www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Only Men on the altar

If liturgical functions are representative of the work of Christ, then why not have female servers. After all, His mother served at the wedding in Cana; Peter's mother-in-law waited on Jesus at her house; the woman at the well sat at the foot of Jesus and was instructed by Him. Women assisted Him on His travels throughout Judea; Martha and Mary waited on Jesus; women were with Him at his passion and death when most of His disciples deserted Him. Finally, women went to His grave to anoint Him and were the first witnesses of His resurrection. Why not serve at the altar?

No women deaconess's were not ''ordained'', that is a mistake backed up by St.Irenaeus himself when he said that women deacons were to assist the priest in baptisms only but were not to be ordained.

I love the Church and would give my life for Christ, but I believe the Church compromised its argument for male only altar servers when it allows non-ordained acolytes to serve. In my opinion the Church should either allow females or deanery level training with episcopal ordination of male only acolytes. That would remove the gray area and legitimate controversy which it has created.

Fr Deacon Paul

Incorrect, at least to the extent that the Church of Constantinople was concerned. Deaconesses were indeed ordained by Cheirotoneia, using the same prayers used to ordain male deacons; they were declared to be ordained clergy in conciliar degrees as well as imperial novellae of Justinian the Great. They received communion at the altar after the male deacons, in the same method as the male deacons.

Remember, too, that the liturgical role of the deacon evolved later than its original charism of service, and service remains the primary role of the diaconate. The ancient typos of the Church equated the bishop with God the Father, the presbyters with the heavenly hosts, and the deacon with Christ, "who came to serve".

The usage of the Western Church was different, but should not be considered normative. Remember, in the Eastern Churches, acolytes, readers and subdeacons are all ordained (by Cheirothesia), while in the West, they are considered merely "appointments".

There are two dimensions to the Liturgy and, simply put, serving at the Altar belongs to the liturgical reditus, while serving elsewhere belongs to the exitus.

Liberals always confuse the two.

I don't get it. How are they confused, and why is it that liberals do this?
It sounds, to me, like ad hominem.

danman916, sorry if it sounds ad hominem. Not at all.

Let me give you an analogy to explain the liberals thing.

In the 1970s, the churches were rife with folk masses. I remember one in which they played Bob Dylan's 'Blowin' in the Wind' as a hymn.

Now, I happen to think that there is nothing wrong with Bob Dylan's 'Blowin' in the Wind'. But even back then, I was sure that there was something wrong with playing it in the context of the Mass. The liberals (or whatever you want to call them) had, in this instance, imported something that was perfectly acceptable to listen to in the 'Liturgy of the World' to the 'Liturgy of the Altar'.

To suggest that because women served as our Lord served is to correctly identify the role women play in the economy of salvation. At the Last Supper, and where Christ is most fully known - in the Sacrifice on Calvary - however, women did not serve. Only our Lord did. And it is this precise act, and its eternal reality in heaven, that is re-presented in the Liturgy of the Altar. So, as he undertook this work in his incarnate form as a man, we the Church, continue to re-present it the same way.

We can carry whatever positive - even holy - reality from the Liturgy that unfolds in the world into the Liturgy that unfolds at the Altar, but then we less faithfully represent the eternally-established nature of the Sacrifice.

Could you perhaps point me to book, chapter and verse of anywhere ( the early fathers perhaps? ) that could verify what you have said. Because I find it very hard to believe that women were ordained in the Major orders like that of male deacons.

Sorry if that sounds harsh, it is not meant to come across that way. I strive to trust in God but always test everything so I hope you respect that. I'm sure you do.

Slavophile I couldn't agree more.

God bless

Just found this by apologist Michelle Arnold - Although there is some historical evidence that deaconesses were specially charged with their ministry in a manner resembling the ordination of deacons, it is certain that there was a fundamental difference in the rites. By their ordination deacons receive the sacrament of holy orders, although in a lesser degree than priests and bishops, a sacrament that women cannot validly receive. If there indeed was a special liturgical rite for deaconesses, it likely resembled the non-sacramental "investiture" ceremonies held in conjunction with a Mass that charge extraordinary ministers of holy Communion with their responsibilities.

Is this what you mean Stuart?

That is modern Latin apologetics.

The ordination rite in the Byzantine Church was nearly identical to the ordination of deacon. Compare:

http://www.anastasis.org.uk/deacon.htm

http://www.anastasis.org.uk/woman_deacon.htm

The real proof is in the following prayer which is only used in ordination to major orders:

Divine grace, which always heals what is infirm and completes what is lacking, ordains N., the most devout (insert order), as (insert order). Let us therefore pray for him/her, that the grace of the All-Holy Spirit may come upon him/her.

I recommend to you Kyriaki Karidoyanes Fitzgerald's Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church [amazon.com] , which includes, in addition to a history of the development, role, and decline of the office of the female diaconate, the full text of the Rite or Ordination for a Female Deacon.

A side-by-side comparison of this rite, with the Rite of Ordination for a Deacon, shows both to be essentially identical, differing only in the saints invoked (male deacons in the case of the Rite for a male deacon, deaconesses in the case of the rite for a female deacon). Both are indubitably the "Great Ordination" or Cheirotoneia, as opposed to the "Lesser Ordination" (Cheirothesia) employed in the case of acolytes, readers and subdeacons. In the case of the ordination of deaconesses, the laying on of hands takes place not in the nave, but in the sanctuary before the Angel of Peace litany and the Lord's Prayer. It includes this critical and distinctive prayer, which is the mark of Cheirotoneia as opposed to Cheirothesia:

.

During a subsequent litany, the bishop does the following:


I don't know what you could possibly call this, other than full and complete ordination into the same Order of the Diaconate to which men are called.

Oh, so true! Martimort bites again. Of course, he started with the conclusion that women, by definition could never be ordained to anything because Holy Orders are reserved exclusively to men, and then worked backwards, carefully cherry picking the evidence to conclude (wait for it!), that indeed, women had never been ordained to the diaconate.

I think we must conclude that the usage of the different Churches in the Patristic period and down to the 13th century at least, varied from place to place. This different usage was known and accepted, in the same way that other differences in usage were accepted.

It is a fact that the Order of the Female Diaconate was never abolished in the Orthodox Church, but simply faded from desuetude after the Latin sack of Jerusalem left the Church too impoverished to maintain the number and variety of ministers it supported in its heyday. We last hear of deaconesses in Constantinople in the 13th century, and not thereafter (though there have been isolated instances of bishops ordaining women to serve as deacons in isolated female monasteries right down to the 20th century).

For the last three decades or so the Orthodox Church has been discussing whether and how to restore the order, but no conclusion has been reached as yet.

Very short answer: No. I have written what I have written.

Stuart pointed out something, in a thread here somewhere, some time last year that makes a lot of sense, and becomes the problem in discussing the topic. one can't take a 20th century ecclesiology and apply it to a 6th century Church. We need to investigate from an open perspective basing on what the texts say. Not starting from the position of Michelle Arnold that they were likely investiture ceremonies.
I agree that Martimort starts with the premise that women cannot be ordained and then goes on to demonstrate that based on the premise, instead of simply letting the evidence fall where it may.

This is also, as I recall, in Afanasiev's dissertation on ecclesiology (Church of the Holy Spirit), as well Father Deacon John Chryssavgis' recent book on the Diaconate.

IMO, this needs to be foot stomped especially in discussions like this: a deacon is not just a dude who stands next to the priest at liturgy, or even someone who's defined by a strictly liturgical role.

Rather, his main "function" is service and even leadership role in non-liturgical work of the church. The very idea of this function is IMO unfortunately absent in the consciousness of most people in the Catholic Church.

This is in direct contrast with acolytes (as well as readers), whose ministry is strictly liturgical.