www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Document on Women Deaconesses

Dear Patrick,

I am currently attending Ursuline College of Ohio, one of those schools for "liberated" women.

I'm transferring to another school next year, but for now I'm writing this post while in class (and paying attention to the lecture:-)) that is centered on "women's ways of knowing" and includes power trip training ranging from self centered and non religious guided imagery to drum circles to promotion of "androgyny."

This school, where only the oldest nuns where habits and everyone else is too "liberated" to kneel during mass (even though it's RC), I would say "feminism" has gotten out of hand.

Fortunatly, however, we know that every evil is only a counterfeit of some truth. This truth is the "true feminism" that even the roman pontificate has encouraged us to pursue.

A deacon fills the role of the angels in heaven that are ministering to the priests, and we know that angels are neither male nor female by what Christ has taught us. This means that even though priests must be male because they appear in persona Christi, there is little merit in limiting the representative gender of angels to males (although there is legitimacy in limiting women from standing behind the altar, what jobs they can do, etc.)

We might look at the present women's lib movement (about which I've been learning TONS fristhand from this school) and see that the desire these women have for a better "role" may not be all bad. This desire, while it is no excuse for rewriting theology, may signal us to look at what "role" women really should be taking.

Not all women may be called to the monastic life or to that of wife and mother (which is awesome and highly-prized), but if they're still seeking a "role" in the church they will run into problems.
In America, we say it's unfair that priests can't be married, but we forget about the women that would be marrying them. There's no sign-up sheet in this country for presbyteras (or deaconesses in this case), but the role of being a priest's wife has long been considered a vocation in itself. It's easy to understand why women might lobby for more opportunities in the church.

Maybe what these women who are demanding a female priesthood (I can barely type those words together) are validated atleast in their desire for more legitimate "roles" in the church. I know that this issue has many more components to it and could go on forever about how the "women's lib" movement is a painful reflection of how our society has turned from God.

There are already women out there pursuing the priesthood fervently, but they will always exist. Fear of their response cannot be a reason to hold back.

Hello:

You bet it is.

Not at all in my case. The lay catechists (and more the female than the few male I've known) are, in my experience, more prone to heterodoxy, both towards liberalism and towards conservatism, than the nuns and religious.

I think it is quite simple: Less formation increases the risk of the catechist "inventing" what he or she teaches and therefore multiplies heterodoxy.

In this sense the "title" of deaconess can serve as an incentive for women's formation. Sadly, a good number of women (and men) I know who are involved in religious education would require this kind of "carrot in front of the horse" tactic.

On the other hand, more formation coupled with pride and arrogance can lead to heretical catechist, but they should be easy to detect and correct or exclude from teaching.

I wonder if they are really involved in the parish life, because if they were, they would find that they have absolutely nothing to envy.

Who do they think is the real power in a parish? The pastor? The very idea should have people involved in parish life rolling on the floor with laughter.

I am young, I admit it, but in the years I've been involved with Church life, I've been a member of 4 parish communities and known well over a dozen more. In this time I haven't found a single exception to the rule that the real power in the parish is not the pastor, but a very select and oftentimes very compact group of prishoners, most of them women, who actually run the parish life outside the Liturgy (and sometimes inven in the Liturgy itself).

Although they would probably never admit it, they seem to think that pastors are like "sacred cows": Give thm enough pasture to chew and they will not bother you. While the pastor is chewing, they are the ones who organize pastoral activities and decide what is done and what is not.

In my opinion, that is power, and women do not need Holy Orders to gain it and exercise it.

And of course it is wrong, but that is the way it is.

One of the parishes I work with these days, St. Paschal Baylon in Thousand Oaks, CA just got a new pastor this summer: Fr. David Heney. Fr. David is quite a character, he is young, he is intelligent and he likes lay leadership.

But the lay leadership in his new parish doesn't quite like him, because he is young, he is intelligent and he is very willing to start meetings with a quick sign of the cross and then devout the meeting time to really get on top of things, instead of being like the former pastor, who started meetings with 30 minutes of prayer and then gave the meeting's agenda the fast track: "All's well? Good. Thanks be to God. Let's go home to watch the ball game".

What I see here is a pastor whose only mistake is trying to really be the pastor, but in order to do that, he has to destroy the irregular (but again, quite typical) power structures of the parish, which, if anything, are women's territory.

Or a less powerful forum. If the voice of the ordained clergy was all that powerful, the world we live in would be quite different.

I don't see a risk in that regard. What I also fail to see is the need for deaconesses today.

And if my understanding of the sacrament of Holy Orders for Deacons is correct, then I don't think this should be open to women.

My opinion of that deaconesses are not female deacons. And that the ancient roles of the deaconess feel in disuse or were taken by religious sisters, which we already have.

Shalom,
Memo.

"that the ancient roles of the deaconess feel in disuse or were taken by religious sisters, which we already have."

But how many women are knocking down the doors of our convents to become sisters? The average age is 65. One friend told me that she wouldn't want to become a sister because: you dress like any other woman, work some administrative job, and you do it all for peanuts. Where do you go from there?

Look where we are not getting vocations, and then look at where everyone is heading. Is it for service to the community or some job behind a desk with a title? Is it to promote oneself, a little authority and power, or to promote the Gospel?

My 2 bits:

Firstly, I shall refrain from commenting on what the Latin Church is doing: since I don't think I should be interfering with the internal affairs of one of my Sister Churches [and would hope that they would do us the same "courtesy"].

Secondly, from what little I have read of their study of the subject, their "deaconesses" and our Women Deacons [that is the way they are referred to both in Scripture and in the Tradition] seem apparently to be quite different things.

E.g. Women Deacons in the Orthodox Tradition were/are really ordained [a hierotonia, not just blessed as in the case of Readers, Candlebearers, etc.] - as ordained as male Deacons. The Ordination prayer is quite clear. They do have a prescribed liturgical role [we know at least what they do at a hierarchical Divine Liturgy]. We know how they are to wear their Orars. Apparently, according to the Study, Latin deaconesses were not ordained [not a hierotonia but a hierothesia].

3. The office of Women Deacons was never abolished or suppressed. I was informed that the office was quite common up to the 4th Crusade. But when the Latin Church..."took over" the Byzantine Church for those many years, they did not continue the office. And thereafter the office did not seem to be much used.

4. Nevertheless it did still exist - though not as commonly as hitherto. As recently as the 1930s or so, several women were ordained to the diaconate by the Russian and Greek Churchs - one of the ordaining hierarchs being St. Nektarios [I believe].

5. Thus it needs no "decree" or any such thing to be reactivated. It need not be "reinstituted", as it has a valid status in the Orthodox Churches. Hierarchs may just simple go and ordain suitable women to the Order.

6. As far as the issue of "need", it's a delicate question. I am told that deacons are not at all a common phenomenon in the Greek Church. Is there an absolute "need" for them? Will the Eucharist not be confected without them?

There were nuns around at the same time as Women Deacons. There were Presbyteras around at the same time as Women deacons. Sometimes women deacons were also nuns or presbyteras. But the vocations were/are distinct.

It seems to me that the female diaconate [like the male diaconate] is one of the Orders of Ministry in the Church [with Biblical and Patristic support], so....

7. back to the Study initiated by the Latin Church. My own "feeling" about it, is that it is unfortunate and untimely. I fear [perhaps groundlessly] that it may act as kind of a "spoiler". It will confuse the issue [their deaconesses are not "ordained", our women deacons are].

And I fear it will not promote the reactivation of the female diaconate amongst the Orthodox, if the Latins get into it first [even if they are apparently {according to the Latin Church study} different phenomena] - just a feeling.

But then back to my first point, it is their business, so tough luck for me.

I think that once the Orthodox begin ordaining women to the diaconate, then the road is open for the Orthodox in Communion with Rome to do so. Our taking the initiative on this would probably be impolitic. And thus perhaps moreso if Old Rome were to do so.

I think the best approarch is for us to support and encourage the Orthodox to reactivate this office.

I guess, that was more like 4 bits....

cix

herb.

Dear Friends,

Ultimately, I think the root of this argument is not about "power" for women, but for women to become more active participants in the life and worship of the Church.

I think my earlier fascination with the priesthood was based on the same thing. I didn't want to be a priest to get people to kiss my hand, but to be more integrally involved in the worship of the Church. I felt that being a layman in the pews wasn't enough and I wanted more.

And I've spoken to enough women interested in the Church to know that they don't want to be priests, but they want to better exercise the Royal Priesthood that they really DO have as baptised and chrismated members of the Body of Christ.

Traditionally, it has been the "men in the robes" who have been seen to be the closest to the altar and therefore to God.

That is not the intention of the robes, however.

I think this thread is important, but, at the same time, I think we can narrow its focus on things like specific roles, liturgical functions etc.

I think we need a discussion, both here and with our bishops, about how the laity, the people of God which includes both men and women, can become more integrally involved in the life and worship of the Church. We need a discussion about how the clericalization of our Church's life can be put in its proper perspective.

Perhaps I've said more than I should have.

Alex

Memo said:

"The lay catechists (and more the female than the few male I've known) are, in my experience, more prone to heterodoxy, than the nuns or religious"

...talks, talks, talks.
The last month I went to "marriage talks" with my cousin and his bride at a Roman parish, and those who were giving the class were psicologists with their own freudian, modernist and liberal ideas, I almost fainted when I heard some of the things they said. But this is the problem of the "new generation".

I see that there are very good female cathechists in the Roman Church here, speacially those who are over 45, because they were really trained in the doctrine of their Church, by orthodox and traditional priests and cathechsists.

About the deaconesses, I wouldn't be totally opposed, but it is clear that we're not prepared to have them in our Churches, there would be abuses.

"...The last month I went to "marriage talks" with my cousin and his bride at a Roman parish, and those who were giving the class were psicologists with their own freudian, modernist and liberal ideas, I almost fainted when I heard some of the things they said. But this is the problem of the "new generation..." -Remie

Remie,

Did I understand you correctly in a previous post. I thought you advocated the ordination of women as priests. Is this right?

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Der-Ghazarian

Dear Der:

well, I answered to Memo's comment about his experiences with female cathechists in the modern Latin Church. He says they could fall into hetherodox possitions more easily, and that it would also happen if they're ordained as deaconesses.

Remie,
My first name is William, so if Der-Ghazarian is too cumbersome for you, by all means, please call me "Will" or "Bill" if you prefer (I go by both). I'm sorry for the mix up, in a previous post (outside of this thread) I thought you had commented that the day was coming when women would be ordained in the Catholic Church. My question was whether I had understood you correctly that this was what you were saying? I'm not trying to pin you down but just to understand were you are coming from. When, in this thread you spoke against "modernists" I was surprised because I considered women's ordination to the priesthood to fall under the category of modernism. So this threw me off, hence my question, again, for the sake of understanding.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Well I think there's a confussion, I am against modernism and I obviously disagree with the ordaination of women to priesthood. I said I wasn't totally opposed to the existence of deaconesses because it is thought that they existed in the ancient Church, but not that women should be ordained as priests.

There's an important current in the Western Church promoting female priesthood. If the modernists continue in the power of the Latin Church, that day will surely come.

If the Latin Church accepts the ordaination of women to priesthood in the future, it would be another enormous departure from the christian tradition and the Faith and a terrible obstacle to the unity.

Memo also said that lay women are more vulnerable to hetherodoxy than any other kind of cathechists in the Latin Church, and if these are the candidates to be deaconesses in the future, that would have terrible fruits.
Under the present crisis of the Western Church the ordaination of deaconesses would be a step to the ordaination of women to priesthood.

Why? Because of their hormones? Because women are naturally inferior intelectually or spiritually? Because they are weak? Pleae give me a reason other than ham-fisted bigotry why lay women are more vulnerable to hetherodoxy than any other kind of cathechist in the Latin Church?

Axios

"There's an important current in the Western Church promoting female priesthood. If the modernists continue in the power of the Latin Church, that day will surely come." -Remie

Dear Remie,

O.k., now I understand what you were saying. I apologize that I did not understand before. I appreciate your point. Thanks for the clarification.

In Chirst's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

In the Name of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. One God, Amen.

Dear sister Elizabeth,

Thank you very much for that eloquent and well stated post. You have given us that balance, the golden mean, between the women's liberation movement (of which I am an unapologetic male supporter) and the need to maintain a consistent Christian Tradition (which I am also an unapologetic supporter of). The worst thing in the debate on questions like these is for people to get polarized around their extremist side. So, on the one hand we have extremist feminists who want to throw out every tradition of the Church (they want to make women Priests and Mary to represent the sisterhood of women or some other nonsense that she does not represent). Some even want the CHURCH to recognize a woman's right to choose. The women conformists on the other hand go to the opposite extreme and are content with women not doing much and not even saying much.

As you correctly stated Priests must be male because they appear in persona Christi (we don't use the Latin terminology but our understanding is the same). There are also a host of other reasons stemming from continuity between the Old Testament and the New, about male sacrificial lambs and Christ becoming the Lamb of God and other examples of why a Priest must be a male.

This demand for female priests has been multiplied due to the presence of some Protestant Churches having female ministers. People, mistakenly thinking that an Apostolic Priest and a Protestant minister are the same thing, start to reason that if they can do it, why can't we?

In the Apostolic Tradition the primary role of the Priest is to administer the Sacraments. The Sacraments can only be administered by a male, of course. The center of the Faith revolves around the Divine Liturgy and taking of the Holy Eucharist.

Now in the Protestant tradition, a Minister does not represent persona Christi and the center of the faith or worship is not the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The center of worship in the Protestant tradition revolves around sitting in front of the pulpit on Sunday and listening to Reverend Chicken Wing preaching about whatever topic he studied over the week. In this tradition then a female minister is not a big deal because being a minister is not a big deal. Since the only two sacraments that Protestants have retained (Baptism and Holy Communion) are not considered actual and real but only representative and symbolic, then the Minister is not an administer of the Sacraments; he is simply someone who talks on Sunday.

In our Orthodox Church the "preacher' preaches in the evening (in Ethiopia) or after Liturgy (in time pressed America). We do not even use the direct translation to describe a preacher. We call a Priest a kies and the word usually used for preacher is the same as teacher (like school teacher) astemari. Thusly, we call preaching spiritual "teaching' menfisawi timhert or memihernet. The person who usually gives a spiritual lesson in the Church are Deacons; it is hardly ever the Priest unless he has something very important to talk about.

We have in our Ethiopian Orthodox Church Deaconess called Diyaknoawit but their role has been reduced to what in a Western Church would be an usher. But considering the role of Deacons in the Church the Deaconesses should be allowed to speak to public gatherings and give spiritual education to the entire congregation (not just to groups of females); because the "preacher' in our tradition is simply a teacher and not necessarily a Priest/Minister as in the Protestant tradition. Teaching does not mean having to administer Sacraments.

There is an article by Timothy Ware on the question of female priests that I read some time ago. In it, he quotes extensively from ancient documents describing the early Church structure. The descriptions of the role Deaconess played then; puts to shame the role that they play today (assuming that ones Church even has Deaconesses). Women apparently had a very prominent role in the early Church; especially people like Mary Magdalene.

The role of women in the early Church has not been given its full due by us moderns and by ignoring it we are letting a bunch of secular feminist scholars hijack the topic, proclaim falsehoods, and produce documentaries that appear on the Discovery channel asserting some of the most blasphemous ideas (such as Jesus having had physical relations with Mary Magdalene). Are we going to describe and defend our own Tradition or are we going to let it be plundered by these types of people?

Come on, lets wake up and smell the coffee, and I'm not talking about that gruesome Caf� robustus imposter that you get from Starbucks, I am talking about the real and original coffee where it originated and got its name; Kaffa, Ethiopia.

God Bless

A. Semaet

Hi:

Well, how many would you think will be knocking down the doors to become deaconesses?

If my understanding is correct and a deaconess is NOT a female deacon, then the "power" associated with the title would be pretty unattractive, deaconesses would not perceive a high-end salary either and the dress code should be pretty similar to that of religious sisters who do not wear an habit.

But if those kinds of things are preventing this womam from entering a religious order, THANK GOD!

Vocation is not a matter of compensation, fashion or power. It is about service and precisely because in our culture, service is no longer a value, we do not have enough vocations both in quantity and in quality.

Shalom,
Memo.

Hi:

My Goodness Gracious!!!

Would you guys please read the post before attempting to reply.

We're talking here about a comparision. On one side we have lay women.

Are you aware that on the other side the argument originally had exclusively women as well?

This is not a boy-girl thing. This is lay as opposed to religious/monastic/ordained.

My experience is that lay people in general are more prone to heterodoxy than the ordained/monastic/religious.

Shalom,
Memo.