UPDATE: Monday, June 19, 6pm. This important update contains 1) A short bio of Manolis Thedorakis, b) A Note on the History of Deacons and Deaconesses, including a Ph.D dissertation that suggests that deaconesses had an elevated role in early Christianity: their ordination was identical to the ordination of a bishop, priest or cantor.
SHORT BIO (In Greek) of Manolis Theodorakis:
Ὀνομάζομαι Θεοδωράκης Ἐμμανουὴλ τοῦ Παναγιώτου, κάτοικος Χανίων Κρήτης, πολιτικὸς μηχανικὸς καὶ ψάλτης γεννηθεὶς τὸ 1965. Ἀπὸ τὸ 1991 ἀσχολοῦμαι μὲ τὴν μελέτη τῶν ἀρχαίων τυπικῶν, εὐχολογίων, ὡρολογίων καὶ λοιπῶν λειτουργικῶν πηγῶν μέσῳ τῆς ἐπιστημονικῆς βιβλιογραφίας, ἀλλὰ καὶ πρωτογενῶς μέσα ἀπὸ τὰ ἀντίστοιχα χειρόγραφα. Ἡ ἐρευνητικὴ δραστηριότητά μου ἀποτελεῖ προσωπικὴ ἔρευνα, ἄσχετη μὲ ἐκπαιδευτικὰ ἤ ἐρευνητικὰ ἱδρύματα. Δὲν ἑτοιμάζω κάποια ἀκαδημαϊκὴ ἐργασία ἤ ἔκδοση. Ἁπλὰ θέλω πολὺ νὰ βοηθήσω τὴν λειτουργικὴ ἔρευνα ἀναδεικνύοντας τὰ τεκμήριά της. Διαθέτω τὶς ἑξῆντα ἐργασίες μου στὸ https://independent.academia.edu/EmmanouelTheodorakis?from_navbar=true καὶ στὸ ψαλτικὸ forum Ψαλτολόγιον, ἀπὸ τὸ ὁποῖο δέχομαι συχνὰ ἐρωτήσεις, πολύτιμες ἀφορμὲς ἔρευνας. Τακτικὰ παρακολουθῶ τὶς ἀναρτήσεις νέων χειρογράφων καὶ βιβλιογραφίας στὸ διαδίκτυο γιὰ νὰ συμπληρώνω καὶ βελτιώνω τὶς ἐργασίες μου. Εἶμαι 57 ἐτῶν. Ὅταν πλέον δὲν θὰ μπορῶ νὰ συνεχίσω, θὰ ἐκδώσω τὰ τελικὰ κείμενα.
Τὸ 2005 συνέταξα τὴν πρώτη μορφὴ τῆς βασικῆς μου μελέτης Ἀρχέτυπες διατάξεις κωδικοποιῶντας ἀνὰ ἀκολουθία τὶς θέσεις τοῦ ἀειμνήστου καθηγητοῦ κ. Φουντούλη, τοῦ Τυπικοῦ τοῦ ἁγίου Σάββα, ἄλλων τυπικῶν, τοῦ Εὐχολογίου Goar καὶ τὶς ὑπογραμμίσεις μου στὸ τρίτομο ἔργο τοῦ A. Dmitrievskij Opisanie Liturgiceskich Rukopisei. Τὴν μελέτη μου αὐτὴ ἔκτοτε ἐμπλουτίζω συνεχῶς μὲ κάθε σχετικὴ μαρτυρία.
\Ἡ ἀναζήτηση καὶ διασταύρωση-ἐπαλήθευση τῆς ἀρχαίας λατρευτικῆς τάξης μὲ ὁδήγησε καὶ σὲ μελέτη πληθώρας ὑμνολογικῶν συλλογῶν, μηναίων, τριῳδίων-πεντηκοσταρίων, τροπολογίων, εἱρμολογίων, κοντακαρίων, στιχηραρίων, ἐκλογαδίων, πραξαποστόλων, προφητολογίων, ψαλτηρίων, κανοναρίων κ.λπ. Σ’ αὐτὲς τὶς πηγὲς παραπέμπουν λειτουργιολόγοι, ὅπως ὁ J. Mateos, M. Arranz, R. Taft, S. Parenti. Ἐκεῖ ἔχω κι ἐγὼ ἐντοπίσει πολλὲς ἀρχέτυπες διατάξεις λανθάνουσες ἤ μᾶλλον ὑπονοούμενες ἀπὸ τὰ θεσμικὰ τυπικὰ καὶ εὐχολόγια.
Ἔτσι, ἐνῶ ἡ βασική μου στόχευση ἦταν ἡ μέλετη τοῦ βασικοῦ πυρήνα τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς ἀκολουθίας στὴν ἀρχικὴ πλήρη μορφή του κατὰ τὸν δέκατο αἰῶνα, ἐδῶ καὶ δέκα πέντε χρόνια ἔχω ἐπεκταθεῖ καὶ στὴ διεξαγωγὴ τῶν μυστηρίων, καὶ τὴν ἀποκατάσταση τῶν ἀπολυτικίων, κοντακίων κ.λπ. ὕμνων στὶς ἀρχικὲς λησμονημένες ἐκδοχές τους (μελέτη Ὑμνολογικὲς διερευνήσεις).
A NOTE ON THE HISTORY OF DEACONS AND DEACONESSES
«Περὶ τὰ μέσα τοῦ 6ου αἰῶνα ἡ πρόθεση καὶ τὸ διακονικὸ μεταφέρθηκαν ἀπὸ τὸν νάρθηκα στὸ ἀνατολικὸ τμῆμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἑκατέρωθεν τοῦ ἱεροῦ βήματος» (Ν. Γκιολὲ Βυζαντινὴ Ναοδομία 1992 σ. 14). Ἀρχικὰ οἱ χώροι αὐτοὶ δὲν ἐπικοινωνοῦσαν μὲ τὸ βῆμα (ὅπ. πρ. σ. 15). Ἡ μικρὴ εἴσοδος γινόταν ἀπὸ τὸ (νότιο) διακονικό, ὅπου φυλασσόταν τὰ ἄμφια καὶ τὸ Εὐαγγέλιο καὶ τὸ θυμιατό, ἡ δὲ μεγάλη ἀπὸ τὴν (βόρεια) πρόθεση μὲ τὰ σκεύη, τὰ πρόσφορα καὶ τὸν οἶνο (ὅπ. πρ. σ. 14).
Ἡ διακόνισσα χειροτονεῖται, δὲν χειροθετεῖται. «Χειροτονία» ἀναφέρει τὸ S. Parenti – E. Velkovska L’ Eucologio Barberini gr. 336 σ. 172 καὶ τὸ Ε. Θεοδώρου Ἡ χειροτονία ἢ χειροθεσία τῶν διακονισσῶν 1954 σσ. 578-584. (YOU CAN READ THE WHOLE DISSERTATION IN PDF HERE – Ε. Θεοδώρου Ἡ χειροτονία ἤ χειροθεσία τῶν διακονισσῶν 1954) Ἠ τάξη τῆς χειροτονίας της περιλαμβάνει δύο εὐχές, ὅπως τῶν ἀνώτερων κληρικῶν (διακόνου, πρεσβυτέρου καὶ ἐπισκόπου) καὶ ὄχι μία, ὅπως τοῦ ἀναγνώστου, ψάλτου καὶ ὑποδιακόνου. Ἡ τάξη τῶν διακονισσῶν ἀποτελεῖ τὸ μεταίχμιο μεταξὺ ἀνώτερου καὶ κατώτερου κλήρου (ὅπ. πρ. σ. 72), δηλαδὴ εἶναι κλῆρος μὲ κατώτερη ἱερωσύνη.
Μετὰ τὴν ἐντὸς τοῦ ἱεροῦ βήματος κοινωνία τῶν διακόνων, κοινωνοῦν ἐκτὸς τοῦ βήματος «οἱ ὑποδιάκονοι καὶ οἱ ἀναγνῶσται καὶ οἱ ψάλται καὶ οἱ ἀσκηταί, καὶ ἐν ταῖς γυναιξὶν αἱ διάκονοι καὶ αἱ παρθένοι…εἶτα τὰ παιδία, καὶ τότε πᾶς ὁ λαός.
(Ἀποστολικὲς Διαταγές (περὶ τὸ ἔτος 380) βιβλίο 8ο § 13 στίχος 14, ὁμοίως A. Dmitrievskij Opisanie Liturgiceskich Rukopisei τόμος 2 σ. 317 καὶ Συμεὼν Θεσσαλονίκης (+1429) Patrologia Graeca τ. 155 στ. 297Α, 301Α).
Στὴ σημερινὴ ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ὁρολογία ἱεροδιάκονος εἶναι ὁ μοναχὸς διάκονος, ἐνῷ διάκονος εἶναι ὁ κοσμικός.
=============EDITOR’S NOTE: The following short article by Manolis Theodorakis was referred to me by a friend whose historical theological knowledge I absolutely trust, as the ultimate definition of the role of deaconesses in modern Orthodoxy, based on our tradition and the rulings of Ecumenical Synods. I post it below in Greek and English but I would suggest to you to trust the Greek text because of the many idioms…
===============
Διακόνισσες
Του Μανώλη Θεοδωράκη
Διακόνισσα, ἄγαμη ἢ χῆρα[1], ὄντως πολὺ ἐνάρετη, ἀφιερώνεται καὶ χειροτονεῖται «μετὰ ἀκριβοῦς δοκιμασίας», καὶ στὴν δική μας ἐποχή[2], ἐντὸς τοῦ βήματος στὸ χρονικὸ σημεῖο τῆς χειροτονίας τοῦ διακόνου, χωρὶς γονυκλισία (S. Parenti – E. Velkovska L’ Eucologio Barberini gr.336ἔκδ. 2000 σ. 172). Φέρει ὁράριο μὲ τὶς δύο ἄκρες του μπροστά (ὅπ. πρ.σ. 173).
Ἡ ὑποψήφια ὀφείλει νὰ εἶναι σάραντα ἐτῶν καὶ ἄνω (κανόνες 15 τῆς δ’ οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου, 14, 15 καὶ 40 πενθέκτης οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου) χωρὶς περίοδο. Βλ. καὶ Πηδάλιον σ. 83 ὑποσ. 2. Ὑπάγεται στὸν ἐπίσκοπο καὶ δὲν ἐξελίσσεται σὲ ἄλλους βαθμούς. Ἐὰν παντρευτεῖ, ἀναθεματίζεται αἰωνίως (κανόνας 15 τῆς δ’ οἰκουμενικῆς συνόδου).
Ἀνήκει στὸν κλῆρο, μετὰ τοὺς διακόνους, καὶ συνεπῶς εἰσέρχεται μαζί του στὴν μικρὴ-πρώτη εἴσοδο τοῦ κλήρου στὸ ἱερὸ βῆμα ( S. Parenti – E. Velkovska L’ Eucologio Barberini gr.336ἔκδ. 2000 σ. 173, ἁγίου Γερμανοῦ Α’ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως (715-730) Ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστική ἔκδ. P. G. τ. 98 στ. 392A, J. MateosἩ Μικρὰ Εἴσοδος τῆς θείας Λειτουργίας 1973 σ. 365) μετὰ τοὺς ὑποδιακόνους, ὅταν δὲν ἔχει περίοδο.
Ἡ διακόνισσα πρὸ τῆς ἀπολύσεως τῶν κατηχουμένων βρίσκεται στὶς πύλες τοῦ κυρίως ναοῦ γιὰ νὰ βγάζει τοὺς ἀβάπτιστους καὶ νὰ ἐπιτηρεῖ τὶς θύρες. Δὲν λέγει τίποτε, οὔ τε ῥιπίζει τὰ τίμια δῶρα. Δὲν εἶναι λαμπαδοῦχος, διότι αὐτὸ εἶναι τὸ ἔργο τῶν ὑποδιακόνων. Οὔ τε τὸ ἅγιο θυσιαστήριο ὑποκαθίσταται καὶ παραμελεῖται, ἄνευ μεγίστης ἀνάγκης, γιὰ λειτουργίες μὲ κορίτσια «παπαδάκια», βλ. καὶ Ἰ. Φουντούλη Λειτουργικὴ Α’ 1993 σ. 261. Δὲν εἰσοδεύει στὴν μεγάλη εἴσοδο. Εἰσέρχεται στὸ βῆμα γιὰ νὰ κοινωνήσει. Κατόπιν δέχεται τὸ ἅγιο ποτήριο καὶ τὸ ἀποθέτει στὴν ἁγία τράπεζα ( S. Parenti – E. Velkovska L’ Eucologio Barberini gr.336 ἔκδ. 2000 σ. 174), χωρὶς νὰ μεταδώσει τὴν θεία κοινωνία. Ἡγουμένες ἦταν συχνὰ καὶ διακόνισσες[3]. Βλ. καὶ Ε. Θεοδώρου Ἡ χειροτονία ἢ χειροθεσία τῶν διακονισσῶν 1954.
[1] Ἀποστολικὲς Διαταγὲς ΣΤ’, 17, 4.[2] Ὁ ἅγιος Νεκτάριος εἶχε χειροτονήσει διακόνισσες, ἀλλὰ καὶ σήμερα χειροτονοῦνται διακόνισσες στὸ πατριαρχεῖο Ἀλεξανδρείας.[3] CO φ. 32r.================================Deaconesses
By Manolis TheodorakisA deaconess, unmarried or widow[1], indeed very virtuous, is consecrated and ordained “after a rigorous test”, and in our own era[2], during the step at the time of the deacon’s ordination, without kneeling (S. Parenti – E Velkovska L’ Eucologio Barberini gr. 336 ἔkd. 2000 p. 172). It carries a vestment (“οραριο”) with its two edges in front (op. p. p. 173).
The candidate must be forty years of age and older (rules 15 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, 14, 15 and 40 of the Fifteenth Ecumenical Council) without period (menstruation). See and Pidalion p. 83 subs. 2. She is under the bishop and does not rise into other degrees. If she marries, she is condemned (“anathema”) eternally (rule 15 of the fourth ecumenical council).
She is part of the clergy, along with the deacons, and therefore she enters with it in the small-first entrance of the clergy to the holy step (S. Parenti – E. Velkovska L’ Eucologio Barberini gr. 336 ed. 2000 p. 173, of St. Germanos I of Constantinople (715-730) Ecclesiastical History ed. P. G. vol. 98 f. 392A, J. Mateos The Small Entrance of the Divine Liturgy 1973 p. 365) with the subdeacons, when he has no period (menstruation).
Before the dismissal of the catechumens, the deaconess is at the gates of the main church to bring out the baptized and to guard the doors. She does not say anything, nor does he buy honest gifts. She is not a torchbearer, because this is the work of the subdeacons. Not even the holy altar is substituted and neglected, without the greatest need, for functions with “papadakia” girls, see and I. Foudouli Litourgiki A’ 1993 p. 261. She is not enter tthrough the main entrance. She enters the altar to receive holy communion. Then she receives the holy cup and places it on the holy table (S. Parenti – E. Velkovska L’Eucologio Barberini gr. 336 ed. 2000 p. 174), without giving communion. Nuns were often also deaconesses[3]. See and E. Theodorou The ordination or ordination of deacons 1954.
[1] Apostolic Orders VI, 17, 4.
[2] Saint Nektarios had ordained deaconesses, but even today deaconesses are being ordained in the Patriarchate of Alexandria.
[3] CO f. 32r.
A couple comments, so that we don’t end up with people taking things out of context & perspective:
The Barberini Codex is the oldest surviving Euchologio manuscript…that’s cool so far. No problem with that.
However, the Barberini Codex takes us back to a period of time when the “first entrance” procession was actually conducted from outside the church building. Clergy and people would enter from the courtyard outside, and at the time, there still existed the Byzantine pulpit (amvon) on the inside. Hence the “entrance” that is described here does not originate from within the altar (sanctuary) as we are accustomed to seeing today.
Hence, the use of the word “clergy” has to be with caution, and with some historical context. The scriptural reference (“for many are called, few are selected-chosen” / πολλοὶ γάρ εἰσιν κλητοὶ, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοί) contains the word κλητοὶ which shares the same root word as κληρος (clergy).
Historically, there was a distinction between the ranks of “clergy”, “lesser clergy”, “monastics”, and “people” (λαος).
The canons frequently spell out the various ecclesiastial levels… A Reader (Αναγνωστης) is consistently grouped with the sub-deacons and is served a greater “penance” than the “regular” layperson. The Reader is historically considered “lesser clergy”, but it is totally clear that Readers are officially appointed via a Χειροθεσια (placing of the hands of a bishop), and not a Χειροτονια (formal tonsuring and receiving the 7th mystery of the Church – Priesthood (Ιερωσυνη)….A Reader does not have ιερωσυνη, does NOT enter the bema, nor touches holy vessels or the altar. The “deaconesses” mentioned in this article were never tonsured with Ιερωσυνη, either. Remember the comments posted in a previous article…we are forgetting that Ιεροδιακονος is the formal distinctive word for a “helper” “Διακονος” who has Ιερωσυνη. Everyone else who “helps” is also a διακονος, and proof of this is in our prayers…υπερ των διακονουντων (for those helping/serving this church, monastery, etc…). Until this day, when you are appointed a “chore” at a monastery, that “chore” is called a “diakonima” (διακονημα), preserving the old use of the word in our modern era.
Today, we seem to have forgotten the old use of the word clergy (κληρος), and anyone can quickly verify that by conducting a poll among the faithful, asking them who is a member of the clergy. The overwhelming majority will only cite Bishop / priest / (hiero)-deacon. All of these ranks have ιεροσυνη (priesthood). What happened to the other historical roles? We have forgotten them, and now we have a skewed understanding of the word Clergy as a result… Hence, it becomes easy to confuse people when we confuse the modern understanding of the term “clergy” with citing the “old use” as it was applied to the “deaconess”, or even the Reader.
The notion of “entering the altar to receive Holy Communion” may be easy to explain as well. Today, retired priests who can’t serve due to ailments or old age, who may be sitting outside observing, will also “enter the altar” to Commune with the clergy (maybe you’ve also seen a couple of them go in with their walking canes, etc at the appropriate time). They always have that privilege to receive Holy Communion before the people, even though they don’t officially serve on that day. We also forget that in the day of the Barberini Codex, all people Communed first by receiving the Body of Christ, and then subsequently Drinking the Blood from the Chalice, just like the bishops/priests/hierodeacons do today. This manuscript was written before the days of universally applying the method of Communing the sick (with the lavida)….so in context, it is possible back in the day, given that these diakonisses had a blessing to enter the altar anyway (like nuns and certain “neokorisses” today), it is likely that the Church decided granted them a privilege to receive Holy Communion at the same time as the bishops / priests / hierodeacons), but it is extremely improbable that the deaconesses ever stood in front of the altar (where priests serve), or entered the bema from the beautiful gate…they would likely have entered the sanctuary from the side, like laypeople and altar boys do today during processions. The word bema has been used historically both in a narrow sense to only mean the tiny area in front of the altar & extending to the step extending out upon the solea, as well as the “general area” of the altar area at large. We have to be really careful with this context. It would be interesting if Mr. Theodorakis can enlighten us if the Barberini manuscript also mentions if anyone else – sub-deacons, Readers, Acolytes and other “assistants” – also received Holy Communion in the altar area…that would help provide even more context, right?
There is no doubt that the Church historically had this role of a “deaconess”. There is no doubt that historical remnants of that role can be seen even today at women’s monasteries, as well as in multiple parishes in Greece where the “neokoros” is an older woman, with a blessing to enter (from the side) the altar area in order to assist / clean / etc…again with restrictions about what she is able to touch on the altar itself. That is why there is no such word as “hiero-deaconess” like there is “hiero-deacon” (has ιερωσυνη – priesthood). This article has been well-researched of course. However, blindly quoting ancient codices and publishing them to a wider audience without sufficient historical context in an era where confusion is already abundant can lead to more confusion. This confusion and general lack of understanding is exactly what non-honest hierarchy would love to exploit in order to mask abhorrent “innovations” under a “false historical cover”…
It’s a good and necessary conversation, but let’s not get too excited just yet, either… it’s great for people to learn more about these matters, in part to keep “the educated ones” that St. Kosmas warned us about in check.
Markos, thanks for the very informative overview!
Just keep crazy woke Sister Vassa away from altar ok?
She’s perfect soulmate of Elpidoktonos
The 1954 PDF link of publication referenced in the updated article is excellent (great source & congratulations on this important publication), and sorts out / clarifies several points:
1) The use of the words χειροθεσια and χειροτονια with regard to deaconesses. Both have been used over the centuries, but it appears that later the word χειροτονια prevailed in the manuscripts. So, despite a separate debate on how our modern understanding of the words may differ from their use 1700 years ago, that otherwise settles this part of the discussion.
2) The χειροθεσια / χειροτονια of the deaconess appears to have been conducted in front of the altar, according to the manuscripts.
3) However, it is clear in the manuscripts that there was a distinct delineation between the tonsuring of male “deacon” and female “deaconess”, as well as their role / function:
A) First and foremost, what we have been saying all along in the original response above…on page 63, it clearly states that the deaconess had no official function at the altar (θυσιαστηριο), as did the male deacon. (η χειροτονηθεισα διακονισσα ουδεμιαν αναλαμβανει υπηρεσιαν παρα τω ιερω θυσιαστηριω)… This means that deaconesses did not fulfill the same liturgical duties as male deacons. On page 87, a quotation from Blastaris suggests that deaconesses “in the early centuries only”, may have had a special privilege to be present as observers in the altar area during services, but no more than that…also on page 87, it is likely that entry into the sanctuary was associated with certain duties (lamp-lighting, etc)…
B) As a stark supporting argument of “A”, the cited manuscripts on pages 57 & 63, it is clearly stated that the deaconess is NOT permitted to distribute Holy Communion just like the deacon. (…λαμβανουσα δε το ποτηριον εκ των του αρχιερεως χειρων ΟΥΔΕΝΙ ΜΕΤΑΔΙΔΩΣΙΝ, αλλ’ευθες επιτιθησιν αυτο τη αγια τραπεζη..) & (ειτα λαμβανουσαν το ποτηριον εκ των χειρων του αχριερεως ΜΗΔΕΝΙ ΜΕΤΑΔΙΔΟΝΑΙ, αλλ’ευθυς επιτιθεναι τουτο τη αγια τραπεζη…)
C) And to further support the distinction cited in “A”, again on pages 57 & 63 we read that the “ripidia” (items used for a fanning motion, and a form of which we see acolytes holding today in processions) were NOT given to the female deaconesses after tonsure, like they were given to their male counterparts, PRECISELY because the female deaconesses were never expected to assist with the Eucharist (these tonsurings were always conducted during divine Liturgy, as the PDF states earlier in the document)….[ και επιτιθεντα ταυτη τον αρχιερεα την χειρα, επευχεσθαι αμεμπτως αυτην το της διακονιας εργον επιτελεσαι, σωφροσυνην και σεμνην πολιτειαν μετερχομενην, και τοις αγιοις ουτω ναοις προσκαρτεριεν, ΟΥ ΜΗΝ ΚΑΙ ΤΟΙΣ ΑΧΡΑΝΤΟΙΣ ΜΥΣΤΗΡΙΟΙΣ ΥΠΗΡΕΤΕΙΝ ΕΠΙΤΡΕΠΕΙ, Η ΡΙΠΙΔΙΟΝ ΕΓΧΕΙΡΙΖΕΣΘΑΙ, ΩΣ ΕΠΙ ΤΟΥ ΔΙΑΚΟΝΟΥ…]
D) Other visible differences between the tonsure of deacon & deaconess were that the deaconess would stand (not kneel) and the orarion would be placed differently. Note at this point that in those days, when Christians were baptized, they also had something placed upon them…something called the “stavria”, which resembled these oraria…today we just put a baptismal cross on a chain around the baptized individual’s neck…so this concept of an orarion for a deaconess would not have been as strange back in those days as it seems to us today.
E) There are some interesting differences in various prayers according to the different eras (manuscripts cited in the PDF document) that shed additional light about the role of a deaconess…one of the prayers of tonsure cited on page 59 includes the phrase …ινα εκπαιδευη την γυναικειαν ταξιν… (…so that she may train the order of women…). Although it is technically a Nestorian manuscript, the document’s description of the role during that era can be disassociated from the larger Dogmatic debate in this historical contextualization.
F) The third part of the PDF also 100% clarifies that the Church has never allowed women to perform priestly (male) duties (even if they were present in the altar), and further delineates this particular role of a deaconess. Some of the “key roles” included general philanthropic work, instructors for women catechumens, being present (presumably as a witness) when women had to deal with deacons / priests / bishops, guarding the doors to make sure no one unbaptized entered during the Mysteries, maintaining the “womens’ section” of the church in proper order, etc….the big role that we’ve talked about before is assisting the priest with baptizing women, by placing oil/myrrh on their bodies, (assisting with disrobing/clothing, etc), to maintain “proper levels of decorum”.
G) A final delineation in the PDF points out that deaconesses were treated as lower in rank than male deacons, but higher than male sub-deacons, as cited in hierarchical order in the prayers of the liturgy of St. Iakovos.
This was an excellent citation though…thanks for linking it. Maybe one day someone will translate it into English.
Going forward though, let’s be clear about what the real purpose might be for deaconesses today…ministry in places like Saudi Arabia among the ranks of women under constant threat of martyrdom?…sure, that’s one scenario…Is the hierarchy planning to restore the old taxis of adult baptism, which was done with no clothing?…sure, that would be another scenario. Is the hierarchy planning to restore the practice of asking the “non-orthodox” to exit the main Katholikon of the church prior to the recitation of the Creed, as well as restore “womens’ sections” that would require someone to “maintain order”?…maybe that would be another scenario, too…
Otherwise, in our modern era, it doesn’t appear to be that urgent to force this issue, or “push the agenda” in the form of clergy-laity conferences, etc…
Thank you, Markos, for once again shedding light on a controversial topic. It seems overall, that the the role of the deaconess is not as relevant as it used to be, unless, as you say, the hierarchy revives older practices. It also appears that there is no connection between the present day controversial use of altar girls and deaconesses, other than using the new innovation of altar girls to introduce the next level heresy of female ordination.
I would very much like Helleniscope to cover the issue of female menstruation in worship and church service. It seems a taboo topic that has been discussed more in the circles of yiayia-ology than anywhere else and women have suffered unnecessary hardship as a result of the controversies surrounding this issue. In my opinion this issue should be clarified in our church before any altar girls are brought in. What a terrible oversight, to say the least.
Can either Alex, Markos or Rita answer this question: Why are some priests bringing 40 day old girls all the way around the altar table, while others are doing the “right” thing by bringing in the boys only?
Larissa,
Good topic, and good news.
Fountoulis, professor of liturgics in Thessaloniki wrote some detailed opinions on this topic back in the day… There is no doubt there is widespread variation and confusion surrounding this practice of 40 day blessing (“churching”) today.
To begin with, obviously, the infant is unbaptized, yet by default the Church will consider any infant born to an Orthodox family as an automatic “Catechumen”, which fully justifies priests reading pre-baptismal blessings for the child, etc.
Now, regarding your comment, there exists a lot of confusion today on this matter, resulting in a default situation based on everyone’s “local tradition”. According to the professor, the earliest manuscript citing a “segregation” of male / female was from the 15th century, and he finds it likely that the current-day practice of separating the two in this manner became common during the years of Ottoman occupation.
Prior to this, and throughout the Byzantine years, it appears all infants were taken into the sanctuary, but in some cases only the male would be processed around all 4 sides of the altar, whereas the female only around the 3 sides that the acolytes and non-clergy are permitted to walk around today.
The professor also points out that when all the ecclesiastical rules are followed strictly, priests and deacons are ONLY allowed to enter / exit the altar via the Beautiful Gate during SPECIFIED liturgical moments, and at all other times they must enter from the South or North doors (right/left). Arbitrary entrance through that gate is normally not allowed, even for clergy. Given that this traditional strictness (“the right thing” as you call it) is not always applied today by the clergy has led to more confusion on the question you raise. The professor reminds everyone that only tonsured priests / deacons are allowed to enter via the Beautiful Gate. All others use the North / South door. He feels that the “traditional” practice was likely an entrance for all (male / female) infants, but from the South door, NEVER FROM THE FRONT, and a procession around the back of the altar (never around the front for females [with a full circle around the altar still debatable based on manuscripts for males]), and exit from the North door.
It remains to be seen if this 30 to 40-year old published professor’s opinion is going to eventually influence local Synods and seminarians (new and old) to “standardize” the 40-day blessing practice in the future… In Greece, some of his former students who are now metropolitans may have already standardized… either way, the prayers are the same in all cases, and the Churching is always valid, even if some priests are unknowingly deviating from original tradition.