www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Contemporary Orthodox Deaconesses?

No, Shestelle, I understand quite well the depth of commitment that ordination implies. My statement is that the feminists who are pushing to reopen this "order" neither understand that it did not equate to the office of deacon that an ordained man performs in today's church, nor the fact that although it was not a cloistered calling, it effectively puts an end to their social life!

Of course, one must be dedicated for this...but, I do not think they understand all the things that the Church WILL expect them to do. Bear in mind, please, that at the time that there WAS an order of deaconesses, that life expectancies were considerably less than they are now. For a woman over forty then, it was highly unlikely that she would marry at that age. Further, their bodies, due to the nutritional standards at the time, had hit menopause by then. If they had not, then they would not have been allowed to serve. Please note that the Canons which set the ages for various ordinations set that for a deacon at 25, and a deaconness at 40. Mind, the age Canon for men is frequently broken these days, as well...

To say that for a forty year old woman to be celibate in today's culture, if widowed or unmarried, involves a higher calling...well, are you implying that women are incapable of being celibate unless they are called to orders? Surely the VAST majority of those who are celibate, at any age, do so to be in keeping with the commandments, not owing to a vocation. However, in today's society, women are able to bear children, and do, into their forties. To keep to the menopause requirement, the Canons would need to be changed, to increase the age limit.

Most feminists in their forties would not care for the celibacy restriction, I am convinced...and, as to excommunication, would go around thinking it is an outrage, rather than a justified punishment for breaking ones vows.

Alice, you seem like you know the type quite well!

Gaudior, who only has a low opinion of women trying to be men, rather than concentrating on being women, as God made them.

Thank you for quoting that canon Guadior, now which canon 15 is that? Of which council, collection, etc?

Thanks!

Gaudior,
thanks for your reply.

Celibacy, as well as Chastity in marriage or in the celebate life is a serious matter. And, who is judge of another's keeping of the Commandments, or vows?

I am not saying that all celibate women are crying out to be "deaconnesses" that the calling to be a "deaconnes" is more than celibacy! It is a Divine calling, just like it is to be called to the Priesthood or to the Monastic Life. As Jesus says, "many are called, but few are chosen"

So, what does that mean? discernment of a call! and, not everyone flocking into something because it seems to be new! and, that it might grant a little more "prestige" or "power" to the individual!

As to what you call "feminists" ... this is a secular movement in today's world; and men are part of it as well as women. Think about it!

I do not advocate the "feminist movement" /... I just pray to God to have mercy upon all of us men and women who cause such so-called movements to rise up.

As to the women that you refer to as somehow scrambling towards the Ordination of Women! Did you ever ask yourself, what it is that they are asking for? Just a thought!

Shestelle

Some I have met are asking for power, purely and simply. They are tired of that evil, old, patriarchal Church putting men over them and they want to run things, too. There was one daughter of a prominent Catholic family in Knoxville, who became an Episcopal priestess because the evil Catholic Church denied her ordination. That kind of pride has to be sinful, to put your own desires above the laws of the Church. That may come from some spirit, somewhere, but I don't think the Holy Spirit ever leads anyone into defiance of the Church.

Sorry, an oversight on my part! Canon XV of Chalcedon.

Gaudior, correctively

I am fully aware that there are male feminists. Those would be the ones tonsuring women as readers, creating altar girls...etc.

What the women WANT is not the issue. What is the issue is their false pride, in thinking that because they want it, the Church must change to give it to them!

Bear in mind, the order of deaconesses in history did not serve at altar. They were not a female version of the male deacon! No one is stopping any woman from performing charitable works with her Church women's group! Nor even stopping them from teaching Sunday School! And, definitely not stopping them from remaining celibate, or of joining a monastery! So many ways they can serve the Church! Even as tonsured nuns, if they like.

This burning desire to become deacons, (in the male role of the word) priests (Oh, yes, it IS there, I have read articles in which the same women who push for the restoration of the deaconesses state "who knows" as opposed to denying as uncanonical the suggestion that women may become priests) is just a power grab...and, as said above...WHICH spirit drives them is open for debate.

Even our gentle sister, Alice, has seen this attitude among Church ladies!

Gaudior, who appreciates the answer from TN so much that I will let it stand, for I think the same.

Gaudior, and others,

Perhaps I have not been in situations to see what you see!

But, I do believe that women have been opressed a whole lot in the curse of history; and, maybe, just maybe they are only trying to point out that all Christians are called to the "Priesthood of Christ" ; and by this I don't mean ordained priesthood!

It is a matter of depth and maturity in Christ, in whom there is not East and West, nor male or female. . .

in Christ Jesus,
Shestelle

p.s. we all have a lot to learn! and to understand about obedience to the Church and to Christ. :rolleyes:

Shestelle:

With all due respect, your last post does betray feminism or, at least, exposure to it. For Catholics, Pope John Paul II closed the door to any further development or discussion of the possibility of women's ordination to any order now or at any time in the future about 7 years ago. He put it in some rather strong terms that no future pope can backtrack from. We recently had another reinforcement of that from the Doctrinal Congregation in case anyone hadn't gotten the message.

That having been said, I'd like to turn this discussion to the idea of the Apostolic Churches moving toward some sort of future communion. I'd like to offer the thought that we should be approaching this together if we hope for that day. Otherwise, by moving unilaterally toward different practices in this area, we might be constructing the future roadblocks to that day of communion.

The Anglicans in the United States started with retired bishops illegally ordaining women deacons to the order of priestess in 1974. That lead to two years of real turmoil. Their Church then made it legal in 1976 so as to avoid schism, but it did lead to many places that decided on their own that woman could not officiate in their diocese or parish. So they have schism, but it is buried for the sake of keeping the whole together. They also blurred the difference between deacons and deaconesses by making both the same. It is this blurring that has given so many advocates of the restroation of the role of deaconess hope that they, too, can move in this direction.

BTW, when the Anglicans did ordain their first women priestesses, the Russian Orthodox Church was out front in saying that they could no longer dialogue with the Anglicans with the ultimate goal of that dialogue being full communion. Rome has been ambivalent about the whole issue since there is still a strong support for Pope Leo XIII's judgment on Anglican Orders in general. So a unilateral move can be a further block to full communion.

It seems to me that when we look at the "spirit" that "calls" for something new, we have to discern what spirit that one is. We know where the Holy Spirit breathes--in the voice of authority: the heads of Churches, bishops in communion with them, Ecumencial Counsels, particular synods, the canons, etc. The bishops don't seem to be advocating this idea or promoting it in a unified way anywhere. And it is not the "call" that one himself or herself discerns, but the Church which ratifies that call by testing and formation that ultimatley leads to ordination.

Much of the demand for women's ordination makes no pretense that women will be satisfied with the traditional role of the deaconess: catechesis, etc. They balk at the idea that this will not mean preaching or leading the people of God in worship or even having a visible role for the deaconess in worship. The people that I have heard talk about the deaconess restoration are upfront about using the Anglican model as their roadmap: get some level of ordination, make sure that it is vested, and then persuade some bishop to take it to the next level whether legal or otherwise. My daughter was just treated to a guest lecture by one such advocate of women's ordination in a required religion course at her Catholic university.

The Vatican has excommunicated several women who pretended to be ordained to the order of priest and the man responsible for the ceremony in the past couple years. I think that that should show where Rome falls.

For my Orthodox brethren in Christ, I've got to ask what makes the restoration of this order so necessary in this age? From my own reading, it seems to have been restricted to an era when it was thought that women would contaminate men during the course of worship. So the deaconess also was the "usher" in the womens's sections of the church: separate galleries, lofts, grilled areas totally separate and out of sight of men during the course of the liturgical cycle. Is that coming back with the order of deaconess, too? I understand that this is a very divisive topic and raises much heated discussion. But the fundamental questions haven't been answered.

What spirit is behind this "call" to restore the deaconess order? Are the people calling for it willing to accept it as it was, strictly adhering to all the restrictions of the order in the past? Are the women who feel called to this order willing to publicly state that they do not wish to advance to any other order and to admit that it was not a stepping stone in the past and not possible now or ever to be so?
_______________________

As for the diaconate, it is still fuzzy in the Latin Church in my experience. Deacons are not permitted to wear clercial collars, cassocks, or other signs of ordination in public--outside of worship--if they are married. The only sign allowed that I've seen is a lapel pin--cross with a left-draped stole on it. I don't know what the Byzantine or Oriental experience is in the Eastern Catholic or Orthodox Churches, but it seems to me that it doesn't offer what the advocates of the restoration of the order of deaconess want either. If it offers no public recognition, what is the point, according to some advocates.

On the other hand, there are many people who offer selfless service to the Lord in His Church without seeking outward signs of recognition or reward. And they are both men and women. The times today offer much more freedom to so offer one's gifts that were not present in the past.

In Christ,

BOB

Bob, Sorry to hear that you have "labelled" me a feminist. I am only trying to understand the question?

I am also thinking of the role of women in the Church since the beginning. And, it is very true that there has been a lot of "putting down" of women as temptress, whore, witch, etc. in the course of history this is very evident; as well as the Church recognizing that certain women Saints have been called "Apostle to the Apostles"!

And, many have been able to point out to men that tthere is more than the "black and white" issues with regards to words, to the Word of God, the Logos.

Have you read the book entitled
"Women and the Salvation of the World"
by Paul Exdokimov

published by the St. Vladimir's seminary Press

By my thoughts on Women Deacons, I am not advocating the "ORDINATION of women to the Diaconate".

But, I know in my own heart that when I attend and participate in the Divine Liturgy, that I can be a priest offering a sacrifice as much as the Ordained Priest who is presiding. I am not in the altar. But the Altar is in the midst of my own Heart, and in the assembled Community, in the Prayer of Christ!

As Christians, we are all tonsured at Baptism! and that is the beginning of the Christian Life: living the Creed, the Commandments, the Sacraments and the Gospel, while reading, praying and meditating upon the Scriptures and the works of the Fathers and Mothers of the Church! And, as we mature in Christ personally, as well as communily.

As we mature in Christ, each one of us, male or female comprise the Whole of the Mystical Body of Christ.

As Christians, we have so much to yet learn, and to become, before we reach the "Fullness of Christ" and, I do hope that my own "little part" will be perfected and made holy by our God who is the "Holy"

Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal One have mercy upon us!

In Christ Jesus, Shestelle

p.s. before we speak as experts, we need humbly to be at our place, reading, learning, contemplating, praying that "Thy Kingdom come on earth as it is in heaven."

Gaudior,

Certainly deaconesses were not the femal versions of today's deacons, that much is clear. The historical evidence shows that they were ordained in the altar (like the deacons were). The greatest difference that I have seen seems to be that they did not have a speaking role (rather Pauline).

Now, who do you think assists in the altar, behind the screen, within the sanctuary, in women's monasteries?

Men!

Nuns! Who have dedicated their lives to Christ, and are VOWED, and are not laity. And, as was stated elsewhere, are allowed to do this by their bishops! Though, to clarify, even a monastic needs a reason and a blessing to be in the altar area, female, OR male!

I have never seen an Altar Boy, nor an Altar GIRL in a woman's monastery, even where there are young boys in the serving priest's own family.

For that matter, I have never seen this in a MALE monastery! Monks do their own serving, in all the monasteries I have seen.

Perhaps you have seen differently?

Gaudior, who freely admits to not having seen ALL of the world's monasteries.

Shestelle:

With all due respect, I did not "label" you a feminist. I said that your post betrayed feminism or at least an exposure to feminism. The language of oppression has no place in the Church. In fact, were it not for the Church, women in the areas influenced by Christianity would probably have the same status they seem to have in every culture and area of the world that has never had a Christian majority for its influence.

My point seems to be lost here. The Church has been led by the Holy Spirit in all her history. Somewhere she has seen that the order of deaconess is no longer necessary to her life. Before we begin to call for the restoration, we need to determine the reason for its being in the first place and then the reason for its being discontinued. Then we need to take a serious look at the order as it was constituted and determine if its restoration would be something that women in this age would want. From looking at the canons, it would seem that it would be more burden than grace. Finally, we would need a serious, non-politically correct look at the reasons behind the call for its restoration.

The language of oppression comes from outside the Church and is not part of our life. If anything, the Church is supposed to leaven society; not the other way around.

As for the quote about there being no male or female in Christ, this is true, but it does not apply to the area of the Church calling men to ordination exclusively. The Church at worship is an icon of Christ, standing at the head of His People, leading us in worship of the Father; interceding for us. The priest stands in the place of Christ. The Eastern Church calls this an "iconic image." There is a deep theology about Christ espousing the Church as His Bride tht explains the reason why the clergy is male exclusively. The Church--all of us--is female; Christ is our Bridegroom.

It is also true that we all, incorporated into Christ, have a share in offering the Mystical Sacrifice. But nowhere in the Fathers have I ever read that anyone called us all priests in the sense of being ordained. Unfortunately, our English language has been heavily influenced by Protestantism and the free use of language saying that we are all priests can confuse others about what our orthodoxy is in this area. It is one thing to say that we have some participation in the Priesthood of Christ because of Baptism. It is quite another to say that we are all priests. The former is orthodox; the latter seems to me not to be so.

In Christ,

BOB

Tony:

It is my understanding that the order of deaconess is a minor order, equivalent to the order of subdeacon for men. Is it not true that subdeacons are ordained by the bishop at either his throne or on the solea outside the icon screen?

In Christ,

BOB

BOB,

I am not sure what you mean it is a minor order, but I don't think it was historically equal to that of a subdeacon. Deaconesses were ordained at the altar and were vested in an orarion, at least that is what the texts examined in class have shown us.

Tony