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

DavidB,

I believe the deaconess, receiving the mystery of ordination, is "enlightened," "set apart for service," "receives the gift of the Holy Spirit," "is transformed sacramentally," (take your choice) in exactly the same manner a male deacon is. In other words, being ordained into the first order of the priesthood, they are endowed with special gifts for service that lay persons are not endowed with and never can be endowed with.

Holy Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and for generations, has recognized the special graces gifted to those who are ordained to the sacramental priesthood (Major Orders).

Evidently (from what Bishop Kallistos writes) deaconesses were not only ministers or assistant ministers of Holy Baptism but also were gifted by the Holy Spirit through the church to serve a pastoral role, and to serve pastorally with gifts not imparted to the laity.

If there ever has been a time when the sacramental gifts imparted to deaconesses could be used in new and creative ways, it certainly is now. And why wouldn't an Orthodox Christian (I can't speak for Catholics. That would be crude on my part.) desire to see those ministry gifts, which are gifts of Divine Love, used in building the Body of Christ through ministering to God's children, both inside and outside the Holy Church.

Finally, I believe a time will come when the biological/physiological issues that might be the rationale for banning deaconesses from serving the Holy Table of the Lord will be re-examined. At that time the church will have a change of heart and allow the sister deaconesses to serve alongside their brother deacons in ministering to the Lord and the people of God.

May that day come soon.

FG

Free Greek, I can only say "AMEN"
Don

Now the truth comes out.....

As I have said, the deaconess issue will be taken over they the pro-priestess crowd.....

Or has it already happened?

David

ps: is it just me or does it appear that certain users here have an agenda they are trying to press forward? and does it appear to others that these same people have created multiple user accounts so that they can agree with themselves?

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

DavibB,

If I have an agenda, it is the agenda of St. John Chrysostom and the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church who were/are the keepers and interpreters of Holy Tradition. Maybe you are not aware of the fact that they supported and nurtured the order of deaconesses and the same deaconesses played an important role in the Holy Church. I do not consider myself superior to the Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church, not in any way, fashion, or form. Do you?

Before accusing others of "agendas" and "multiple posting" you should do your own research into the subject of deaconesses and the thoughts of contemorary Orthodox bishops such as Bishop Kallistos. Does he have an agenda?

On the other hand, I am not Catholic. I certainly do not speak for Catholics, but only express the wisdom of the Holy Orthodox Fathers and the mindset of many within the contemporary GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH---not the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Frankly, we are free to do as we believe we must do to build up our Holy Church and preach the Good News.
What your church chooses to do on this issue is none of our business.

BTW: I do not believe women should be ordained priests or bishops. Evidently, you are a better knee-jerk judge of a person's intentions than you are a soothsayer or psychic.

My only agenda is that of the Holy Fathers of the Apostolic Church of Christ.

The Greek Orthodox faithful will follow their own collective conscience. No one has...or will...ask you to join us along the way. We are a people who are free because Christ has made us free.

You are free to be yourself.

God bless.

Sincerely,

FG

[ 01-15-2002: Message edited by: Free Greek ]

Dear Free Greek,

"The Holy Roman Catholic Church"

Thank you, Friend in Christ, for this courteous comment made by someone who is obviously a religious gentleman!

Alex

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Dear Brothers and sisters,
In regards to the comments above that there are those with agendas wanting women in the priesthood. I hope that you did not include me. I clearly stated that I believe in the restoration of the office of Deaconess as it was found in the Historic Church---note THIS HAS NEVER MEANT THE PRIESTHOOD.

A real concern for myself as an Eastern Orthodox Christian is the lack of opportunity for women who have callings to serve the ministry of God as Deaconess to be unable to fulfill that celibate, over 40 calling. As a result there are many tasks that we burden our priests and our deacons with that historically could have been shared with the Deaconess. It is true these are non-liturgical but are not functions assigned to the laity but rather to the order of Deacons and Deaconesses in their specific ministries.

The running of Orphanges, management of the system to feed the poor, the widowed, and the orphaned. The physical administration of the parish, diocese, or mission could easily fall within the parameter of the Deaconess and the Deacon historically. Prison and Jail ministry to women in prison and county jails easily could fall into this ministry---setting up preparations for the priest to bring the sacraments, and ministry to the families of those imprisoned.

How many ministries of the church are dormant or lie vacant because of the lack of ordained leadership with the special charism of organzation and administration. How much valuable time of our priests (orthodox or catholic) is wasted trying to resolve administrative issues rather than being able to go out and pastorally serve the laity of the church? Deacons and Deaconesses handling the physical needs of God's Church free the Priest and heirarch's to provide the spiritual sacraments that only they are allowed to provide.

One of the above posters noted that anything a Deacon or Deaconess could do could be done by anyone of the laity. We know for a fact that many church (diocese and parish level) organizations feel uncomfortable giving church funds to lay-run organizations, yet when those organizations have the blessing of church leadership, they prosper. The Laity does not have the Charism to lead the church in areas appointed to the Deacons and Deaconesses---they work in tandem with the Deacon and Deaconess their leaders in the work of service/diaconia.

You may argue that these are not needed, ie "the state doth provide." The compassionate witness of the church should be in the leadership of the acts of charity for its people. The true role of deacon and deaconess needs to be restored that we may have the blessings that come forth. And with those blessings, we can unburden our precious priests and hierarchs of the non-liturgical burdens they struggle under every day.

Your brother in Christ.
Thomas

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

If the call for the return of Deaconess is truly just a call to return to the traditions as found in the Historic Church, then why no call for a renewal of the monastic life?

While were at it, why not a call to restore the penitential practice of wearing a sack cloth and putting ashes on our faces and asking forgiveness of everyone entering the Church building after we confess our sins?

Just because something was done in the past does not mean that it is relevant today.

The things you speak of, Thomas, that deaconesses can do, "The running of Orphanges, management of the system to feed the poor, the widowed, and the orphaned."

I know there is a call for such things, but there are not a whole lot of orphanges run by the Church any longer, the system to feed the poor is privatized in most areas and most likely will not allow the Church to take over, and there are not many groups within the Church for widows.....

So lets be realistic, how would we support these deaconesses? What would they do? The ministries you mentioned are virtually nonexistent.

And why couldn't women monastics do the same thing you say deaconesses do?

It is great to call for change, for a return to our historic traditions, but we must be realistic. We must look to society today and see if it is really necessary to change. We must ask ourselves can we really afford the change. We must never change for the sake of change.

Truth be told, I am not sure if I am really for or against the return of deaconesses, I think it is more important to start a renewal of the monastic life.


David

I agree with David on this topic.

I see no theological objection to women deacons, but believe at the present time, we should allow the renewal of the male diaconate to fully occur. Once that has reached its fulfillment, the situation could be reviewed.

The only present day exception I would make is within communities exclusively of women.

Kurt

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

Within Orthodoxy, the call for the restoration of the order of deaconess began in the monastic communities. Deaconesses are already serving within the monastic communities.

On the other hand, Orthodox monastic communities, male and female, are contemplative. There is no equivalent to the "active orders" one finds within Catholicism and Anglicanism within Orthodoxy. So, as you can see, there is a pragmatic rationale for the restoration of active and service orientated deaconesses who are not called to the monastic life.

Also, the social conditions that you decribe in America (state supported orphanages,etc.), do not exist in many countries, especially the poorer Orthodox countries of Eastern Europe, and in the third world, where the delivery of social services is heavily dependent on charitable organizations, including church groups.

However, within the Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic communities, there could very well be no need at all for the restoration of the order. And if the restoration of the order would cause antagonism and hostility within your communion, why bother and why ask for trouble?

In other words, the full restoration of the order of deaconess is a priority for the Orthodox, and not out of necessity, a priority for Catholics. Also, the restoration of the order of deaconess would possitively affect the relationship of the Eastern Orthodox churches with some of our sister churches of the Oriental Orthodox Communion. This is a very important issue for us since we are actively engaged in the reunion process with our Oriental family.

God bless.

FG

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Free Greek ]

Free Greek,
It is my understand that this was not always the way it was. Weren't monasteries, at one time, active in the local Church, not to the extent of the Active Apostolic Orders of the West, but still active in a local area.

I think this is something that needs to be explored.

You say that within Orthodoxy? Is this true? Does every Orthodox Church recognize Deaconesses?



I agree with you here, so let me ask this. Why promote your point of view here on a Byzantine Catholic Forum? If, as you agree, this is not really an issue in the Byzantine Catholic Church, why push it here?

David

Well...I am Byzantine. And I did not start this topic. I believe one of your Catholic confreres did.

I try very hard to report the facts as they exist within my communion, which, after all, is Byzantine! I am not responsible for how you (for example) interpret the facts. I am not promoting our position. Just re-read my last post.

God bless.

FG

Thanks for the reply Free Greek,

So by this reply and your others....

You said that you are of the Greek Orthodox Church, yet you speak of all of Orthodoxy.

So the Greek Orthodox Church speaks for all of the Orthodox?

The Russian Orthodox Church, the ROCOR, and the OCA all ordain Deaconesses?

I was unaware that the Orthodox were as tightly or more thightly controled than the Catholic Church.

I also see that you have no comment about my question as to if monastics have been active in the local church.


David

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: DavidB ]

Gee...I said all of that?

Have a nice day.

God bless.

FG

I forgot: Yes,it is true that in the past some Orthodox monks ( in Constantinople, for example) were engaged in service to the poor, the sick, etc. And at the same time that deaconesses were assigned to Hagia Sophia.

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Free Greek ]

FG wrote: "... within the Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic communities, there could very well be no need at all for the restoration of the order."

Why not? Are you aware of their needs?

FG also wrote: "And if the restoration of the order would cause antagonism and hostility within your communion, why bother and why ask for trouble?"

This is a poor excuse NOT to restore the deaconESS ministry. A married priesthood was thought to cause antagonism and hostility, but that A & H was already there before 1929. A married priesthood is still on the agenda whether others in the Catholic communion like it or not.

David wrote: "Why promote your point of view here on a Byzantine Catholic Forum? If, as you agree, this is not really an issue in the Byzantine Catholic Church, why push it here?"

The issue I originally posted was whether the liturgical service was truly an 'ordination.' Though FG's post doesn't necessarily answer that question his comments are relative to the issue. Ordination or not? Function-based or not? Need or no need? Whether the deaconESS service was a true ordination begs the question WHY it existed in the first place and whether it has a purpose today.


Ed

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Edwin ]

I still agree with David. Every jurisdiction can make its own decision as to the utility of female deacons. For us, thnaks in large part to Catholci social action, much of social welfare is done on a social or public basis. Significant changes would have to be made to accomodate a new order of deaconesses.

Let us limit deaconesses to the convents.

K.

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