If we chose this title, in its current form, it is not to say that the woman deacon is the one who will later become a priest. Talking about a woman’s diaconate does not apply to her priesthood, or at least to its possibility, because the two matters are radically different, as we will see later.

Accordingly, it is impossible to easily and easily diagnose diaconate throughout the long history of the Church, because the references that deal with the subject with the desired degree of comprehensiveness have, in fact, adopted more than one practice, and were based on no standard or consideration. In addition, diaconate was known in the East, but in the West, it did not receive the appropriate amount of attention (*1)

When studying church history, we notice that the diaconate system is ancient, dating back to the time of the New Testament. We have the best example of this, what Saint Paul reported about Phoebe, the deacon of Canachri, which we will discuss in some detail and scrutiny.

Paul’s words about a deacon in the Church of Cenchrea (Romans 16:1-2) is a matter that has surprised scholars, and many have written about it, with varying opinions and approaches. There is a group that saw the diaconate of women on the basis of (Romans 16:1-2) as a must, based on the New Testament on the basis of Phoebe in particular, while another group began to reject the diaconate of women under the pretext that Phoebe’s mother was not a deacon in the known liturgical and sacramental sense. Another group saw deaconesses as mere assistants to the priests, with no connection to worship and the administration of the sacraments. While another group drew a different line for itself based on the word itself. Has the church known a woman deacon in its long history?

In his interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans (16:1-2), the scholar Origen mentions that the divine Apostle Paul teaches us, through the apostolic authority given to him, that women can be deacons in the church. And Origen himself added: “I myself am ready to associate Phoebe with Lot, who used to host strangers, and by his act he hosted the angels themselves.”

However, in reality, an insurmountable complex arises before us if we take Origen’s position. If we accept that a woman can be a deacon in every sense of the word, then a spontaneous question arises: What hinders a woman deacon from ascending to the priestly office? In other words, wouldn’t Phoebe’s model be an incentive to say that there is something in the Holy Bible that calls for the priesthood of women? If one of the women’s tasks is to give life and manage the affairs of the home, including undertaking general educational affairs, then what hinders this venerable role of women from fulfilling their duties? Is it applicable to the scope of care as well? What is the difference between caring for the family on the one hand, and caring for the general public on the other hand? If a woman can be a priest, this logically entails the possibility of her being promoted to the episcopal position, and this makes the proposition thorny and complex.

What we know in reality, and through approaching Christian history, is that there is only one form associated with women’s service in the church, by which I mean diaconate. Of course, at the same time, we do not know women from the Orthodox perspective except as mothers and nuns. That is, it is either in the family, or in the monastery. Do you know what was written about Phoebe, the deacon of Cenchrea, about whom there is a lot of controversy?

Opinion differs among theologians about the identity and role of Deaconess Phoebe, especially since a group of theologians sees this deaconess in the ranks of secular women, and some of them see her as equivalent to the deacon in service and dignity. This means, if we accept the legitimacy of a woman deacon, that the diaconate of a woman is a legitimate matter. By that, I mean, this diaconate is conditional on the one hand, but at the same time it is different from the diaconate of a man, which usually rises to the priesthood.

Accordingly, Orthodox theologians agree that there is a big difference between the female diaconate and the priesthood. Likewise, everyone agrees that the deacon and the deaconess do not perform the sacrifice, nor do they bless the people. The proof of this is the arrangement of the deacon’s funeral, which is what happens to all laity. From this angle, the presence of a deaconess is not an incentive to think about the possibility of her advancement to the priestly office.

We said that the divine Paul mentions in his letter to the Romans the great deacon Phoebe, and explicitly calls her “the deaconess” (Romans 16:1). However, the New Testament does not provide any detailed information outside of this verse about the functions of deaconesses. Therefore, we must rely on the history of the Church, and the decisions of the ecumenical and local councils, at the same time, in order for the picture to be complete, so that we can reach the answer.

In the decisions of the ecumenical and local councils, especially Law 11 of the Latakia Council, there are hints and signs that may be useful to us, so let us stop at them: “There is no room for there to be female elders and female presidents in the church.”

This law does not provide us with a clear background on the issue of the diaconate of women, and therefore it is a confusing and puzzling text. Indeed, it is more ambiguous and ambiguous than the Latakia Council itself, which we do not know much about the date of its convening and the membership of its participants. Most of the matter is that our information assumes that this council was held in the second half of the fourth century. But this is not enough to exhaust the difficulties and challenges that arise before us from time to time, especially today. The reason is that there is no complete text of the laws of this council, so we must make a compromise effort through which we crystallize the final answer for ourselves, and to the extent that the available data about this council allow. What does Law 11 of the aforementioned council refer to? What is the message that we should carry out as a result of our acquaintance with the climate of the Council and its decisions? Therefore, who are the sheikhs and abbesses referred to by the council?

In fact, theologians and jurists did not agree on a single answer in this regard, and that is according to the sources approved to prove the existence of sheikhs presbytides As Law 11 states, it is only available in this Law. All we know is that there are sheikhs who have been entrusted with a mission and a mission.

On this level, and in this context, the famous jurist Zonaras says, in this particular regard: “The ancients had a number of customs, which may be subject to change over time.” The interpretation of Zonaras’s words is that such customs fall with circulation and use over the days, that is, they become forgotten due to more modern laws that replace them. One of these customs - in his view - was the appointment of sheikhs and chief priestesses whose job was to monitor the women who were entering the church, and they would guide them to where to sit and stand. However, Law 11 of the Council of Latakia does not address women with a specific priestly mission.”

What we know, on the other hand, and about the priesthood of women in the early church, would help us get out of the bottle to a new hypothesis: Is it not reasonable, for example, that widows in the early church were the ones referred to in the aforementioned law? In order to support this hypothesis, we can refer to what Bishop Epiphanius of Cyprus wrote in his book PanarionWhere he says: “And the eldest among the widows were called presbytides.”

What is new is that the aforementioned saintly bishop put these words in the context of his comment on the heresy of the Colleridians (Collyridians), in order to confirm to the followers of this heresy that the Church has never required female priests and deacons (see his aforementioned book 79:4). In fact, we do not have conflicting or contradictory information that would lead us to doubt or challenge the words of Bishop Epiphanius, even though their general nature is defensive. polemis. We also repeat that the Church has known female elders, yet it has never known a woman priest in the liturgical and sacramental sense of the word.

In a Syriac document from the fifth century entitled “The Covenant of Our Lord Jesus Christ”IERahmani“The writer mentions sheikhs without specifying the nature of the task assigned to them, and without mentioning details that would reveal this mysterious job. The important thing is that the writer does not mention the elders when he shows off the servants of the temple, and when he talks about communion, which leads us to think that the elders mentioned are among the ranks of widows and have never been in a sanctifying liturgical service. What is the meaning of this?

This means that the title of Sheikha was, in ancient times, given to the widow who was supposed to have lived in virtue and piety after the death of her husband. For this very reason, the great Paul honors women over sixty(30) They are possessed of piety and virtue. However, we do not find in any of the manuscripts any reference to a female superior or priestess in the liturgical sense. In short, talk about a female priesthood in the first millennium AD is baseless, as widows and priestesses are two facts that do not coincide. In support of this, we note, from the Apostolic Constitutions in particular, that the phrase “elderly” refers only to a woman of great age (Titus 2:3-5).

The key to the mystery behind Law 11 of the aforementioned local Latakia Council is not found in the Council itself, so we must search elsewhere to decipher its codes and mysteries. Accordingly, if we look and delve into the history of the liturgy, we find that the Eucharistic meeting was as follows: In the middle there was the bishop’s throne, surrounded on the left and right by the priests sitting, the deacons standing, while the laity stood in separate positions. In this distribution, there is no mention of priestesses, which actually calls for surprise, as the book of the Constitutions of the Apostles and the Apostolic Constitutions should mention priestesses, albeit briefly. What contributes to some clarification is that women, who are not mentioned in the liturgical order, are excluded from the priesthood, and at least, this is the picture in the apostolic era.

Then, when we read the book (Hermas the Shepherd), the Arabization of Patriarch Elias IV’s Trigram of Mercy, we notice that the writer criticizes the prophets who used to take the first seats in the Eucharistic meeting..

Hermas himself refused to sit in the first place, and therefore, in the book of Hermas, there is a reason for women not to assume a sacramental liturgical role, which removes the veil and ambiguity, even if only a little, from the Law (11) of the mentioned Latakia Council, and therefore does not refer to female priestesses. If women were capable and it was known that they could be promoted to the priesthood, then we must find a hint, even a small hint, of that in the writings of that time, a hint, even a brief one, especially in the relationships between neighboring churches, which do not offer us anything on this level.(31).

When we read the acts of the Council of Chalcedon, especially Canon 15, we find it saying the following: “No woman may receive the laying of hands as a deacon when she is under forty, and this happens after a careful examination. But if she despises God’s grace after obtaining the laying of hands on her... and gives herself up for marriage, then let her and the man who united with her be valiant.” How do you become a deacon in the clerical sense, if there is a condition (the age of forty), while the information we have indicates that the candidate for the priesthood is thirty years old, while the candidate for the diaconate is a person who has reached twenty-five? How to remove the contradiction?

We find in Laws (14) and (40) of the Fifth-Sixth Council (in trulloThe requirement of the age of forty, which was previously sixty, so the law (40) of the aforementioned council deems that Christians have advanced morally, which necessitated the amendment from “60” to “40.” If we look at Canon (12) of the Fourth Council of Carthage, we find in it a mention of the functions of deacons, so let us hear: “Widows and consecrated women who have been chosen to assist in the baptism of women must be educated in their work so that they are able to teach stupid and rural women efficiently and correctly how to answer during baptism.” , on the questions asked to them, and how they live after they have been baptized.”

It is clear that the data in our hands do not address the priesthood of women, nor do they view them as a servant of the sanctifying mysteries, which is what St. Epiphanius of Cyprus mentions in “Heresies 71 - Chapter 3.”

In addition, the book “Apostolic Constitutions” says: “Revere the deacon as if she were the Holy Spirit, and do not let her do anything without the deacon. Likewise, do not let any woman go to the deacon or to the bishop without the deacon” (Chapter 2:26). The same book mentions in another place: “The deaconesses should distribute charity to the widows...” (Chapter 3: 63), and also: “Let the deaconesses stand at the entrances of the churches in order to regulate the seating of women in the church” (Chapter 2: 57), and (Chapter 3: 15 ).

It also states: “It is not permissible for a widow to undertake any higher education, lest she sin.”(32) (Chapter 3:5). However, he soon prevents her from doing so again in another place (Chapter 3: 6-9). Likewise, in (Chapter 3: 9), we see him preventing the deacon from performing the profession of a priest, because such work is the practice of pagans. It is mentioned elsewhere that the deacon himself does not have the right to baptize and bless, and that the work of the deacon is limited to guarding the doors and assisting the priests in baptizing women in order to preserve public morals (Chapter 8: 28).

In the Epistle to the Romans (16:1-2), the great Paul praises the deacon, Phoebe. After this digression, can we conclude that Phoebe can rise to the priestly level because she is a deacon? Doesn't it contradict? (33) Is this position of Phoebe consistent with Saint Paul’s general position on women as stated in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 11:1-12)? (See also Romans 16:23 and Colossians 4:15.)

In fact, it seems a weak mystery to talk about the priesthood of women in New Testament literature, let alone general church literature. If the great Paul, through his words about the great Phoebe, wanted to make her a clerical position, that is, make her a priest, then why do we find him clearly speaking about the necessity of women’s silence in the church (Accords 14: 34-40)? If we say that there is no evidence of the priesthood of women in church laws at least until the fourth century AD, how will this conclusion oblige us to assume that Phoebe can rise to the level of priesthood? Likewise, assuming the possibility of women being a priestess would oblige us to say that Jesus made a mistake when he overlooked and neglected to encourage women to enter the priestly profession, which means that it is self-evident then that the Virgin Mary herself would be in a dignity that would allow her to be a priestess, and this is what we do not find. Not at all in the New Testament. The question now is: How do we accept women’s diaconate if women are excluded from the function of church sacraments? This talk leads us, as always, to say that the Church does not accept the presence of female priests (panarion4:79).

The question related to the priesthood of women is not doctrinal in nature, and the answer to it must be ecclesiastical and life-like even though it is not doctrinal. Therefore, the question we are dealing with relates, from the Orthodox point of view, to human participation in divine life. See: John Kermeris (“The Status and Service of Women in the Orthodox Church.”) Athens 1978), and also: (Thomas FitzGerald: An Orthodox View of the Question Related to Conditionalism).

If we look at Saint John Chrysostom, in his interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans (Homily 30), we see him praising the life of Phoebe and calling on men and women to follow her example and imitate her morals. In his interpretation of (1 Timothy 3:11), he says: “Let women likewise be good people, not slanderers, austere, and faithful in all things. Deacons must not be married more than once, and must take good care of their children and their daughters, for those who serve well will attain a high status and great boldness in their faith in Christ Jesus.” However, this refers not only to women, but also to deacons, so he says: “Some say that this text was spoken about women in general, but this is not true. So why would the Messenger include anything about women in his topic? He is talking about those who are in the rank of deaconess because this rank is necessary, useful, and honorable” (Sermon 11, in the interpretation of the Epistle to Timothy).

This is seen as tradition Tradition Phoebe is an example of a deaconess, indeed the first deaconess in the church. Likewise, the second part of the deaconesses’ prayers compares the woman who is to be ordained with Phoebe, so the church asks, through the bishop’s tongue, for the Lord to provide this new deaconess with the help and strength from above to carry out her sacred work exactly as He did. With Phoebe, whom he had previously called into service.

Likewise, the wife of Saint Gregory of Nyssa took the sun immediately after her husband ascended to the episcopate. Also, Deaconess Olympia, who was very close to Saint John Chrysostom, distributed her wealth after the death of her husband, and built a hospital and a women’s monastery in Constantinople, in which she was both the president and the deaconess. When John was exiled, she was also exiled, so John wrote to her (17 letters) from exile, which are among the eyes of Christian literature. Also, Saint Apollonia (February 9) is one of the deaconesses who is commemorated in the Roman calendar. This virtuous woman lived in the third century in Alexandria. One day, a number of thieves attacked her, broke her teeth, skinned her, and burned her body. There is also Saint Cassini (24 K2), who was the daughter of a sheikh in the fifth century. One day, she was offered a disgraceful marriage, so she fled to Cyprus with two of her maids, so Saint Bishop Epiphanius of Cyprus sent her to Alexandria to become a deacon there at the hands of Patriarch Theophilus. After that, this great woman founded a monastery in the name of Stephen, the first martyr, and became a spiritual mother(34) For many girls in the neighboring village(35) For the monastery.

The deaconess has a great role in the book “The Teaching of the Apostles,” and her dignity exceeds that of pious widows. They are the deaconesses who help the bishops when baptizing women(36). Their role also includes conveying the kiss of love in the Divine Mass, and closing the doors to prevent the unbaptized from entering the Mass. In Law (15) of the Council of Chalcedon, it was stated that a deaconess must be forty years old. While we find in Justinian’s legislation that the deacon is in the ranks of the clergy(37).

In any case, and whatever is said, the deacon does not help in establishing the Divine Sacrifice, meaning that the task entrusted to her was never Eucharistic, as is the case with the deacon. However, John Kremers considers the deacon to be in the ranks of the deacon, meaning that she is included in the sacramental system. He also sees another mission in it, which is to spread the faith. His argument for this is that the Church knew in its history a group of women who were equivalent to the apostles. (isaposstles) as indicated in the Orthodox calendar and liturgy.

It was also known that deaconesses worked in caring for orphans, in addition to teaching the faith, and they had social contact related to the life of the church, such as visiting hospitals, nursing homes, and prisons.(*2)(38). However, we do not know in Christian history that a woman rose to the priesthood, although many of them shone and shone with their presence at children’s baptism celebrations.

The presence of deaconesses was a vital matter in the conscience of the Apostolic Church. The woman in the Bible was created to be a helper for the man. Rather, she was asked to submit to her man, as the latter submits to Christ, and as Christ submits to the Father (1 Corinthians 11:3). This does not mean, in the context of the speech, the belief and decision of the inferiority of women in the face of the superiority of men, but Chrysostom, in his sermon on the Gospel of Matthew (7, 8), clearly teaches us to imitate our wives if they live in piety, and if they are wiser than their husbands. (After all, how many homes exist in which life continues because of the wife and not because of the husband).

In fact, modern women should write about the “women’s priesthood” in addition to everything that men have contributed to this topic over the course of two thousand years. Women have a say in what society asks of them and suggests to them, because they know their aptitudes and talents. It is also appropriate for us to ask, extracting opinions and extracting positions, about the opinion of pious women and boys, pious and educated, pious married and single women, about their opinion about becoming priests. Eve must have her say about the priesthood proposed to her.

We cannot look at the priesthood of women in a vacuum, and on the basis of a revolutionary tendency that insists on an empty and useless equality between men and women. We cannot call for the priesthood of women simply because the present society tends to talk about the Unisex. Women have their own opinion on the matter, and the issue is not just a fad and fashion. In the end, it is a question that can only be answered on the basis of the Church, coupled with deep listening to the woman’s opinion on the issue before her. Likewise, the attempt to push women into the priesthood, by suggesting to them that this is a demand and an issue, would lead to canceling and dismantling the Holy Bible, and denying the Lord, because He did not activate the female priesthood.

Thus, once again, the priesthood of women(39) If it were proposed, it would entail a rejection of the heritage and a modification in the practice of the Church and in revelation, and this is impossible and unthinkable. If we demand the priesthood of women, this involves calling out the deficiency of the man and his lack of completeness and eligibility for the priesthood. In fact, our suffering is great because of our need for clergy and because of the lack of clergy. Likewise, the suffering of the existing clergy is great and great with their parishioners. Indeed, people love the existing clergy, as they love the graves, as the Tri-Merciful Father Alexander Schmemann says in his book “The Church, the World, and the Annunciation.” People see in the priest in the morning all bad things and all bad things. Indeed, many of them fear priests, because of the blackness of their clothing. If this is the case of men, what if the priesthood of women is activated? What will we say about it? However, the Orthodox Church insists on equality between men and women before God. Despite this, the Church, since its existence, has exempted women, and even excluded them from the priesthood, and has never assigned them to any of the official clerical ranks (deacon, priesthood, and bishopric). This, in brief, is the teaching of the Church based on the Holy Bible and the Holy Tradition.

In fact, there is no place in the Bible that indicates, even circumstantially, that the Lord and His apostles and their successors assigned women and girls to the priesthood, and to one of the official clerical degrees.(40). The administrative, educational, and sanctifying role in the church was assigned to men only (Luke 22:14). And to men only, Jesus said, “Do this in remembrance of me” (see also Matthew 28:9-10), (Mark 16:9), (John 20:14-18). Likewise, none of the apostles presented the appointment of a woman, and no woman priest or bishop appeared among the successors of the apostles over two thousand years.

Women entered the field of work in the temple for service only, not for the purpose of administering the sacrament of thanksgiving (see 1 Corinthians 11:3-15), (1 Corinthians 14:34-40), (1 Timothy 2:11-14). We cannot forget what the Apostle had previously said about women in the Church of Corinth: “Women must be silent in the church” (1 Corinthians 14:34, 40). We also conclude from reading (1 Corinthians 11:3-15) that Christ is the head of man, and the man is the head of woman. The man does not cover his head, but the woman does (see 1 Timothy 2:11-14), (1 Timothy 3:2-5), (1 Timothy 3:5-17), and so on. This comes to emphasize the impossibility of women joining the priesthood.

Accordingly, women in the Orthodox Church occupy the forefront of worship. Indeed, throughout the long history of the Church, they have been a pillar member and an obligatory element for the family and the Renaissance. Many of them had the blessing and grace of martyrdom like men, and served like men in various church fields. Indeed, some of them excelled to the point that they surpassed men in strength, momentum, and generosity. For example, but not limited to us, Mary, the Mother of God, is more spacious than the heavens and most holy. If Mary, who was completely pure and honored throughout all generations, was excluded from the priesthood, then where does the demand for women’s priesthood remain? The exclusion of women from the priesthood is not a form of our backwardness and regression. If we agree that tradition and worship see nothing wrong with excluding Mary Most Holy from priestly service, how much more natural would it be to exempt all the women of the earth from the priesthood.

 

 

---

(30) Three-scores

(31) It is important to know that we do not find mention of the female priesthood in all churches in the East, and this simply means that Christians are alien to the female priesthood.

(32) The great Paul himself asks women to be silent in church, so how can she be a deaconess in the liturgical sense if he demands her silence (Achor 14: 34-35)? How can Phoebe, a deacon, be a candidate for the priesthood if Paul requires women to remain silent? This is a contradiction.

(33) Such a position cannot be understood in a historical context from an Orthodox perspective, as women have never been priestesses.

(34) See C.Behr -sigal, “the meaning of the participation of women in the life of the church.”

(35) It is worth noting from this group of names that women have a very great status in the church, and yet none of them were priests.

(36) See, Evangelos Theodore, “The ordination of the diaconesses.” Athens 1954, Greek.

(37) This phrase refers to the dignity of the deacon in the church, not to her inclusion in the clerical corps (author). That is, the service of the deacon takes place in close proximity to the service of the seminarians.

(*1)(*2) See Evangelos Theodore (Ibid), p.57.

(38) I think it is very strange, and even difficult, for a woman today to care for prisoners. This is a matter that seems difficult to me in the gendered era, no matter how distinguished this woman is in piety, virtue, and firmness (the author).

(39) How do we demand the priesthood of women today, since heads of state are generally male? It is as if general human life has defined roles for men and women alike. Demanding women's priesthood is nothing but a violation of the laws of human life. In my opinion, this proposal deserves study and discussion.

(40) See, Trempella, the dogmatic teachnig of the Orthodox church, Athens 1961, V.III p.292 (Greek).