and recognizing their “priesthood” or rather their corruption?
Notes:
[1] Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Synaxaristes of the Twelve Months of the Year, vol. 2 (November-December).
[2] Matthew 4:4.
[3] Matthew 10:28.
[4] Protopresbyter Theodore Zissis, “The Most Holy Theotokos in the Life and Work of Saint Nikodemos”, Kollyvadika. Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite-Saint Athanasios of Paros, Vryennios Publishing House, Thessaloniki 2004, pp. 33-35.
[5] Saint Nikodemos the Hagiorite, Pedalion, pp. 280-281.
[6] Acts 6:6.
[7] Gen. 3:15.
[8] Theophan of Nicaea, Sermon on the Most Holy Theotokos 11, ed. M. Jugie, Theophanes Nicaenus (+ 1381), Sermo in Sanctissimam Deiparam, Lateranum Romae 1935, p. 64.
[9] Saint Epiphanios of Cyprus, Panarion 49, PG 42, 745BC.
[10] Saint Ignatios of Antioch, To the Magnesians 4, To the Trallians 3.
[11] 1 Peter 2:9.
[12] George Mantzaridis, Christian Ethics II, ed. Pournaras, Thessaloniki, pp. 384-387.
[13] Christos Livanos, “Obstacles to Dialogue with Protestantism”, in Ecumenism; Beginnings-Expectations-Refutations. Proceedings of the Inter-Orthodox Scientific Conference. A.U.T. Ceremonial Hall, 20-24 September 2004, vol. 2, ed. Theodromiia, Thessaloniki 2008, pp. 627-632.
[14] Luke 2:23.
[15] Acts 1:21-26.
[16] Matt. 28:16-20.
[17] John 20:23.
[18] Saint Germanos of Constantinople, On the Entrance of the Virgin II, PG 98, 313A.
[19] 1 Cor. 14:34.
[20] 1 Tim. 2:12.
[21] 1 Cor. 14:35.
[22] Titus 1:6.
[23] Apostolic Constitutions III, 6, 1-2 and 9, 1-4.
[24] Tertullian, De Virginibus, IX, 1, C.C. ii, 1218-19.
[25] Saint Epiphanios of Cyprus, Against Heresies 49, 2-3, PG 41, 881.
[26] Saint John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood II, 1, 2.
Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.
