www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Deaconesses in Greece?

Over the past several years, the Orthodox Church in Greece has had a commission investigating the restoration of the order of Deaconesses. Evidently, with the decreasing numbers of candidates for the priesthood and especially for the deaconate, the Church is considering reinstituting deaconesses, not for liturgical purposes (that was never their role), but for service to families, and especially to women and children.

I'm wondering, what with the recent reinstitution of permanent, parish-based deacons among Byzantines in America, whether the idea of deaconesses would be a viability. Of course, in this country, we have nuns who do these services for the community; in Greece, most nuns are monastics who stay in their convents.

I know in my parish there are a number of women (who could, of course, be married) who would be wonderful deaconesses since they're doing the work already. Just a thought.

In the West, the ministry of the diaconate (service, social administration, catechisis) was mostly taken over by the active (non-monastic) religious orders. The Latin Church now fumbles around as to what to do with these ministries in the modern world. Vocations to active religious orders are declining, church school and hospital personnel are not understood as ministries, the laity don't understand what a "monk" is and they have absolutely no idea what to do with the renewed ministry of the diaconate besides make him a glorified altar boy.

The Byzantine Church, for the most part not having the history of religious orders in the active aposolate, can learn from these lessons. A restored order of deaconesses in a ministry of service, education and administration would be of great value to the Church.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

The "resurrection" of the office of deaconess is an intriguing notion; I'd like to see the Greeks try it out. From Dr. John's description, it actually sounds somewhat like the mission of the deacon/ess among some Protestant sects, i.e. nonliturgical and "practical".

If the Greeks do indeed give it a shot, I'd hope this might spread to other Eastern Christian churches.

In Christ,

CAPTL
sinner

Hey guys,

Regarding the order of deaconesses, I think that some caution needs to be exercised at the moment because of current cultural conditions.

Historically, the order of deaconesses served a very useful, practical role. It was never liturgical, however, and was not an "ordained" ministry, as is the diaconate or priesthood. Following this ancient model, the order of deaconesses could be restored with profit.

But the problem is that many people who are pushing for the restoration of the order of deaconesses are envisioning it as an ordained liturgical ministry, identical to that of deacons. And practicly speaking, many of the groups advocating it in the Greek Orthodox Church see it as a stepping stone towards women priests. You would be surprised as to how strong this movement is.

So, while there would be nothing wrong with restoring the order of deaconesses, we need to take precautions in order to ensure that it is not understood as being something that it is not.

Yours in Christ,

Antony

Dear Antony,
Christ is among us!
I must beg to differ with you regarding the clerical status of the Deaconness in the Byzantine Church. Now I will probably have to research this further, but previous study in this area, indicates to me that the Deaconness received a laying on of hands in a ordination ceremony like that of the Deacon. Additionally in the Byzantine Church the Deaconness continued to receive the Eucharist at the Holy Table for centuries after this was reserved to the clergy. Also they are listed with the clergy in lists that remain from Hagia Sophia before the Latin Occupation (1204). This seems to indicate that they were ordained, whether at the Holy Table or not I can not remember, and the Order remained active in the Byzantine Church long after it had died out in the West. I have heard that St. Nectarios of Aegina ordained deaconness late in the 19th Century, but again I would have to do further research in order to confirm this information.
I believe that the study of the restoration of the Order of Deaconness in the Byzantine Church would be useful. And I do not believe that women can be ordained priests. May SS. Phoebe, Thecla, and Olypiadius Holy Deaconnesses and Mothers of the Church intercede for us!
May your Pascha be glorious.
Fr. Bryan Eyman

I believe Fr. Bryan is correct, most of the scholarly evidence is that the deaconesses of the early church were ordained. Under Paul VI, the Vatican's position is that it was "unclear" as to if they were ordained or not (And who says the Vatican never admits to uncertainty on any manner!). The Maronites very clearly ordained their abbesses to the diaconate well into modern times.

To raise a new question, is the restoration of women deacons a matter that a sui juris church is competent to do on their own or is it a matter for the universal Church? Since the Maronites maintained and then abolished the practice on their own initiative, does that suggest that at least a patriarchial church may act unilaterally?

We also have the issue of the Czech female deacons, but enough for now.

Fr. Bryan,

I asked the faculty of SS. Cyril and Methodius for information on the female Diaconate. They recommend the following text, which is very "scholarly" and reputiable:

Deaconesses
An Historical Study
Aim� Georges Martimort

I purchased it, but have not had a chance to read it yet.

I have two questions, both of which may reveal my ignorance of sacramental theology.

1) Why can a woman be ordained a deaconess and not a priest?

2) Is the liturgical role of a deaconess identical to that of a deacon?

Thanks,

Antony


[This message has been edited by Dragani (edited 04-05-99).]

I agree with our scholars. There were clearly deaconesses,even in NT times. There are texts whih indicate the creation of deaconesses, it was about the same as that for the deacon. But their duties were differet. It seems the principle duty of the deaconesses was at baptism. Since candidates were naked, it was felt seemly to have women aid in baptism. (This does not preclude the earlier deaconess like phoebe). But the difference is basic. Priests act in the person of Jesus, man and God; deacons are helpers for bishops and priest, and do not act in that role. So, no bar to women as deaconesses, except recent custom, and the Vatican. I was told recently that there had been a ruling that this not be considered. however, the Eastern churches are not the same in this respec. I should think that the ordaining of women to minor orders would be first, since now this prohibited. Only males can be ordained, to minor or major orders. So, if first it was brought up to ordain men AND women to minor orders, then the next step could be considering the renewal of the role of deaconesses?

The word 'deacon' (Greek: dia-kon, 'servant', dia-ko-nia, 'service') means someone who helps the community by providing needed services. In Acts, we read about St. Steven and the others being called to assist the community. If you read the ordination ceremony for the deacon, it is clear that the deacon is there to assist the priest and bishop in caring for God's people, especially in the more temporal aspects of daily life, as well as at the community meetings we call 'liturgy'.

Obviously, the Church felt the need to include both men and women in this service to God's people. Later theology was developed to clearly define the role of the deacon, both in terms of 'job description' and liturgical life. It is not surprising that in the Western Church, the role of deacon (and sub-deacon) was generally restricted to those who were candidates for the priesthood. In the Tridentine era of the Western Church, you got sub-deacon on Thursday, deacon on Friday, and Priesthood on Saturday. (So much for the emphasis on 'service'!!!!)

Although there is 'tradition' to look at, I always try to consider if the Holy Spirit is leading us in a particular direction and we aren't clinging to tradition as our safety blanket, like terrified children clinging to Mom's apron. If the Holy Spirit exists (and the Holy Spirit does exist-- 'cause Christ said so), then perhaps we ought to let our individual dioceses discern if there is a need for deaconesses to serve the people, and then move on it to see if it works. If it is not God's will, then it will become clear, and we can look elsewhere for solutions to our problems.

Somehow, the supposed theological notion that the priest/deacon/subdeacon has to be a guy who looks like Christ in order for us to be inspired in our faith is somewhat specious, and silly. I mean, how many of our priests look like 33 year old Jewish men? (There is indeed a 'theatrical' nature in liturgics, --would that more of our clergy had a 'sense of the dramatic'-- but to say that the 'priest represents Christ on the liturgical stage' is pushing it, as far as I can see.)

Without putting too fine a point on it, I know that Christ died to save our souls individually. (As the Prots say: 'personal savior') I know of no reputable theologian who argues that the souls of men and women are 'ontologically' different, and that a man's soul is somehow more receptive to graces (and service to the Church) than the soul of a woman. I personally am not quite ready yet for Rev. Louise, or Bishop Wanda of Hoboken, but Deaconess Mary sounds pretty good to me.

[This message has been edited by Dr John (edited 04-11-99).]

Friends,

From what I have been reading, a Deaconess was different from a Deacon... much different. To put it bluntly, a Deacon shares in major orders, which is essentially an extension of the Bishop's orders. A Deaconess, historically, was ordained to minor orders. Minor orders are not a direct sharing in the orders of the Bishop.

The liturgical role of a Deaconess is far different from that of a Deacon as well. If we restore the order of Deaconess, let's do it right: ordain them to minor orders, and give them the functions of the Deaconesses historically. Remember, a Deaconess is different from a "female Deacon."

Christ is Risen!

Antony

It does not appear that anyone on this thread is arguing to create a new liturgical role for the deaconess. Dr. John is the strongest advocate for the restoration of this order but does not argue for anything that was not historical. He does make some good points. With the restoration of the deaconate in the Byzantine Church we have been blessed with some excellent deacons whose role is much more than liturgical. They serve the Church with counseling, praying and visiting with the sick and working with the youth. Clearly there would be benefits to the Church in the restoration of the office of deaconess. A women whose vocation is to work within the parish and who is blessed by the Church to do so would have the authority to accomplish much.

I, for one, would be interested in a well-researched study of the role of deaconess. We do know that the Abbot / Mother Superior of a monastery was granted the authority to proclaim the Gospel. I don't know whether this was within the Divine Liturgy or if it was at a liturgy in which there was no priest or deacon.

One comment on Wasyl's post: >> Priests act in the person of Jesus<< In the Byzantine Church the theology of the priesthood has always emphasized service. This is evident in the forms of the Sacramental Mysteries (i.e., "The servant of God is baptized�." rather than "I baptize" and etc.) The concept of the priest as an alter ego Christ is purely Western. I wholeheartedly agree, however, that the Byzantine Church should restore minor orders to acknowledge and affirm vocations in the Church other than priest and deacon.

moose, no, it is not purely western. I am stsudying now the ancient church and the earliest church, Maximos sthe Confessor, etc. all saw the bishop as acting in the person of Jesus (my theological language may be incorrect) while the priest and deacon supported him. This is ancient, evolving from theology that developed from the liturgical theology of the sacrifice and Last Supper. And, it is not clear if deaconesses were major or minor orders. It is clear that the ceremony handed down for deaconesses is directly from that of the deacon. It is also clear from the NT that at the time of "house churches" that when women were heads of households they presided at the liturgy, and that the term deaconess (or deacon with a fem ending) was used. "Phoebe"o Later deaconesses were apparently used only for baptisms of females. But the historical must be done; ouor church is based upono Tradition. It is NOT stuck like the fly in amber but it is based and flows from Tradition. So, deciding whether we can or should ordain women to either major or minor ordres must be connected to Tradition. BUT this does not mean the tradition of a hundred years ago, or a thousand years ago; it does mean to the Tradition of the Church. We in our time have had access to this Tradition for the first time in history, so we can form more intelligent and informed decisions. So, it would seem that there is Biblical precedent for the ordination of women as deacons or deaconesses with the same roles as males.s It is there. Of course, this earliest practice faded out as the Church became more modeled on the court and formed by local practices, which tended to be male centered. I would think that opening ordination of females to minor orders and to the order of deacons would be Biblically authorized, in tune with today's underestanding of humanity,and helpful to the Church. I also think it would make sense to look carefully at the ordaining of anyone to minor orders since this is not common practice in the usa, at least as i know it. Here in Mpls there are no ordained ministers except the priests. Following the Latin practice today, lectors, acolytes, cantors, even pseudo-deacons are merely volunteers who step up.
Christ is Risen!

Wasyl is correct in stating that many of the Church Fathers saw the bishop as acting in the person of Christ. The local priest, as the parish representative of the bishop likewise fulfils this role - especially in the Divine Liturgy. But the Eastern theology of the priesthood always kept this in the context of servant - as in the Servant of God. Western theology has not always maintained the concentration on servant and has built upon the image of acting in the person of Christ to an extent far above that of the East. Pope John Paul II (perhaps because of his love of the East) has as his motto "Servant of the Servants of God" and has worked to restore the idea of servant. Check out St. John Chrysostom's "On the Priesthood" to see the Eastern context. This is a bit off topic and a discussion of the finer points of theology but it seemed better to respond here than to start a new thread.

I do agree with Wasyl that the history of the deaconess needs much study to be understood within the context of Holy Tradition and have previously stated this. Based upon what I have read and heard, I would not conclude that the role of deaconesses is identical to that of deacons.

The Byzantine Catholic Church has already restored the permanent deaconate. Most properly, it requires that deaconal candidates have actual vocations to that order and are expecting those that do to serve the Church (i.e., pledge service to a bishop within the diocese of that bishop). Formation is very specialized and emphasizes liturgical theology and practice. No doubt the restoration of the minor orders will follow in time. Until such time we will continue to rely on volunteers to fill these roles - this is in no way Latin.

Christ is Risen!

Wasyl Shaw wrote:

"It is also clear from the NT that at the time of "house churches" that when women were heads of households they presided at the liturgy, and that the term deaconess (or deacon with a fem ending) was used... So, it would seem that there is Biblical precedent for the ordination of women as deacons or deaconesses with the same roles as males."

I'm sorry Wasyl, but I've never encountered any passages that indicated this. Could you please post the NT passages that you are referring to?

Thanks,

Antony

What really concerns me is the fact that we are now in 1999 and that by the grace of the Holy Spirit the Church has endured and grown over 2 millenia, and we are still worrying about what happened 1500 years ago.

I've always been of the opinion that Christ's promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide us was a very special one. If now, through the Grace of God, we can understand the role of women in our communities (that was socially impossible in the past), and we are seriously considering the re-institution of the office of deaconess, I don't see a problem.

Let's face it: the world is made up of both men and women (in almost equal amounts: isn't this a sign of God's plan for the human race). Is there any spiritual or theological reason for circumscribing the role of women in our communities?

Although I'm not ready myself for Fr. Mary, I do think that we have to make sure that women in our community are recognized for the incredibly wonderful works that they have done, and that in our contemporary community, we are ready to recognize and publicly acknowledge women for the graces that have been given to them.

I know that there are some loonies who have a feminist theology that tilts the balance towards women while denigrating men; but, from my experience, the majority of women don't go to those extremes, but just want to point out that there has been an injustice done to women over the centuries, and they would like to right the equation. And I personally have no problem with that. The women in my parish do as much as the men do (and in many cases, more!), so I just want to suggest that we restore a canonical role for women in our communities. God gives women the same talents He gives to men.

I don't particularly relish the idea of coming before the judgement seat of Christ and having to explain why I relegated women to a secondary role in our community just because of their 'plumbing'.