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

Thomas,

I would disagree that the the idea of ordination must always lead to the priesthood. There are literally thousands of deacons who will never be priests throughout the world (at last cound there were well over 25,000). In the nearby Maronite church there is a man who has been a subdeacon for at least 20 years, and last year a man was ordained to the sub-diaconate for a community in San Francisco. I understand he will never be a priest.

Rather, the question to be answered is the role of a deaconess. Clearly she had no liturgical role in the Holy Place (she was also the Guardian of the Doors and, thus, had a quasi-liturgical role at the dismissal of Catechumens). She did assist at baptisms and anointing of the sick of women (both were done in the nude). Outside of that she had no role in proclaiming Scripture (although women are now doing that in many Eastern Catholic churches).

So, what would her role be? To give a deaconess a role like that of deacon would be a development not found in the early Church.

Edward, deacon and sinner

Originally posted by Nicky's Baba:
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
--------------------------------------------------
This is a broad generalization - last year I was being considered by a bishop for the office of deaconess in an Eastern Christian Church - it didn't go ahead because of certain ecclesiatical/political issues - nothing to do with me or with the Bishop.

The bishop wasn't going to take people who volunteered - he was going to make his own selections.

It was clearly stated that it had nothing whatsoever to do with "ordination" to the priesthood and I was going to sign something to that effect so that there could not ever be any kickback on the bishop or the diocese. The need for such a document was my idea and I would have insisted on it had the deaconess thing gone ahead.

Council of Chalcedon (451):

"...a woman of less than 40 years should not be ordained (non ordinari) deaconess...after accepting ordinatio 9ordinationem) she may not marry..."

I would have to agree with Joe on this one.

Are there functions that were performed by deaconesses in the past that can not be performed by the laity today?

If, has been said, their role was non-liturgical, then what is the need?

Like Joe, I am not in favor of reinstating an order or tradition simply for the sake of the fact that it was at one time a part of our past. The Church does change with time. The basic Truth and Teachings do not change, but tradition does.

Also, if this where to occur, I think it would be taken over by the pro-women's ordination movement in the Church. We do not need to add to the confusion that has been created by these groups.

In my opinion, we need to work for the restoration of monasticism within our tradition before we look to deaconesses.


In Christ,
David

David,

Excellent point. If women aren't being baptized and chrismated in the nude, if infant baptism is typically the norm, if 'communion calls' are done by the priest, if ... then the Functional Argument holds no weight. But is everything, especially ministry, based merely on function?

Yet, male deacons must study for several years (3 or 4), learn the rubrics and meet canonical requirements, including spouse permission; whereas, Eucharistic Ministers and Altar Servers get to do the 'functions' of the diaconate (male and female) with none of the demands or academic requirements.

The Church has proven that to do the 'function' of a deacon(ess) one necessarily doesn't need the requirements as a layperson. It is also less expensive for a Church that is concerned about the costs. Lay ministry without any ordination or blessing is akin to cohabitation without marriage - Why buy the cow if you get the milk free? Read: Poor example of responsibility.

As a parallel to the Pauline Christ(groom)-Church(bride) model, how the Church works with its ministries is like the irresponsible male (=Church) who keeps his girlfriend (=unordained lay ministries) guessing whether there will be a wedding or engagement for that matter. The rule is "take em and then dump em" when you get bored or tired of their mouths and/or demands. There is a lack of recognition or ecclesial backing of these ministries. But the Church, and I don't mean to be critical in a nasty way, is run by celibate men. What can I say? One's value or church ministry should not be determined by whether one's 'function' or ministry is greater than the amount of effort and support they are willing to give in return.

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Edwin,
Good point, but as was stated, if a deaconess has no liturgical function, then the laity can perfrom those tasks that a deaconess would do today and your anology does not fit.

As for Extraordinay Eucharistic Ministers, I am against them and I have not seem them used in the Byzantine Church, though I have heard here that they are in use in some places.

As for Alter Servers, what functions do they perform that are done by a Deacon?

As for the required training of Deacons as opposed to EEM's and such, I agree that those who are EEM's do not get much training, but the problem is that they should get more, not that Deacons get too much.

I can see of no non-liturgical ministry within the Church that would requrie ordination of any type.

And as I said, I think the renewal of the monastic life, monks and nuns, is more important at the moment than this issue.

In Christ,
David

Lampada,

I stated most not all. But I'm curious
what would be your duties? Are they something that could not be carried out by a lay person? What kind of training did you receive?
Also, did your Bishop need permission from a higher authority to restore the Order of Deaconess? Can just one Bishop restore the Order of Deaconess in his diocese or eparchy?

Nicky's Baba

[ 01-14-2002: Message edited by: Nicky's Baba ]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nicky's Baba:
[QB]Lampada,

Also, did your Bishop need permission from a higher authority to restore the Order of Deaconess? Can just one Bishop restore the Order of Deaconess in his diocese or eparchy?

Nicky's Baba

Nicky's Baba:

I think a couple of years ago, (my memory is failing me now) an Albanian Orthodox bishop mentioned something about it, maybe even just in passing, and everyone got all upset about it.
Maybe, techinally (at least in Orthodoxy) a bishop could go ahead and do so-at least with the permission of the primate of his church. But, such a unilateral decision probably would not go over well with the other Orthodox Churches.

Given the diversity of opinion on this thread, there probably needs to be a very detailed discussion about deaconesses before anything happens.

In Christ,

Michael King

I can't speak for other Orthodox ethnic groups (I've been to a Russian church once in my half-century lifetime!), but there is a ground swell of support for the resurrection of the order of deaconess within the Greek Church, especially among the younger faithful and professionals.

One doesn't have to dig deeply to see how positive an influence deaconesses will have in repairing and building the Body of Christ.

Pastorally trained deaconesses certainly will be able "to go and minister in those places where men would fear to tread." The same can be said for evangelism because, under specific circumstances and guided by the Holy Spirit, women can do it better. This is the opinion of many laypersons within the Greek Church and, I believe, is also the opinion of many bishops. Obviously, some within the church will disagree.

Ultimately, the issue must be separated from politics and political correctness and studied through the prism of exercising every possible ministry gift to repair and build the Body of Christ and serve and love His people.

FG

Kurt wrote: "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."


Kurt,

How many "cloistered communities" of women are there to minister to?


Michael wrote: "Maybe, techinally (at least in Orthodoxy) a bishop could go ahead and do so-at least with the permission of the primate of his church. But, such a unilateral decision probably would not go over well with the other Orthodox Churches."

Michael,

Does 'unilateralism' have to be a prerequisite for a bishop to simply celebrate a liturgy used in his church for centuries? I believe one Orthodox bishop did just that.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

Not enough in our Greek Catholic world. But certainly the charism of service, administration, proclamation and preaching would well serve the superiors of these communties, particularly those in the renewal of our community in Eastern Europe.

I also would be excited to see this as something the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches explored as one unit.

Don't 'cha think?

K.

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

Free Greek,
Maybe you can answer my questions on this issue, everyone else seems to be ignoring them .

If deaconesses have no liturgical function, and the orignial need of thier assisting with female baptism does not exist today, then why must we restore them?

What thing do/will a deaconess do that requires ordination?

What thing do/will a deaconess do that the laity can not do?

You said, "Pastorally trained deaconesses certainly will be able "to go and minister in those places where men would fear to tread."" What is so special about this? What can/will they do that a pastorally trained lay woman can't do?

You also speak of evangelism, aren't all of us called to evangelise? Isn't this what the Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:11-27) is telling us? Or are you saying that by viture of thier ordination a deaconess will have a special gift of evangelism? A closer connection to the Holy Spirit that the rest of us?

You say, "the issue must be separated from politics and political correctness", can you tell us how we can accomplish this? How can we stop the groups that what priestesses from takeing this as a first step to what they want?

Looking for answers,
David

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

David,

I think the Chuch is trying to move us away from a deficint theology of ordination empowers a person to "do things". I think the Church is asking that we look at the idea of the proper concept of particular charisms with particular ministries.

The diaconate is not essentially a litugical ministry, though it has been given certain liturgical functions. It is a ministry of diakonia.

In many ways, our Catholic hospitals, schools, cementaries, charities and Chancery offices, might be run by deacons of either gender as they are diaconal initiatives.

[ 01-27-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]

If I remember correctly, in the Acts of the Apostles the first deacons were appointed to serve the needs of the Christian community...something about the Apostles being to too busy to wait on tables and that sort of thing? How has our understanding of the office changed to be primarily a liturgical function? Should we possibly return the office (for permanent deacons any way) to its original function as the Bishop's means of seeing to the needs of his people, physical as well as spiritual? If we do that and decrease the emphasis on the liturgical functions, then why would there be any reason for denying this office to women...as we do have historical precedent for ordaining then to this ministry?
Don

David wrote: "If deaconesses have no liturgical function, and the orignial need of thier assisting with female baptism does not exist today, then why must we restore them?"


A puzzle. The same can be asked whether the church should reinstitute prophets or any other early church ministry.