Why we don't have women as priests (Moved from TAW)

[Mary's Bhoy]

Greetings from the west, my brothers and sisters!

I have a question I believe is pertinent to this discussion. It is certainly an issue I would love to have the East's perspective on.

What about deaconesses?

I am aware that the order of deaconess has existed in the church from day 1, as it were, that they are an ancient tradition in eastern Christendom, and that they served a function necessary to the Church art the time. They fell out of disuse for many reasons. The major reason being that they became somewhat unnecessary as our cultures and society progressed. However, there are some churches in the Eastern communion that have reinstated the order of deaconess. Which is all well and good by me!

My question arises because of some statements I have read from others—both Eastern Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic Christians, Protestants, etc.—which say that the order of deaconess in the early Church and the East constituted a real sacerdotal ordination. I am aware that the East and the West employ different "languages" when we talk about these issues, but I cannot imagine is it too divergent. The West's understanding is that the Major Orders of deacon, priest and bishop are one sacrament. Otherwise the Church would have 9 sacraments and not 7. Of course we speak of degrees of Holy Orders which I am not sure the East does, but I think we all agree on that singular point: there is one unified sacrament of Holy Orders. Deacons, priests and bishops all participate in the same singular Sacrament.

So how is it that a woman can participate in Holy Orders at one level, but not at another? That is, of course, if a deaconess participates in a sacerdotal ordination. It would seem unreasonable to me to believe that a woman can receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but only "to a certain extent". The arguments against female priestly "ordination" speak universally of the Sacrament of Holy Orders itself.

My question then, is, does the East consider the order of deaconess to be a sacerdotal ordination? Does she receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders?

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[rusmeister]

Greetings from the west, my brothers and sisters!

I have a question I believe is pertinent to this discussion. It is certainly an issue I would love to have the East's perspective on.

What about deaconesses?

I am aware that the order of deaconess has existed in the church from day 1, as it were, that they are an ancient tradition in eastern Christendom, and that they served a function necessary to the Church art the time. They fell out of disuse for many reasons. The major reason being that they became somewhat unnecessary as our cultures and society progressed. However, there are some churches in the Eastern communion that have reinstated the order of deaconess. Which is all well and good by me!

My question arises because of some statements I have read from others—both Eastern Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic Christians, Protestants, etc.—which say that the order of deaconess in the early Church and the East constituted a real sacerdotal ordination. I am aware that the East and the West employ different "languages" when we talk about these issues, but I cannot imagine is it too divergent. The West's understanding is that the Major Orders of deacon, priest and bishop are one sacrament. Otherwise the Church would have 9 sacraments and not 7. Of course we speak of degrees of Holy Orders which I am not sure the East does, but I think we all agree on that singular point: there is one unified sacrament of Holy Orders. Deacons, priests and bishops all participate in the same singular Sacrament.

So how is it that a woman can participate in Holy Orders at one level, but not at another? That is, of course, if a deaconess participates in a sacerdotal ordination. It would seem unreasonable to me to believe that a woman can receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, but only "to a certain extent". The arguments against female priestly "ordination" speak universally of the Sacrament of Holy Orders itself.

My question then, is, does the East consider the order of deaconess to be a sacerdotal ordination? Does she receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders?

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

Hi SCIM,
We don't have deaconnesses today. The order, such as it was, is extinct.
Gurney can probably respond better to the Catholic mindset, but the assumption behind your question looks rather legalistic to me. We don't count sacraments, for example.

What do we see the main purpose of deaconnesses as having been? To the best of my knowledge, the office arose because of impropriety - put simply, because priests were in the position of baptizing naked women. It's that simple. All other forms of assistance they provided were built around that, a logical extension of any ministry in the Church.

We don't have that problem today. The whole situation that gave rise to deaconnesses is gone, along with the office.

 

[rusmeister]

I would put to you that it is equally that it is...there is someting about the reality of being female which gives women the capacity for something much greater than being a mere Presbytyr or Bishop. There is something about the reality of being male which lacks this capacity. What is that, you ask? It is the capacity to create and carry a new life into this world. It is also the ability to be the Theotokos in every way by choice, except for having carried the Christ Child in one's womb. Mary was not Holy and Ever Virgin by a quirk of her nature, but by her incredible obedience to God's will. No man can ever hope to carry a new life in his belly, and to bring that life into this world in perfect love like a woman could. thus women have the most important title of all in our Church...MOTHER. Men are then relegated to the flunky duties of overseeing the sacraments in which we attempt to approach the Perfection of Christ, all the while knowing that there is no way we can.

QFT

 

[Mary's Bhoy]

Hi SCIM,
We don't have deaconnesses today. The order, such as it was, is extinct.
Gurney can probably respond better to the Catholic mindset, but the assumption behind your question looks rather legalistic to me. We don't count sacraments, for example.

What do we see the main purpose of deaconnesses as having been? To the best of my knowledge, the office arose because of impropriety - put simply, because priests were in the position of baptizing naked women. It's that simple. All other forms of assistance they provided were built around that, a logical extension of any ministry in the Church.

We don't have that problem today. The whole situation that gave rise to deaconnesses is gone, along with the office.

Thank you for your quick response!

To my knowledge there are still women ordained as deaconesses in the East. I believe there are a handful in Greece, for instance? Those women belong to a monastery so it is not a "secular"—I do not know whether the East uses this distinction as we do—vocation at the moment. I am also aware that the deaconesses served functions in the early Church where it was deemed improper for men to do so. That they would assist female catechumens at baptism, take the Most Holy Eucharist to housebound women, etc.

But I do not think I am being legalistic in my question. I am not trying to impose the West's language on the East, I am trying to understand this issue with the East's language and expression. I confess my difficulty, as it's very alien to me.

I will try and rephrase my question. The East acknowledges the Mystery of Holy Orders. The Mystery of Holy Orders has three Major Orders in accordance with the custom of the apostolic Church. Does the East generally teach that deaconesses—then and now—participate in the Mystery of Holy Orders? Is the office of deaconess the female equivalent of the Major Order of the diaconate? And if so, for what reasons would a woman be incapable of then receiving ordination to the other Major Orders if she can participate in the Mystery of Holy Orders?

I hope I have expressed myself more accurately according to Eastern understanding.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

 

[buzuxi02]

Greetings from the west, my brothers and sisters!
What about deaconesses?

I am aware that the order of deaconess has existed in the church from day 1, as it were, that they are an ancient tradition in eastern Christendom, and that they served a function necessary to the Church art the time. They fell out of disuse for many reasons. The major reason being that they became somewhat unnecessary as our cultures and society progressed. However, there are some churches in the Eastern communion that have reinstated the order of deaconess. Which is all well and good by me!

My question arises because of some statements I have read from others—both Eastern Orthodox Christians, Roman Catholic Christians, Protestants, etc.—which say that the order of deaconess in the early Church and the East constituted a real sacerdotal ordination. I am aware that the East and the West employ different "languages" when we talk about these issues, but I cannot imagine is it too divergent. The West's understanding is that the Major Orders of deacon, priest and bishop are one sacrament. Otherwise the Church would have 9 sacraments and not 7. Of course we speak of degrees of Holy Orders which I am not sure the East does, but I think we all agree on that singular point: there is one unified sacrament of Holy Orders. Deacons, priests and bishops all participate in the same singular Sacrament.

Yours in Jesus and Mary,
SCIM.

There aren't really any deaconesses (in the historical sense) in the Church of Greece. There basically nuns that have received a dispensation to carry out a few extra chores.

The opinion that the order of deaconess was a position of 'sacerdotal ordination' is false with absolutely no evidence to support it. The office of deaconess was a minor order on par with readers and subdeacons.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You said things just fine to me, Rus! And regarding counting the sacraments, I found it VERY refreshing when I converted to Orthodoxy that they don't waste time with such things. Grace comes to us in so many ways. God throws us lifelines right and left. Once you get bogged down in labeling these graces too much, you go into "validity" and other Aristotlean mindsets that guided the scholastics of the Middle Ages down a legalistic, funky road. I just read Aquinas and always come up with the "who cares?" conclusion about 7 out of 10 things the man said. Labeling sins and creating rubrics for what constitutes the labels, sounds like a bunch of teachers getting together to calibrate student essays in a school district. For me, if it takes me away from God's path, it's a sin, and I CONFESS IT!

Hi SCIM,
We don't have deaconnesses today. The order, such as it was, is extinct.
Gurney can probably respond better to the Catholic mindset, but the assumption behind your question looks rather legalistic to me. We don't count sacraments, for example.

What do we see the main purpose of deaconnesses as having been? To the best of my knowledge, the office arose because of impropriety - put simply, because priests were in the position of baptizing naked women. It's that simple. All other forms of assistance they provided were built around that, a logical extension of any ministry in the Church.

We don't have that problem today. The whole situation that gave rise to deaconnesses is gone, along with the office.

 

[rusmeister]

You said things just fine to me, Rus! And regarding counting the sacraments, I found it VERY refreshing when I converted to Orthodoxy that they don't waste time with such things. Grace comes to us in so many ways. God throws us lifelines right and left. Once you get bogged down in labeling these graces too much, you go into "validity" and other Aristotlean mindsets that guided the scholastics of the Middle Ages down a legalistic, funky road. I just read Aquinas and always come up with the "who cares?" conclusion about 7 out of 10 things the man said. Labeling sins and creating rubrics for what constitutes the labels, sounds like a bunch of teachers getting together to calibrate student essays in a school district. For me, if it takes me away from God's path, it's a sin, and I CONFESS IT!

The comparison to rubrics is a wonderful and highly apt comparison!

 

[Isaac of Syria]

I think trying to make a case for the role of women in Orthodoxy is letting her establish the grounds of the conversation. Basically you would have to meet a feminist progressive standard to satisfy her, but that has nothing to do with Christianity in general and Orthodoxy in particular. I think I might say that she should "come and see" and decide if women are being treated poorly in Orthodoxy.

In reality, however, her conversion would involve getting rid of these "delusions" in the first place. If secular progressive standards are how she measures things then secular progressive ideology is effectively her religion.

 

[rusmeister]

It would've been better, I think, for you to openly share your feelings with members of your community rather than keeping silent and harboring things in secret that can only hurt you. Dissent, combined with total commitment and determination to overcome differences within your community and to remain a part of it, come "hell or high water", is what makes for "real" growth of a community, of which you are a vital part. Show me a community of human beings that agrees perfectly upon everything, and you'll be showing me a dangerous and evil cult.

The Northern and Southern States of America dissented on slavery. The dissent DID lead to a kind of growth for the community - but at the price of a civil war and the crushing of the dissent over slavery.

Arius dissented on the nature of Christ, and if it did lead to growth for the Christian Church, it was by determining what true dogma is and anathematizing the Arian ideas.

Dissent for dissent's sake is no virtue, but a divisive vice, and the only value it can possibly have is by forcing the definition of truth.

I would agree that Fallen man cannot agree perfectly in everything, but not that unity and perfect agreement are necessarily wicked in themselves. In fact, it's what Christ prayed for in the Garden.

 

[truefiction1]

The Northern and Southern States of America dissented on slavery. The dissent DID lead to a kind of growth for the community - but at the price of a civil war and the crushing of the dissent over slavery.

Arius dissented on the nature of Christ, and if it did lead to growth for the Christian Church, it was by determining what true dogma is and anathematizing the Arian ideas.

Dissent for dissent's sake is no virtue, but a divisive vice, and the only value it can possibly have is by forcing the definition of truth.

I would agree that Fallen man cannot agree perfectly in everything, but not that unity and perfect agreement are necessarily wicked in themselves. In fact, it's what Christ prayed for in the Garden.

My concern would be for the person who, as all of us, is in need of healing. The dissent itself is merely the expression of a deep inner hurt which can be healed within a strong Orthodox community where members are, in Christ, wholly dedicated to the spiritual growth of its members. Communities can and often do fail in this regard, even if they have the outward appearance of "Orthodoxy". However, each of us must still hold ourselves personally responsible for our own shortcomings. This takes a rare kind of strength that most of us don't have. Therefore, it is an important function of leadership within the local Church that those who lack it are helped in an appropriate manner until they find it. It is helpful to such leaders if they are aware of the struggles of their members, which is why I encouraged our friend to be more open and self-revealing of her thoughts and feelings. Those around her must also be open and understanding, and committed to her well being. She must also be committed to this. This is the Church.

 

[rusmeister]

My concern would be for the person who, as all of us, is in need of healing. The dissent itself is merely the expression of a deep inner hurt which can be healed within a strong Orthodox community where members are, in Christ, wholly dedicated to the spiritual growth of its members. Communities can and often do fail in this regard, even if they have the outward appearance of "Orthodoxy". However, each of us must still hold ourselves personally responsible for our own shortcomings. This takes a rare kind of strength that most of us don't have. Therefore, it is an important function of leadership within the local Church that those who lack it are helped in an appropriate manner until they find it. It is helpful to such leaders if they are aware of the struggles of their members, which is why I encouraged our friend to be more open and self-revealing of her thoughts and feelings. Those around her must also be open and understanding, and committed to her well being. She must also be committed to this. This is the Church.

Agreed.

 

[truefiction1]

Agreed.

Lately I've noticed, (at least in the Orthodox jurisdictions in the US and Canada) an increasing sense of the Church in Her role as a "hospital" for those of us who are sick and in need of spiritual healing. I'm hoping that this is not just some passing trend, but rather, a sign that we are coming to full realization of our true mission, and that we'll go far in the fulfillment of it. Just a thought.

 

[azzurina]

You do realize that there is such a thing as cultural sensitivities? I would be treated the same way if i visited a black baptist church in Harlem. If i, as a white man had a black wife. Also this diversity multicultural nonsense is a new thing. Its an american invention which many people are not used to.

Secondly eastern cultures (both eastern european and middleeastern) are very tribal, your problem is you have been conditioned to think otherwise about the world, an ethnic group will try to preserve its heritage, thats precisely why its an ethnic group.

Secondly the idea AGAINST sexism is a heresy. Any society that invents words to create an egalitarian culture is not civilised, but disoriented.

There is no such thing as egalitarianism in Orthodox christianity. There is an ordering of the sexes with distinct roles for men and women. If it were not so God would not have created male and female, but would have allowed Adam to remain an 'anthropos'; that is an upright asexual creature. If you have a problem with this then I suggest to seek out a protestant church or maybe wiccan. You cannot look to change the tradition of the Church, you will be required to conform to it.

Wow. Good post to drive away people who are seeking or questioning. I am very glad TAW didn't look like it does now when I was first considering becoming Orthodox (I lurked then, too, and recently came back)! I would have run screaming away from the Church because all of the righteous, ethnocentric, holier-than-thou attitudes that now seem to permeate this board. (I wonder if it's because there doesn't seem to be all that many woman left who are regulars and the guys seem to get sucked up in a super more-thodox competition of being more rigid than anyone else).

For Formerrocor: not everyone in the Church is a jerk! I go to a very warm OCA parish and my husband (who is not white) is more than comfortable there (and he's been Orthodox and attending that parish longer than I have). Our congregation is fairly multi-ethnic and we are happy about that and don't look at having different groups of people worshiping together and befriending each other as "multicultural nonsense". It is getting to know our brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope you are able to find a parish that lets you worship in the fulness of the Truth and that you don't get discouraged by people on the internet!

 

[rusmeister]

Wow. Good post to drive away people who are seeking or questioning. I am very glad TAW didn't look like it does now when I was first considering becoming Orthodox (I lurked then, too, and recently came back)! I would have run screaming away from the Church because all of the righteous, ethnocentric, holier-than-thou attitudes that now seem to permeate this board. (I wonder if it's because there doesn't seem to be all that many woman left who are regulars and the guys seem to get sucked up in a super more-thodox competition of being more rigid than anyone else).

For Formerrocor: not everyone in the Church is a jerk! I go to a very warm OCA parish and my husband (who is not white) is more than comfortable there (and he's been Orthodox and attending that parish longer than I have). Our congregation is fairly multi-ethnic and we are happy about that and don't look at having different groups of people worshiping together and befriending each other as "multicultural nonsense". It is getting to know our brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope you are able to find a parish that lets you worship in the fulness of the Truth and that you don't get discouraged by people on the internet!

I think you are very mistakenly misreading what Buz is saying. You are taking something as "holier-than-thou" when actually it is a reaction to a real and extreme twisting of initially good ideas - for example, what some people understand multiculturalism to be, the familiarization of oneself with other cultures) into a practical opposition to normal human tradition.

I think it would be really good if ALL visitors and lurkers asked "Why do you you say thus-and-so?" rather than assuming wicked Pharasaical attitudes that we are better than our neighbor. It is very easy to misunderstand people, especially when you don't care for their views and disagree with them on one level or another.

I have undergone a considerable transformation myself, from a "liberal multicultural" guy to a person who is really and truly multicultural, but sees the value of roots and local traditions.

Assuming, as they say, makes an ass of u and me. Asking questions might shed light.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It is very easy to misunderstand people, especially when you don't care for their views and disagree with them on one level or another.

especially on an internet forum, where you cannot judge tone or inflection, or see any non verbal communication at all. I must confess I have been guilty of this meself from time to time.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

We all have!

especially on an internet forum, where you cannot judge tone or inflection, or see any non verbal communication at all. I must confess I have been guilty of this meself from time to time.

 

[Lukaris]

Wow. Good post to drive away people who are seeking or questioning. I am very glad TAW didn't look like it does now when I was first considering becoming Orthodox (I lurked then, too, and recently came back)! I would have run screaming away from the Church because all of the righteous, ethnocentric, holier-than-thou attitudes that now seem to permeate this board. (I wonder if it's because there doesn't seem to be all that many woman left who are regulars and the guys seem to get sucked up in a super more-thodox competition of being more rigid than anyone else).

For Formerrocor: not everyone in the Church is a jerk! I go to a very warm OCA parish and my husband (who is not white) is more than comfortable there (and he's been Orthodox and attending that parish longer than I have). Our congregation is fairly multi-ethnic and we are happy about that and don't look at having different groups of people worshiping together and befriending each other as "multicultural nonsense". It is getting to know our brothers and sisters in Christ. I hope you are able to find a parish that lets you worship in the fulness of the Truth and that you don't get discouraged by people on the internet!

We try not to speak on a contemporary worldly level in this forum. We try to focus on God, not the world while trying to live and do right by our neighbor & repent of our sins as we stumble. This is emphasized even more during lent & nativity. The prayer of St. Ephrem the Syrian we pray at the Wednesday eve liturgies during lent sums this up, see: http://oca.org/orthodoxy/prayers/lenten-prayer-of-st.-ephrem

 

[Cappadocious]

you might show exactly what you think "crappy" in Schmemann or Lewis.

Where did Fr. Schmemann provide a theological answer that I could deem crappy or not crappy? Are his reasons not pastoral and practical?

It would help me understand more clearly why you rail against this unambiguous facet of Orthodox Tradition.

Which facet of Orthodox Tradition have I railed against?

 

[rusmeister]

Where did Fr. Schmemann provide a theological answer that I could deem crappy or not crappy? Are his reasons not pastoral and practical?


Which facet of Orthodox Tradition have I railed against?

Capp, you're being disingenuous. You know we are talking about the implications of women in the priesthood and the fact that it is a clear part of our Tradition that women have never been ordained, even in times of war and fearful shortages of men.

You're the one that spoke of "crappy" arguments. And you still haven't said a word about Lewis's essay. By this time it looks like desperate avoidance of intelligent thought on the issue. Forgive me, but you have nothing to stand on in defense of priestesses in the Church and no support but a modern feminist kind that is hostile to our faith.

I don't have time for such non-engagement. It is idle talk. Forgive me.

 

[Cappadocious]

Capp, you're being disingenuous. You know we are talking about the implications of women in the priesthood and the fact that it is a clear part of our Tradition that women have never been ordained, even in times of war and fearful shortages of men.

Where have I disputed this?

And you still haven't said a word about Lewis's essay.

True, I thought it best to refrain from doing so.

Forgive me, but you have nothing to stand on in defense of priestesses in the Church

Please, either cite where I said I was in favor of women priestesses, or retract this statement and its implication.

Attacking what one believes to be bad arguments in favor of our theology and practices is a way to defend those things. Putting forward bad arguments in favor of our theology and practices is a way to attack those things.