But of course, the reason given was not theological at all, but at best "pseudo-theological", derived from a faulty belief in ritual purity which was alien to the early Church. As I pointed out, according to ancient canons, deaconesses were indeed allowed into the Holy Place, and received the Eucharist at the Holy Table in the same manner as deacons. At the time of John Chrysostom, there were four hundred deaconesses in Constantinople, under the authority of the Protodeaconess, St. Olympias. Since the office was ubiquitous, and the canons clear on the manner and place in which the deaconesses received Communion, the explanation given by Hieromonk Luke is not supported by the evidence. Other evidence suggests that such resorts to ritual purity arguments emerged only in the middle ages, and represents, if anything, a divergence from Tradition or a corruption of Tradition.

There are many reasons why women do not have a more extensive liturgical role in the Byzantine rite, and in particular why their role at the altar is effectively non-existent. But, please don't insult our intelligence by resort to pious mythology and talk about female menstrual impurity. It just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I can accept the tradition that only men are permitted in the Holy Place. But I'm having a lot of trouble accepting the rationale, i.e. that generally speaking, women are "Ritually unclean" from the time they are infants and extending throughout the entire life cycle to old age.....no matter if you are an ordinary woman or Mother Teresa.

When this rule was established, what was the level of understanding of anatomy and physiology of bodily functions? Was there an understanding that this womanly bodily function was critical to procreation? I don't think that a woman's reproductive system, flawlessly designed by Almighty God himself, is something that the Church should view negatively.

Is there any another reason that prohibits women from being in the Holy Place? This reason is not working for me.

What?? I have never heard this! Where is this written?

This made me laugh. Thank you!

They do things differently in Australia. Crikey!

It's the way in the Russian Orthodox Church.

Thanks for posting this. I was not sure regarding UGCC Particular Law.

Dn. Robert

One wonders why the RBCMCP did not emulate this excellent canon into its particular law.

The Russians do many interesting things and like to pretend that they have preserved the pristine Tradition from the dawn of the Orthodox Church, but more often than not, the particular practice they want to defend is a late accretion to the Tradition, and the rationale used to justify its existence carries no particular canonical or patristic weight.

But try telling that to a Russian.

The Canon (#707-8) of the Particular Law of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh reads as follows: "Women are prohibited from serving at the altar".

Dn. Robert

But try telling that to a Russian. [/quote]

Thank you for respecting what are not just T/traditions, but Theological issues in the Russian Church. Dialogue between East and West must be based upon mutual respect (even respectful disagreement) and not on academic or racist arrogance.

Heiromonk Luke

P.S. Stuart: It's so easy to press your buttons :grin:

The correct Australian term in the context of this dialogue would be "struuuth mate". Crikey (as used by Steve Irwin) is a unique sub-cultural Queensland expression of the Top End of Australia.

Its surprising that many have never heard of these things. BTW, it is not just a Russian thing! Even my Roman Catholic Mother in Law was taught at a young age that she should not go to Church during a menstrual cycle. At the very least a woman should abstain from the Holy Mysteries during this period. This Tradition might sound odd to those churches that have become prey for the aggressive feminist movement, and seem odd to even those that consider themselves traditional Christians. However, The early Church and the Apostles did in fact believe in ritual purity.

The Following was recorded by St. Prochorus, one of the seven Deacons, concerning the holy apostle and beloved John the Theologian:

During his Banishment to Patmos regarding the Governor Aquila's Wife



From the Lives of the Holy Apostles

Such pseudoepigraphical hagiographies were actually written centuries after the time of their supposed authors, and tell more about the times in which they were actually composed (in this case, the early middle ages) than those they purport to represent. Ironically, at the time of John Chrysostom, observance of ritual purity laws would have brought accusations of "judaizing". Only in the middle ages, when the Jews had long been vanquished as a competitor for converts, did the Church begin adopting such practices as its own--in direct contravention of its own early Tradition. That no such restriction on baptism is found in any of the (legitimately) ante-Nicene texts on the subject tends to discredit the notion of ritual purity having much traction in the early Church.

This baba lovingly fills the lamps and cleans in front of the iconostasis. Once I was asked outside of Liturgy to go behind the iconostasis to steam the curtain. I did what I was asked to do but I was not comfortable there. Evidently I said something because I've not been asked to go there in later work days.

I don't feel inferior in the least. I do feel we have different states. This is part of what I love so much in the Theology of the Body teachings (especially as taught by Fr Loya)-- that the truth about who we are is stamped in our very bodies.

This is common? What is it, a dispensation from the celibacy vow, so the deacon remarries and continues to serve as a deacon?