www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ordination of a deaconESS

Professor Evangelos Theodorou concludes in his study of the textual evidence of deaconess ordinations that the liturgical service for a deaconess was a true ordination since:

1. the ordination rite took place after the Epiclesis, which was the also the timing of other higher orders; whereas the ordinations of sub-deacons, lectors, etc took place at other times.

2. the ordination took place in the altar; whereas sub-deacons and lectors took place outside the altar.

3. the ordination service begins with the proclamation prayer of "the divine grace" which is not the case with lower orders.

4. the number of prayers of installation for a deaconess are two, similar to deacons and priest of the higher orders; whereas the installation prayers of lower orders are only one.

In addition to the Professor's conclusions ...

5. the deaconesses assigned to the Hagia Sophia were to be no greater than 40; and they were paid a salary by the state just like other ordained clerics.

Was (is) the deaconess an ordained cleric?

Yes it was/is a true ordination, and I believe it should be restored.

anastasios

Dear Edwin,

It was no "ordination" in the sense that it conferred any sacerdotal rank on the deaconess.

The deaconess had no liturgical function in the Church - her role was solely one of service to the community of the parish or Church.

There were a number of blessings for pilgrims and others that took place at the Liturgy in history, none of which were an ordination.

As for the Greek fellow you cite, to quote from St Epiphanius of Cyprus, "Just because one sparrow has sung does not mean that Spring is here."

Like Anastasios, I too believe that the role of the Deaconess should be reinstated in our Church.

Still wishing you a good day,

Alex

I am totally incompetent to comment on this matter, but can't miss the chance to be to the "right" of some of my friends.

My recommendation is that deaconesses be ordained, but limited to the superiors of cloistered communities of women and with the consent of the local eparch.

K.

Alex,

The Greek professor based his conclusion on the liturgical text, not function. Let the texts speak for themselves. Do the texts reflect an 'ordination' similar to the Higher Orders or the Lower Ones? This is assuming our liturgical texts are trustworthy and consistent. The Didascalia and Apostolic Constitutions bear this out as well as the fact that the role of the deaconess was covered in the same part of the text as the Higher orders (Hmmmmmmm) than the lower or minor ones (as well as the ministry of Widow and Virgin). Plus, was all deacon ministry originally a liturgical one as we know it today?

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Dear Edwin,

Liturgical texts can be, and have been, open to interpretation outside of the context of the actual role that a deaconess performed.

If the deaconess was ordained to a lower rank of the priesthood, then the entire theology against women's ordination to the full priesthood falls.

If a woman can have a small share in the ministerial Priesthood, why then can't she have a larger share, or even an episcopal share for that matter?

Virgins and hermitesses were also consecrated as were deaconesses and my parish has its very own Anchoress who was consecrated much in the same way as the Greek professor describes.

Deacons had both a liturgical and a communal role in the church, but they definitely do have a share in the ministerial Priesthood of Christ.

Is that Greek professor really making the argument that Deaconesses are the female counterpart of the Deacon? If so, it is his (novel) opinion since even the Lutherans, who have always had "Diakonissin" would balk at that.

Again, my argument is that if it can be shown that Deaconesses had a share in the ministerial priesthood of Christ, conferred through an actual ordination, then this means that women can also, potentially, become full priests.

Also, pilgrims were also blessed in the same way and at a similar time during the Liturgy.

The studying of liturgical texts without reference to the actual roles those consecrated played in the life of the Church can sometimes lead to aberrations such as that whole business about the Church blessing "gay marriages" on the basis of a service someone found to establish brotherhood etc.

That's how I see it. Let's see how others see it.

Alex

The way I see it, deacons were created by the apostles as an order, distinct from themselves, whereas priests are basically "half bishops" in a sense.

As such, the Church could reinstate the sacramental ordination of deaconesses without implying their ability to become priests.

anastasios

In addition to roles of service to the community, one of the functions of deaconesses was to assist at female baptisms, which at the time included an anointing of the entire body, requiring the candidate to remove their clothing. Above most other duties, this seemed to be very important.

I am not in favor of reinstating an order simply for the sake of the fact that it was at one time a part of our tradition. We no longer have some of the situations in which the female deacons were important. If their role was not liturgical as some claim, then what would they do besides that which any Christian can and should be involved in? There may be other reasons though, to begin ordaining women to this order.

Our liturgics professor did point out that in regards to the liturgical etiquette of the day, women deacons were admitted to holy communion at the altar in Hagia Sophia, along with the other rank and file clerics (deacons, presbyters, bishops), until around the ninth century. This would give credence to the belief that they were considered to be in major orders.

Dear Joe,

Excellent point!

Assisting with the baptism of adult females was truly an important function that negatively impacted on the status of deaconess once it was no longer as "in demand" as in earlier times.

Much of what the deaconess was about was taken order by women Monastics later on.

Communion along side those in Orders does not, however, mean that deaconesses were in Holy Orders.

Again, to say this would mean that there is no theological barrier to women's ordination as full priests.

We know that those tonsured as Monks were often talked about as having undergone "Monastic Ordination" but this did not mean Monks, whether male or female, had a share in Holy Orders.

Again, the ancient Rite of consecration of an Emperor allowed the new Emperor to receive Communion by taking the Chalice into his own hands for the purpose, something that was reserved to Priests and Bishops. But there is no suggestion that an Emperor had a share in Holy Orders (the Russian Tsars even blessed the faithful with their hands, much as bishops do).

I would suggest that the Greek professor is simply confirming that the rite of consecration of Deaconesses existed by way of trying to make active this dormant status in the Church.

Joe's point is excellent. What would the modern relevance and role of a renewed order of Deaconesses be today that would differentiate it from the general responsibilities of all Christians?

Alex

Dear Friends,

Here is a website dedicated to Eastern Church Deaconesses:

http://www.angelfire.com/pa/deaconess/

There are prayers for the consecrating or ordaining of deaconesses, and some articles on what deaconesses do, for example, in the Coptic Church.

Their lives seem to resemble those of Nuns, but they do counselling, writing, publishing and other supportive work in the parish.

The Copts do count them among their hierarchy, but without saying that they have a share in the ministerial Priesthood.

Alex

As part of my doctoral dissertation I examined the role of the deaconess including a look at the ordination ceremony. It was my opinion that this did, indeed, function as an "ordination" -- but not the conferral of Holy Orders. Rather, it was a specific form of ministry in which the woman was "set apart for service" rather than ordained into the ranks of clergy.

At the same time, there are many scholars who hold that Holy Orders was really conferred by this ordination ceremony, in part because of the structure of the prayers and the placement in the Liturgy.

However, the form of the prayer, while significant, is not the key to determining this. Rather, one must examine the intent of the Church. This is much harder to do.

We should also recognize that the early Church had offices that no longer exist, and that the role of the deacon in the early Church was quite different from that of the deacon today. This difference is significant in trying to determine if Holy Orders really was conferred.

Edward, deacon and sinner

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: FrDeaconEd ]

Thank you, Alex for your compliments. I have an affinity for your writings for several reasons, not the least of which is that we are "kraiyany" and brother "Ukrainophiles." Your comments also reflect good and serious scholarship and academics.

Deacon Ed makes a good point also when mentioning that it is important to discover what the "intent" of the church was, when examining historical situations.

God bless you all. Joe

Christ is Baptised! In the Jordan!

Dear Brothers and sisters,

I have gone on record on this forum as believing that the ordination of women to the office of deaconess was a true ordination. Why is it that we have to believe that their ordination to this ancient order has anything to do with a progression to the Priesthood. It is obvious that it does not!

The restoration of the Deaconess would bring the church back into line with the ancient church. It would provide a necessary ministry to women that is not fully met by our current deacons and pastors effectively, because of the male deacons liturgical role limits his ability to minister to women. We place our priests into a position of being slandered or compromised as they try to minister alone to women---why because we are not following the pattern of the apostolic church.

Let us drop our modern thinking that all holy orders end in the priesthood and recognize the fact that the order of deaconesses was in the early church, it had a role and purpose---it had nothing to do with them becoming a priest---it was to minister to needs of women, children, widows and orphans. Where are the Church charities that should be led by these deaconesses minsitering within the church today? They are missing---we have no deaconesses to provide this ministry.

If I were a modernist and a feminist, I would be cheering because it is obvious that many of those on this forum have already bought into their agenda by allowing the Feminists to define what the ordination of a Deaconess would mean. The idea that the ordination of a deaconess must lead to the priesthood is in violation of all the examples we see of the deaconess in the early church--- the very idea is a modernist innovation.

As Byzantines, Orthodox and Eastern Catholic
we should be in the forefront of restoring the role and ministry of the deaconess as they were in the history of our eastern patrimony---their communion at the Altar, their proper ordination historically documented, and their very specific ministry--- we do not have to look far to define it for it is well documented in the hagiography of the lives of our saintly women deaconesses. Let us not be fooled by the modernist feminist agenda that the ordination of the holy , righteous , celibate woman as the deaconess will "naturally" leads to the priesthood for it does not!

Your brother in Christ,
Thomas

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Thomas ]

Hi,

There will never be a restoration of Deaconess because most of the women who would want it, only will want it if it leads to the Priesthood.

Nicky's Baba

In a world of quantum physics and electro-telescopic probes into other solar systems, the anthropomorphic "god" image of the theology of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, could very well have a tough time surviving into the 22nd-23rd centuries, at least in the West. The "orthodox" image of the deity is too limited to speak to our time, and such a primitive voice cannot echo into the future.

Our image of "god" is too small. I believe The One is too profound to care about the gender of the ministers and servants of the Word and Spirit.

I believe there are Catholic theologians who would concur with this position.

Both the Bible and the Qur'an err in their attempts to image God as male, and would equally err if they attempted to image God as female. The image of God cannot be adequately described in gender-centric terms.

www.iol.ie/~duacon/lastsup.jpg [iol.ie]

Abdur

[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Abdur Islamovic ]