www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Parish Life & Evangelization Equality?

From the ordination rite of a deaconess in the Strategios Manuscript, at the womenpriests.org website:


The bishop prays:

"Holy and Omnipotent Lord, through the birth of your Only Son our God from a Virgin according to the flesh, you have sanctified the female sex. You grant not only to men, but also to women the grace and coming (from above) of the Holy Spirit. Please, Lord, look on this your maid servant and dedicate her to the task of your diaconate, and pour out into her the rich and abundant giving of your Holy Spirit.

Preserve her so that she may always perform her ministry (leitourgia) with orthodox faith and irreproachable conduct, according to what is pleasing to you.

For to you is due all glory, honour and worship, to the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and always and for all ages.”

While the deacons' intercessions are said, the bishop keeping his hand on the head of the woman to be ordained, prays as follows:

“Lord, Master, you do not reject women who dedicate themselves to you and who are willing, in a becoming way, to serve your Holy House, but admit them to the order of your ministers [leitourg�n].
Grant the gift of your Holy Spirit also to this your maid servant who wants to dedicate herself to you, and fulfil in her the work and the office of the ministry of the diaconate, as you have granted to Phoebe the grace of your diaconate, whom you had called to the work of this ministry [leitourgia].
Give her, Lord, that she may persevere without guilt in your Holy Temple, that she may carefully guard her behaviour, especially her prudence and chastity.
Moreover, make your maid servant perfect , so that, when she will stand before the judgement seat of your Christ, she may obtain the worthy reward of her good conduct, through the mercy and generosity of your Only Son, with whom you are blessed with your all-holy and good and life-giving Spirit, now and always and for all ages.”

After the "Amen', the bishop puts the stole of the diaconate [to diakonikon horarion] round her neck, under her [woman's] scarf [maphorion], pulling the two extremities of the stole towards the front, while the deacon in the ambo says: "Remembering all the saints'..

anastasios

Dear Ephraim,

"Layman's opinion?"

And you are Metropolitan of which jurisdiction?

Well, since I am only a lowly layman, and don't dare to even lift up my eyes to the heights of others, I will be as brief as I can be.

I tend to go on, you know, because we laity feel so privileged to speak on such lofty subjects that we tend to get a bit tense . . .

As a layman, I know I should remain silent on all such matters, but whatever insignificant intelligence and lights God has given me forces me to make some points.

Similarity in all things doesn't equate the Deaconness with the Deacon.

Kallistos Ware has never said that and has never said that Deacons = Deaconnesses in terms of their participation in the Ministerial Priesthood of Christ.

(He HAS said publicly that the more he studies the Filioque, the more he realizes that East and West are really one on that point - something that has raised the ire of the Greek bishops).

Greek Bishops do use Deaconnesses to fulfill particular liturgical functions, that is a fact.

But the same can be done by members of the Royal Priesthood (whom you would call "just laypeople").

There are Readers, but "just laypeople" may also perform this function.

As any good student of Orthodoxy would know, "mere laypeople" have always played a significant role in the Church, including at Ecumenical Councils.

ST John of Suchava is a case in point - a businessman, he participated in the Council of Florence where his vote actually counted - despite the fact that he was "only a layman."

In the Church's history, your exalted bishops were often run out of their cathedras by "mere laypeople" when they fell into heresy.

Even St Maximos the Confessor held firm for true Orthodoxy against the Patriarchs of his age - again he was a "mere monk."

Distributing communion? I've done that in my Church, even though I am only a . . . you guessed it.

Now that I've had my fun with your untoward comment, Sir, (do you prefer, "Lord Archbishop" or what title?), my point still stands.

Where has either the Catholic or Orthodox Church ever said that Deaconnesses participate in the Ministerial Priesthood of Christ.

They never have.

Deaconnesses are forever a part of the Royal Priesthood of Christ (or, as you would say, "only laity").

Sorry, but I didn't expect such a comment from someone of your spiritual and intellectual calibre.

Forgive me if my euphoria today led me to have some fun with you.

I'm sure you don't appreciate it.

Alex

An. and Eph.

How are you using the word ORDAINED? I looked the word up at www.webster.com. [webster.com.] It says, "1 : to invest officially (as by the laying on of hands) with ministerial or priestly authority
2 a : to establish or order by appointment, decree, or law : ENACT b :"

If you are saying they (deaconesses) are ORDAINED with Definition 1 then I would disagree with you 100%. However, if you use definition 2 I would agree. ORDAINATION can have different meanings. I can be ORDAINED to the cult of Unix System Administrator but that means nothing. The point being if you are suggestion that the Early Church Ordained Women and considered them Equal to men with functions behind the Icon Screen I would say you probably are wrong and need to present evidence. If however you are suggestion that they had a special Ordaination to assist other women I would agree 100%.

Which definition are you using?

God Bless!

Glory to Jesus Christ!

This is such a complicated issue, and I fear we are straying from the original thread title, concerning girls serving the Divine Liturgy. Normally, I would suggest a new topic, but it is a close call, and I leave that to the moderator.

However, this is an important discussion. Deaconesses existed in the Church, and it is clear that they were ordained (an examination of the rite and its context is the evidence). What is the nature of that ordination?

They were not women deacons; their function was similar, yet different. It was an order of service, but it seems that the chief liturgical function was the assistance at the baptism (and anointing) of women.


"But was it sacramental ordination, and within the Sacrament of Order?" This strikes this poor thinker, as a kind of "Roman" question. We must remember that the western theology of sacraments, was developed much more by the attack made by the reformation, which denied the sacramental character of a number of the rites of the Church, chosing to confine the title of sacraments to two mysteries only (baptism and eucharist).

In response, the Church developed a very animated answer affirming the sacramental character of at least seven (the familiar Catholic list), drawing walls of defense around the challenged sacraments. [a narrow and careful reading however, does find find the language "only seven"] There was no popular or final list of seven, even in the west, until the 12th century, so the east must be forgiven for not sharing completely in this later western development.

The eastern Churches (as I understand it) never had to mount such a sure defense to something that was never challenged, and the number and categories have been more fluid. For example, the mysteries include the "Catholic list" and more, for example the Great Blessing of the Water at Theophany, and the monastic profession.

The sacrament of order, again not having been attacked or challenged in the East as in the West, does not seem to contain the same highly defined categories or limits.

In the East, we have the ordination of subdeacons for example. Is this sacramental? Of course it is. But he is not Bishop, Priest, or Deacon! So there must be something more. There are many such "orders", eg. reader, etc. These are mysteries, and "give grace" in a western definition. If more eastern language is desired we might say that it admits the ordained to a wondrous "participation in things hidden" the "secrets of the kingdom of heavens" [Matt 13: 11]. If these things are part of the "secret of the kingdom of God" [Mark 4, 11-12], then one can see why the East is hesitent to over examine, or lay bare the exact limits of these hidden things. "I will not reveal your mystery..." The East hesitates speaking so categorically.

One thing is clear, Deaconesses were not Deacons, they were Deaconesses. A deaconess is not a female deacon. It is another order, now sadly fallen mostly into disuse. As the order was never abolished by order of Pope, Council, or Synod, it could be revived without difficulty. But are we ready? I wish we were, but I fear we are not. Largely because of the crisis in our understanding of "Orders" and "ministry" as a whole. We must recover a truly sacramental ministry, and restore the theology of this awesome gift of God to the Church.

I think, certainly in most western societies, our whole concept of ministry, "pastorship" and even priesthood has departed dangerously from the tradition. I do not know for sure, and I hesitate to speak without evidence, but I merely ask if Saint John Chrysostom, or Saint Basil the Great, or the any great pastoral Fathers of the patristic age, would recognize our modern clerical roles and styles?
It would be wonderful if we could get "inside their mind", and allow ourselves to be challenged by them.
Let the mistakes made at the restoration of the diaconate serve as a sober warning. The restoration of the order of deaconess, and for that matter that of reader, subdeacon, etc. etc., would be better served, after a thorough renewal and deepening of our spiritual appreciation of this "mystery" and gift of God.

Elias

Ray,

I content that since the deaconness had the bishop's hand imposed on her, he prayed that the grace of the Holy Spirit come upon her, and that he then bestowed the stole upon her, and then she receive communion at the altar, that she was then ORDAINED.

I agree with definition #1 in part. However, Webster's is not the official word on church terms. I believe that a true sacrament is performed, making the woman a minister. But to share in the priesthood of Christ, no, I don't agree with that.

By the way, Fr. Peter Stravinskas wondered in an article in the Catholic Answer if the male diaconate is even a sacrament.... the Church really hasn't settled this issue.

anastasios

Bless me a sinner, Reverend Father Elias!

I thank you for your erudite and scholarly post.

It would seem that mere laymen, such as myself, do indeed have a purpose for existing.

I was beginning to have serious doubts . . .

Alex

Sorry that you misunderstood my point. I was referring to quotes by RC@Home---from local Western councils--banning the order of deaconesses IN THE WEST.

The universal councils of the East--such as Chalcedon---and others, clearly establish the order of deaconess as universal order of the Eastern Church.

And you are correct in stating that the Catholic Church, East and West, will not permit the ordination of women to the diaconate. But it is a fait accompli for us.It is good that we have these differences and exercise our respective autonomy for the good of the faithful in each church.

Considering the structure of the Catholic Church, ordaining women to the diaconate would be a disaster. The same does not apply to the Orthodox Church.

Regards,

ER

[ 02-27-2002: Message edited by: Ephraim Reynolds ]

Dear Anastasios,

An excellent site - one I like to visit frequently!

Being "only a layman" I don't pretend to even define what a "sacrament" is - it's really beyond me.

But I've been told by enlightened men (who are in Holy Orders, FYI) that the Deacon does have a share in the Ministerial Priesthood of Christ.

He must be married by the time he is ordained to this (in our Church, Subdeacon really). If he is ordained Deacon and is celibate, celibate he must remain.

I know I'm making much of Ephraim's (snide) comment to me about being a layman.

The thing is, you know, I'm a frustrated Priest.

Alas, it is the cross I must bear . . .

Alex

David,

Please speak for yourself. Byzantine Catholics share the same Byzantine tradition as the Orthodox. We are not some weird hybrid of half Roman and half Byzantine. We are Byzantines, period, who acknowledge the primacy of the Pope in Rome.

Those councils were local Latin Synods, and had nothing to do with us, just as the local Byzantine Catholic synods in the 18th century had nothing to do with the Church in say, Zimbabwe.

anastasios

Alex,

Of course the Armenians and Assyrian Church of the East know nothing of the tradition that a deacon cannot marry after ordination.

Fr. Joseph Allen's new book, "Vested in Grace" really argues in favor of cutting out the no-marriage-after-ordination rule.

It's a great read.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

Yes, but we're talking about the Chalcedonian tradition, as opposed to the Miaphysite and Assyrian traditions are we not?

(And again, please note my lay status )

As for the rules governing marriage before and after ordination, I couldn't agree more.

But this is an area where we lay-folk really DON'T have any authority over, after all.

I've noticed that our Friend Ephraim Reynolds has yet to respond to my "just a layman" posts.

Do you think he is ignoring them deliberately ?

Alex

anastasios,

My mistake, you are correct. Maybe I should research a bit more before I comment.

But.... It doesn't matter as we must do as Rome says anyways and we do not share the same Tradition as the Orthodox, as we are in communion with Rome.

David

Just one more reply...

David, you asked whether or not you should be upset about the situation you described. Nobody can answer that question - we all have our "hot buttons." The real questions have more to do with why we get upset over ____ (fill in your trigger) and how we respond.


Best,

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

David,

I am not going to argue with you about practically how things work, because you are pretty much right in certain instances.

But theoretically, why do we "have" to do everything Rome says? Why can't we do what we do, and they do what they do, and we try to be loving and respectful of each other as we are in communion?

anastasios