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

Dear Mar Stuart,

Ah, my learned and exalted friend, I do NOT deny the clerical status of deaconesses - God forbid!

Nor do I deny the clerical status of Readers etc.

What I DO deny is that Deaconesses ever were considered to have a share in the Ministerial Priesthood of Christ, as Deacons, Priests and Bishops do.

All members of the Ministerial Priesthood are members of the clergy.

But not all members of the clergy are Ministerial Priests.

Are you in a bad mood or something?

Or is it that you just tolerate fools even less today?

Alex

You're never a fool, Alex. We're just talking past each other, is all. Your understanding of the ministerial priesthood is somewhat different from mine. As I take it, only those who celebrate or assist at the altar during the Eucharistic Liturgy are "Ministerial" priests. I wouldn't be so limiting, since I see priesthood as being something that extends far beyond the Liturgy, and Liturgy as something which extends far outside the confines of our worship services. It was a long time before deacons had any real liturgical role, but their ministry was still priestly, all the same. And in the old typos, it was the deacon, not the priest or the bishop, who was the icon of Christ.

Dear Mar Stuart,

B'shem haAv, v'haBen v'Ruach haKodesh Elohim Echod - Amen!

Well, you are more than correct, of course!

And yes, I'm still enslaved and limited by Latin concepts here . . .

I think we agree, although I wouldn't venture to try and verbalize a common agreement, not with this morning headache of mine!

I could cause more problems for myself, and David would be after me with his dictionary of theological terms.

God bless!

Alex

Stuart/Alex,
Your discussion is a good reason to hold back on doing this.

You two can even agree if it is a consecration or "major" ordination.

If you two can not agree, then how do we expect the average person in the pew to understand that a deaconess is not part of major orders.

Because as Stuart states, the rite for ordination of a deaconess appears to be very close to the of a deacon, and doesn't a deaconess wear vestments that are also close to a deacon.

How do we go about explaining that a deaconess is not a major order when all appears as if it was.

As for your points Stuart, while good, I would like to go further into your point #1.

While (a) is true, I still don't see why we must do it today. There are many things that are scriptural and historical that have gone away.

(b) is good, but what, exactly, is this important ministry it would fill? I do not see it.

(c) is another one I do not see, can you explain this one more also?

David

Dear David,

You are quite wrong, Alex and I both agreed we are dealing with cheirotonia (major ordination) and not cheirothesia (minor ordination or consecration). As our later exchange indicates, we were merely using different terminology to describe the boundaries of ordained ministry, with Alex focusing on the liturgical function (as Alex notes, a very Latin perspective), and me focusing on the eschatological and apocalyptic aspects of ordained ministry that include but transcend liturgy.

As to your objections, to (a), I would say that it is always easiest to do nothing, or to find excuses not to act. But the Spirit moves wherever He wills, and it's up to us to listen, and not take counsel of our fears.

To (b), the ministry of the deaconess is identical to the diakonia of the male deacon. He serves the people of God in the scut work--just as did Stephen the Protodeacon and the other six, who were chosen to wait on tables. I like to think of the deacons as the top sergeants of the Church, who make sure everything gets done and keep the officers and enlisted ranks alike out of trouble. Diakonia is a ministry to which women and men alike are called, and it is the most Christ-like of the ministries, ergo, the deaconess is a visible manifestation of Christ present in woman.

To (c), I would contend that the ordination of deaconesses who do NOT serve at the altar changes quite radically the understanding of the higher clergy as those who do serve at the altar. Once sacerdotal ministry is not seen exclusively in terms of celebrating the Eucharist, and once legitimate avenues for women to exercise that ministry are opened, I expect much of the clamor for women in the priesthood (which is, paradoxically, both a reflection of modern feminist androgeny and medieval clericalism) will subside. In any case, there isn't much of that in the Eastern Churches--one cannot impose Western categories upon us, because they don't pertain.

Dear David/Precious Commodity .

Stuart and I do agree on that point, we were just speaking past each other.

Great minds do that sometimes you know .

Alex

Aty least it didn't take us 1500 years to figure that out!

Dear Mar Stuart,

Baruch haShem Adonai!

Yes, shades of the Eastern/Oriental Orthodox ecumenical commission there . . .

But they've never claimed to have any great minds among them either .

Alex

Stuart,
Thanks for the reply, I am learning a lot on this subject but....

I do not see any answer as to how to make the people in the pews understand that a deaconess does not share in the Major Orders as a male deacon does.

Just as the problems Orthodox/Eastern Catholics would have if the Holy Father proclaimed the Co-redemptrix as a dogma, I believe there would be many problems if the Orthodox/Eastern Catholics restored the deaconess in great numbers.

As for you comment quoted about. I was under the impression that the role of the deaconess differed from the role of the deacon historically.

David

"It is taught within the Catholic Church that a woman can not recieve the sacrament of Holy Orders. Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say."

DavidB,

So what? Do Byzantine deacons do the same ministries as Latin deacons? Can Byz. deacons marry couples, baptize, etc? What does the BYZANTINE Catholic Church teach?

The answer is "NO" in some cases. With Baptism comes Chrismation, which implies the presence of a priest (or bishop). A priest, and not a deacon, leads the couple into the temple for crowning, which he, and not the deacon, does.

So why the CCC reflex?

Deaconesses might not be considered as 'clergy' by some, but the Great Church did compensate them with clergy salaries along with deacons and presbyters. Did they make a mistake?

On another note: where can I find the actual text on women deaconesses [sic] on-line? I surfed through this thread and I don't believe that anyone posted it. Am I mistaken?

You go StuartK and Alex!

I love when totally educational exchanges like this (as between Joe Thur, Alex and StuartK) take place on this site! Just know that there are plenty of us staying on the sidelines and taking notes; even if we are not saying much.

StuartK,

Your point about the modern demands for female Priesthood being “both a reflection of modern feminist androgeny and medieval clericalism” is very much well taken. However, I am not sure if focusing on the Priesthood in Liturgical function is entirely a Latin view. We view the Faith as being most preeminently embodied and expressed in the Liturgy and the celebration of the Eucharist as being at the center of the Faith. The most central role for the Priesthood is to administer the Sacraments.

Alex,

I will give a brief synopsis of the Debtera as I don't want to draw attention from the main discussion (if what I say is what you already know [as is most likely since you already know everything there is to know] then tell me and I will elaborate via private message). Debteras are unfortunately a dying breed in our Church. They are conveniently described as the Betachristian Liqnet "Church scholars' and that is essentially the case. They are non-ordained and are the intermediaries between the Clergy and the Laity. They chant the hymns and the psalms. They know the "priestly' dances associated with the Ark. They are compared to the Levites in the Old Testament (in fact there is one tradition that says that they ARE the descendants of Levites who came back with Menelik I (the son of Solomon and Sheba) who intermarried with local women).

Having choirs in our Church is a very recent trend; even the clothes that the choir wears looks like something from a Latin Church and does not at all look Ethiopian. Previously, when there were no Choirs it was the Debteras who knew all the Church hymns and played the instruments (drum, harp, and "violin?' [I don't know what to translate masingo as).

Our modern Priests, to the extent that they are theologically educated at all (which may not be the case; some are educated in psychology, etc. Some are not educated at all) are educated in some Western seminary or maybe in Egypt (our own two seminaries have just been re-established after having been closed by the atheistic military regime for 17 years). So they learn the theology of our Church (especially from Alexandrians) but they are not very schooled in the tradition of our Church (especially since so many grew up in the city). The Debteras are what we would call the dembengya Ethiopian Christians.

Traditional Church "higher education' in Ethiopia can take up to 20 years to complete. Quine (Church poetry) takes years, zema (hymns) take years, then there are the "books of interpretation' (Tergume metsafhit) which are: 46 interpretations of the Old Testament (circa 6 years to complete), 35 interpretations of the New Testament (4 years to complete), the Book of Scholars (6-8 years) and the Book of Monks (3 years). This of course presupposes that you can speak Ge'ez (which if you don't takes years). I did not mention the next to impossible astronomy associated with the Calendar and figuring out the shifting holidays (like Easter) etc.

It also sort of assumes that you are a product of the duel educational system of the country side (which basically means you go to secular school at day and Christian school at night [if there is actually a secular school; remember this is the third world]). It assumes that you sat under the tree with the priest as a child and learned to read and write. It assumes that you learned the core of Qedasse, i.e. the Divine Liturgy, when you were an adolescent. This is NEVER the case. So most people wishing to learn any of this have to start from the very beginning and it will take more than 20 years. The Priest do not go through this (for the most part) unless they grew up in the country side.

The only people who ever undergo all of this education (and you thought Dr. John was too schooled) are the Debteras. So the people most educated in the actual traditions of Ethiopian Christianity are the Debteras.

Personally, I almost feel obligated to go learn at least some of this stuff (like the Book of Scholars and the Poetry) and have considered postponing my university education for a while to do it; the problem is even if I devoted 2 or 3 years to it I still have 17 to go. I don't know; Pray for me that I can make a good decision.

DavidB,

I am trying to keep an open mind and be sympathetic with your perspective but you seem to revolve your whole argument around the notion that consecrating Deaconesses is not a good idea because it will be perceived wrongly by the laity at this time; and for no other reason. Is that your argument?

God Bless

The analogy you give is not appropriate. There have always been divergences in the sacramental theology of the Eastern and Western Churches, including in regard to the role of the priest in the liturgy. There is, for example, nothing like the concept of "alter Christus" or "in persona Christi" in the Eastern understanding of the role of the presider at the Eucharist. There is a tendency in Latin theology of orders to view the sacerdotal ministry strictly in terms of functionality--a presbyter is one who presides at the altar, and the objective of holy orders is to serve at the alter. But in the East, the concept of sacerdotal ministry is quite different, and so there is no fundamental difficulty in dealing with the ordination of women to the diaconate but not to the presbyterate.

Conversely, the matter of co-redemptrix touches upon fundamental issues of Christology and soteriology, and there is no consensus even within the Latin Church about that. One would assume that, in its apophatic way, the Christian East would have no problem with the Latin Church professing such a doctrine as a theological opinion, but would object strenuously to any attempt to impose it as a dogma upon other Churches.

Dear Mar Stuart

The more I read you, the better I am beginning to understand your perspective - which is to me more important than the brilliant things you have to say.

And I think I've been misreading you for a long while.

You see, I've considered you to be a know-it-all.

And you are - but in a good way .

What I see in you is a well-integrated Eastern perspective that is both patristic and scriptural, rooted in the historical praxis of the Church and lived out in the tension of the contemporary collision of perspectives, some of which have wandered from the original roots of our theology.

You should perhaps think of writing a book that could serve as an interpretive framework for us in understanding our tradition in a truly comprehensive manner.

Alex

JoeT,
Correct, an eastern deacon can not perform some of the sacraments that a western deacon can, but I believe it has more to do with the way the sacraments are celebrated than the office of the deacon.

Just two examples.

A Latin deacon can baptize, but within the Byzantine tradition, baptism is immediately followed by chrismation, a Latin deacon can not confirm.

I may be wrong in my understand of the next example but I have no doubt I will be corrected in short order if I am.

A Latin deacon my preside at a marriage, but a deacon, or even a priest, is only a witness in a marriage the sacrament takes place between the groom and the bride. Where in the Byzantine tradition, at the sacrament of crowning, a priest is necessary as he performs the sacrament.

Also worth noteing, else where on the forum was a discussion about how a deacon does not have to be given bi-ritual faculties to be bi-ritual. So an eastern deacon can baptize and can preside at marriages, within the Latin Church.

So your claim that somehow a Latin deacon and an eastern deacon are different is, I believe, wrong.

As for my "CCC reflex" as you put it the CCC is after all the Catechism of the Catholic Church whether you like it or not. I will take a look at the Light for Life series but I am sure it makes no mention to this issue.

You also ask what the "BYZANTINE Catholic Church teaches", I believe that it can be found within the CCC, or do you say that the Byzantine Catholic Church teaches other than what the Catholic Church teaches?

Aklie,
That is one of my concerns and I believe it is valid. I would think it prudent, today, to error on the side of caution where the laity and their understandings lie.

I believe that if we start ordaining deaconesses the women priesthood movement will take this as affirmation of there point of view and the way the media is today, they will win. The ones to be hurt the most by this would be the average person in the pew.

But, that is not the only thing I have against it. I am still trying to see what ministry a deaconess could fulfill today that isn't being done already. I also am trying to see what the main role of the deaconess was in the past and why it office died out in the first place.

I do not believe, as Stuart does, that just because we had something in the past means that we should have it today, because most of the time we use this as a reason while we ignore other things from the past that we do not want to restore.

David

"So your claim that somehow a Latin deacon and an eastern deacon are different is, I believe, wrong."

I mentioned their ministries. I am unaware in my deacon studies that I am to be ready to marry couples and baptize on a regular basis simply because I am a "bi-ritual" minister that can free-lance. I owe my ministry to my Church and my bishop. I believe Origen once began to preach outside his diocese without his bishop's knowledge ...

"... the CCC is after all the Catechism of the Catholic Church whether you like it or not."

As important as it is, I have never been instructed to use it. In fact, I have seen directories stating that Eastern Catholic bishops come up with their own catechesis. The Catholic Church also celebrates the Feast of St. Anne's Conception, not the Immaculate Conception, on December 9.