www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "no dead blood at the altar"???

In the Byzantine Church, deaconesses were ordained. There is evidence they were ordained in other Eastern Churches. The West seems to have had a different approach. But do not start from the Martimort position that, since women can never be ordained to Holy Orders, women were never ordained to Holy Orders. That works back from a present day assumption of the Latin Church and makes it normative for all Churches at all times.

As to the role of the deaconess, it was principally pastoral. They had no liturgical role, but then, the liturgical role of the deacon emerged relatively late in the day. They assisted at the baptism of female catechumens, and had oversight of women and children in their diocese. They received communion inside the altar (and immediately after the male deacons), a privilege only extended to the major clergy.


Ott's scholarship is extremely dated.


This is precisely the kind of ahistorical, anachronistic thinking about which I warned you. Modern canon law for one particular Church does not describe the historical reality of a totally different Church.

By the way, the Apostolic Constitutions (ca. 375-380) attest to the presence of ordained deaconesses in the Churches of Syria and Antioch. It wasn't just a Byzantine phenomenon.

Stuart,
What evidence is there that the diaconal ordination of women was widespread beyond an eparchy, if indeed it actually occurred? Does the context of your source give us any additional information?
And was this later rescinded by synod or council?

Without further evidence the assumption of ordained women is premature.

Looking for more info,
Fr Deacon Paul

As I said, deaconesses are attested in the Church of Constantinople, in its suffragan dioceses, in Antioch, and throughout Syria. The Theodosian and Justinianic Codes of Roman Law ranked deaconesses among the major clergy (and Roman law extended across the entire Empire, West and East alike). The de Ceremonis of Constantine V also included them among the ordained clergy, and regulated their numbers and functions.

If I looked more, I could probably find more examples.

Aside from Martimort, whose work begins with a conclusion and works back to a premise, the best book is Kyriaki Karidoyanes Fitzgerald's Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness and Ministry. General information on women deacons in the Eastern Church can be found in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; the Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 2nd ed. (Garland Publishing); and the Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity.

Apparently the office of the deaconess was never abolished by any Eastern synod or council. Instead, it simply fell into desuetude as the situation of the Byzantine Church deteriorated and it had to function in tightened straits. We last hear of deaconesses in the Byzantine Church in the 13th century, and might assume that they simply ceased to be ordained during the period of the Latin Empire, and that the Church simply did not resume the ordination of deaconesses once Byzantine rule was restored.

I wasn't taking that position. The western and eastern approaches to ecclesiologies (Cyprianic and Augustinian) are both equally valid expressions. Neither one "trumps" the other. That's why I said it is difficult to ascertain much of anything about the sacramental character of the deaconess because we simply have little to go on.

And because of the differing ecclesiologies, their different role, which did not include a role at the altar, puts them in a different category than the role of the male deacon, according to the western view at that time and now.

While this seems to be the case in the east, it is not obvious in the west or orient due to lack of information.

That does not mean it is wrong. What new historical evidence has come since the 1950's that supplants what Ott contends?

You misunderstand. My point in bringing about canon law is that the west's theology of the sacrament of holy orders would preclude the understanding of the deaconess as receiving the sacrament of holy orders.

Deaconesses are, and have been, ordained in the Coptic Orthodox Church even today.
Is their current ordination rite seen as a reception of the sacrament of orders?
I do not know the answer to that question, but I am open minded enough to find out, either way.
If not, then why? The reasons should tell us something.

If a particular Church accepts that deaconesses receive Holy Orders, then deaconesses have Holy Orders within that Church. If another Church does not have deaconesses, that is the concern only of that particular Church. The Latin Church does not have ordained subdeacons, readers or acolytes. Does that mean that the subdeacons, readers and acolytes of the Eastern Churches do not possess Holy Orders (albeit via cheirothesia)?

It is the sacramental rite that confers the order, not Catholic canon law, which in any case, is not pertinent to the Tradition of the Eastern Churches. Deaconesses were ordained by cheirotoneia, which is ordination to a major order. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

That the status of deaconesses was embodied in the Codex Theodosianus cannot be wished away. The structure of the Church was embedded in Roman law, and the Theodosian Code applied in both the Eastern and Western Empires. When the Codex Justinianus was issued a century later, it reiterated the status of deaconesses. The Codex Justinianus certainly applied in Italy and other Byzantine possessions in the West through the 8th century; it was received in Rome and acknowledged by the Bishop of Rome. So, as far as the canonical status of deaconesses goes, it was universally embedded in Roman law. Whether the Roman Church chose to ordain deaconesses, or accorded them the status of lower rather than higher clergy, has no effect on the canonical status of deaconesses when and where they were ordained as major clergy.

Well, I’m glad that you recognize this as a mark of catholicity in the Church; what is accepted for one Church is for the whole.
Now that we have that settled, there should be no issue among the Eastern Churches since the West has received Papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, and the Filioque.
What is good for one is good for all!

I think a lot of the resistance to this comes from the reaction to the movement for women priests in today's western church, and a correlation, purposely or not, between the two topics, which are of course very different and separated by theology, geography and time.

To apply my logic to your hypotheticals, it means that the Pope is infallible in the Latin Church; that the Immaculate Conception and Purgatory are teachings of the Latin Church, but that the Filioque is not, since the Latin Church itself teaches that the uninterpolated Greek text is the only ecumenically binding symbol of faith.

Indeed. But then, for some people, everything seems to be linked to women's ordination. I recently heard a Roman Catholic seriously suggest that the existence of married priests will open the door to women's ordination to the priesthood.

When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

Very interesting. Thanks for your research Stuart.
If the data is not disproven or legally rescinded at a later point, then the only objections are political IMHO.

The next obvious question....what would female deacons do? Financial? Sexton/sacristan? Catechist?

Something that would probably be more practical than female deacons who have no liturgical role would be to permit ordained female readers/lectors, since it (apparently) is recorded that women can be ordained for limited roles.

Doesn't this open up a can of worms?

Maybe the Pope will say we really shouldn't go back to our Eastern traditions.....

I think for starters, they could do all of the pastoral chores of a deacon, which would take a burden off their shoulders. Beyond that, serving as catechist and sacristan are good ideas. In the Byzantine era, they assisted at the baptism of female catechumens, since all catechumens went into the font butt nekkid (hence those baptismal robes were quite necessary to continue the service). We don't do that anymore, but in the Byzantine era deaconesses also had a particular duty to look after the welfare of the women and children of the parish. I think they would be especially valuable in that role (and would also relieve some of the burden the Pani now bears, in parishes that have married priests).

Women did sing in the Hagia Sophia, but from what I can tell, outside of monasteries, they were never readers.

On the contrary, this topic has nothing to do with tradition.

Tradition is that which has been handed down continuously through generations. It is not merely what is ancient. A practice abandoned is not traditional and does not become traditional by revival.

The following may be of some help on the topic of female deacons in the Orthodox Church:

Fitzgerald, Kyriaki Karidoyanes. Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness and Ministry. (Brookline, Massachusetts: Holy Cross Orthodox Press) 1999.

Karras, Valerie A. “Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church”. Church History 73:2 (June 2004) 272-316.

Karras, Valerie A. “The Liturgical Functions of Consecrated Women in the Byzantine Church”. Theological Studies 66 (2005) 96-116.

This website may also be of help: http://www.stnina.org/