www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Women in bid to become ordained

While I thank my brothers and sisters for not outright hurling anathemas at me (only my friend Andrew actually used my name in his response ), allow me to reiterate the point that I made in the opening line of my post above



That said, I continue to believe that

It is not our place to judge, that right belongs to a Power higher than us.

Many years,

Neil, who hereby retires from this topic

Brothers and Sisters:

As a point of information:

A few of the posters, perhaps in their rush to condemn the subject non-canonical ordinations of women to the office of priest, have incorrectly implied that the Church categorically opposes the ordination of women to any office.

I remind everyone that there is no canonical impediment to the ordination of women as deaconesses, given that their role is one which is in keeping with the role of the deaconess passed down to us in the Church's tradition.

We are all entitled to our opinions on the appropriateness of reinitiating or expanding the ordination of women to the deaconate and should feel unencumbered in expressing those opinions to our respective bishops. All the same, I feel obligated to remind all that the ordination of women to the office of priest is an action that even our bishops acting synodally have no authority to approve.

[This subject was covered extensively in another thread.]

In Christ,
Andrew

I'm 64 years old, but I would like to be around 25 years from now to follow this website (if it is still functioning). I'd like to see how Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy will have dealt with the subject of the ordination of women by that time.

None of us can predict what will happen but I think we may all be surprised! (including me).


Fr. Mike Dobrosky
Episcopal Church of the Mediator
Meridian, MS
(Grew up Ruthenian at St. Nicholas, Lorain, Ohio)

If you are talking about changes in Orthodoxy, you probably need a longer timetable than 25 years. Try 500, and that's for the new calendar Orthodox. It will be longer for the old calendarists.

Fr Mike,
The Catholic Church has dealt with it "NO"
Stephanos I

Stephanos:

A lot of the Roman Catholic clergy that I know tell me they think it will happen in the next 25 years. Maybe not for the Orthodox but they think it will likely happen in their church.

Who knows? I'm just speculating.


Fr. Mike
Meridian, MS

I remember some Latin clergy telling me the same thing - 40 years ago.

In what way could it happen, 25 years, 40 years or 100 years from now, since the Pope has already stated definitively that it cannot be done?

Do you really think a future Pope will reverse a doctrinal statement of a previous Pope? Unlikely, unless the Holy Spirit is looking the other way at the moment.

Is "definitively" the same as "ex-cathedra"?
Besides, aren't there other instances in papal history when things may have been changed. Any of you historians know better?


Fr. Mike

IMO, a better way to speak of this would be
the "appointment of women" as deaconesses,
rather than the "ordination of women" as
deaconesses, since "ordination" seems to
imply the reception of Holy Orders, which
IS canonically forbidden to women.

I had thought that "deaconesses" were the ancient Church's nuns. Were they like today's permanent deacons: able to preach and witness marriages? Also, do you have a link to that thread you referenced? Thank you.

--John

Considering we no longer view it as inappropriate for a priest to visit a woman alone and that we no longer baptize adults nude, I�m at a loss to understand what value deaconesses might bring to Orthodoxy. I have heard that St. Nektarios the Wonderworker and St. Elizabeth the New Martyr talked about bringing them back, perhaps that was just in the monastic setting though.

I have never met anyone in real life in Orthodoxy that advocates priestesses. I have read some articles on the web by what appears to me to be a small minority that is advocating bringing back deaconesses. Given some of the other positions they have taken up, the deaconess issue appears to me just to be the thin end of the wedge.

I have heard a fair number of Catholic laity and some priests advocating the ordaining of women. My impression is they represent a small but vocal group, and that the priests for the most part come from a particular generational outlook. I feel sufficiently assured that the late and current Popes have made it clear they do not have the power to change what the church teaches in this regard.

I think both Catholics and Orthodox are well aware of the fact that making such a change is not an isolated action. It is abundantly clear that innovations such as this simply give rise to other innovations and turn the bedrock of the church�s foundation in to a chaos of confusion and impermanence.

There were a few responses/questions related to my point of information posted above. I will try to answer these.

The most recent previous discussion in this Forum of the ordination of females (a search should uncover its exact title) was immediately following the decision by the Holy Synod of the Orthodox Church of Greece to allow bishops, according to their discernment, to ordain female monastics as deaconesses for service in the surrounding communitites, not as liturgical functionaries inside of the monasteries. This is entirely within the tradition of the ancient Church.

The roles of the deacon and the deaconess in the early Church were quite distinct. Baptisms and home visits of grown females were two areas where the services of deaconesses were needed. Both roles are still thoroughly valid. I don't know about other posters, but the priest does not have an invitation to visit my wife were she at home alone.

What is really forgotten is the educational role that the deaconess played in formal catechetical programs but also in the course of her home visitations. Is it appropriate for today's male clergyman to speak to females regarding natural methods of conceiving or delaying the conception of children? Is he the best one to explain why the Church condemns not only artificial artificial contraception in general, but abortafacient "contraceptives" doubly so?

These are not roles that only an ordained or appointed deaconess can perform, but they would be, like the ordination of the male, a sign that the Church has selected this one person from among many. A good sign that the service and teaching will be "kosher."

There is scant evidence, and even if valid it remains terribly scant, that deaconesses ever served liturgically at the offeratory liturgy (i.e. read petitions, served at the altar, carried the gifts, communed the faithful, consumed the chalice after the liturgy). All the same, I'm not excluding that deaconesses may have read petitions during the baptisms, which, as was pointed out, were conducted in the nude.

What the Holy Canon prohibits is that they (the women) "approach the altar" which being interpreted means "serve at the altar." No doubt, there were some abuses of the traditional functions of the deaconess which led the fathers to issue the Canon, a good thing.

Note that there is no Canon prohibiting their ordination. Being ordained at the altar and serving at the altar are two completely different things. If we were to go literalistic, like the protestants, and say that the women may not even "approach" the altar, then we would need to jettison 2,000 years of practice and just tell all of the nuns to stop cleaning the sanctuaries in their monasteries.

As far as "Holy Orders" is concerened, this is a Western category. The East has clergy and non-clergy. As I understand it, deaconesses can be found on the list of clergy in the ancient Churches alongside the Deacons. But their functions were thoroughly different.

Further witness to the role of the deaconess is Paul's prohibition that (in the Church) the woman not be placed in authority over the man. Thus we see that the role of the deaconess was outside of the offeratory liturgy and daily offices (Vespers and Matins) for if it were not, then she would have had authority over the Readers. [Imagine that! As it is now, we chanters barely listen to our Bishops and Priests!]

On the other hand, preaching has never been limited to the male ordained clergy. I myself have not received ordination yet have preached for eleven years, even prior to tonsure as a Reader. A good friend was a lay preacher in Albania, preaching at one liturgy and walking to another church to preach a second time each Sunday, such were the needs for his gifts and such were the deficiencies of the ordained men as that Church emerged from the long Communist persecution.

The famous Olympia, dear friend of John Chrysostom, did she not preach? And how well she did! Of course, the norm is that the celebrant preaches. But there were and are valid exceptions.

Too often in the West, the discussion becomes wrapped around the titles: "clergy," "deacon," "deaconess," "priest," "presbyter," etc. while completely ignoring the function, which is by far the most important thing. The Greeks and Albanians have it very easy in this regard since we call the priest's wife "Presbytera" or "Prifteresha," respectively. The title literally means "Priestess." But in the past 2,000 years, has one of them ever attempted to serve at the altar?

So we need to see this issue under a kind of synthesis, looking at all of the evidence: the scriptures, canons, patristic commentary, practices, traditions, contemporary needs, and contexts and standards of the past and present in order to understand what role, if any, deaconess would play in the modern Church.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Glory to Jesus Christ!
St Paul said "And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence."( 1 Timothy 2:12)
The qualifications of overseers are laid out in 1 Tim 3 and to my mind the language used by St Paul does not allow for the interpretation of the passage to be applied to women. In other places St Paul said that the man is the head of the household just as Christ is the head of the church, the rest of the family must follow and obey and submit(gasp! the "s" word!!). One of the qualifications of an "overseer"(bishop, priest) is that he is able to rule his own house well, with his wife and children in submission to him. Nothing in scripture that I have seen has put women in a place over well and had it turn out well. Mary herself was in submission to Joseph and followed him. As has been said, if any woman in history has been worthy of authority it would be Mary, and yet she submitted, that's what caused her to be the Theotokos and a faithful example and guide!
Historically the priests in the Jedeo-Christian tradition have been male. The New Covenant is in keeping with the Old, it is the fulfillment of the Old not an independent fabrication of a new covenant. God does not change and His demands, expectations and ordinations do not change. They are forever.
And personally, I do not see the desire to be a priest as a woman.There are so many capacities that woman can and do and must fill within the church without encroaching on the priesthood that if women were to strive to completely fill the roles already available to them they *could* not become priests. There would be no time, no women, no spiritual energy left to devote to it. I do not want to be ordained and don't see why any woman would want to be ordained but then I don't want a woman president either, go figure.
Just some thoughts.
God bless you all.
Sarai

Dear Sarai,

Thanks for a very good post from a woman's point of view!

I agree with all that you said, and personally, I am with you on your last paragraph too!

The only thing I would add to your post is that the greatest honor given to a human being has already been given to a woman, that of Mary being chosen as the Mother of God!

Have a great weekend!

Your sister in Christ,
Alice