The function of the deaconess had never been of a liturgical nature. St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite documents and substantiates historically the responsibilities of the deaconesses in the Holy Rudder (Comments of St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite on the 19th canon of the First Ecumenical Synod is a book of unsurpassed holy-spiritual and scientific value). They would "diacono" in the same way that "ekklesarisses" help out today inside female monasteries. In particular, they would help female catechumens get undressed or dressed during their baptismal service, or to help cover their bodies with holy myrrh, something that would be inappropriate to be performed by the baptising clerics.

Also, in accordance with the taxis (order) kept during first-Christian times, the deaconesses, as neokorisses that they were, would place those arriving at the divine Worship to the appropriate part of the holy temple, either inside the main temple or at the narthex, depending on their spiritual ecclesiastic situation.

However, the most important duty that the deaconesses used to have was taking care of the poor, the widows, the orphans and all the other people who had real needs.

Apart from their liturgical duties, spirit-carrying deacons and deaconesses would be found on the front line of always-valued good old charity (philanthropy).

It is however a fact that the entire liturgical experience of our Ecclesia had already suspended the institution of deaconesses from early on. This long blessed silencing of the institution of the deaconesses also keeps our responsible Hierarchs around the world to continue respecting this holy cessation of the institution.

Already by the 7th until the 12th century, our Ecclesia, holding the fullness (pleroma) of the truth and faith in Christ, "pregnant" in apostolic, martyric, devout (hosia) and episcopal (i.e. governing) experience, is found managing her institutions and her pastoral practices according to what is most advantageous for her members in their totality (pleroma), namely salvation.

Thus, the institution of deaconesses was silenced discreetly for many and various reasons. Perhaps we could "decode" a few of these in what follows:

1. After the 7th century, the dogmatic teaching of our Ecclesia on many important issues matured and was crystallised, after the long dogmatic discussions [note: not to "discover" new dogmas, but to understand these dogmas given to us "once and for all" (Jude 1) in a better way by improving e.g. our terminology, esp. in light of newly developing heresies that threatened salvation] of the first Seven Ecumenical Synods. Together with them, the ecclesiastical institutions also matured, with the result of having the gradual reduction of the institution of deaconess and (eventually) its permanent cessation.

2. In the meantime, the Theometoric dogma (i.e. on the Virgin Mary) took its proper (orthos) place inside the Body of the Ecclesia. The "Mother and Virgin" became the most powerful archetype for faithful females, in order for them to prefer the inner maternal charisma or the virginal life, dedicating themselves to Christ, to the responsible duties of a deaconess, which could be better taken up by male deacons. Male men do not have the exclusive responsibility for childbirth, raising children or for the responsible dispatch of the many services offered (diaconiae) inside the monastic sisterhoods in Christ. The Mother and Virgin became the most compatible archetype to the female psyche, which took the place of blessed motherhood and its consequences, corresponding itself to the Theometoric motherhood. Typical examples such as that of Anthousa hold a select position in the body of the Ecclesia, recognised as mothers and faithful wives who had even been admired by idolater male men.

If the will of our Lord Jesus Christ had been expressed in such a way as to have never accepted the function of this institution of deaconesses, then perhaps the feminist argument that the Ecclesia discriminates between the two genders in favour of the males would have had some basis. But even then a very essential argument would exist (and still does): The very God-man, our Lord Jesus Christ, did not even give the gift (charisma) of diaconia to His Holy Mother. She certainly deserved the bestowal of the highest of the charismas, that of Archpriesthood and Priesthood. Nevertheless, our Lady Theotokos stayed decisively (apophatically one would say) away from such demands. The Orthodox Ecclesia honours and blesses the Panaghia as Queen of the Heavens and as the first and only Spirit-credited Mother and Virgin; except for being able to be credited any of the orders of Priesthood. And this of course is not at all chance. Our Lady Theotokos, as a New Eve, having been evangelised (during her Annunciation) and divinised (having reached the stage of theosis) with the uncreated Grace of the Holy Spirit was credited the one and only Theometoric charisma as well as the charisma of (Ever-) Virginity. Thus she restores the deviation of our foremother Eve, who lost Paradise and who also led her husband to offence, exactly because of her autonomous demand for theosis under the deceitful advice of the Snake. Our Panaghia, above and away from any autonomous will and demand, through and after charismatic use of her well-meaning will, conceives through the Holy Spirit, bears, gives birth, sarantises and raises Christ, watches Him live until His death, watches Him first as Resurrected and participates eternally, translated into the Heavens, becoming herself the most christocatholic All-Holy face (person) that engulfs all men (male or female) with her never-ending intercessions, especially the pious and Orthodox faithful (who honour her in an appropriate i.e. orthodox manner).

If the Lady Theotokos and all the Holy females that came after her always had as their first and final aim the state of theosis in Christ, whereas the orders of Priesthood, starting from the one of a deacon, constitute charismatic diaconiae (services) inside the Body of Christ and of the Ecclesia granted by the Saviour Christ Himself, why should there be any demand for the hieratical deaconate by the faithful females of the Church? Why do even some shepherds of the Ecclesia feel that the females are being belittled by not participating in diaconic priesthood?

3. Unfortunately, Western humanism constricted the God-man measures of the undivided Ecclesia of Christ, "divided" Her (of course by that we mean distanced itself from the Ecclesia since the Ecclesia is undivided) and turned "Her" through the Papic and Protestant plani (delusion) into a secular organism. Together with "Her" (the fake "ecclesia") the anthropological limits were also constricted, since the uncreated Grace of the Holy Spirit became unknown, was turned into created "grace" with abalienating consequences for the life of the people living in the West.

Motherhood began to be depreciated gradually both by the social environment and within the Woman's own soul. Female personality was transformed into an object of flesh-worship and other exploitation. Therefore her self-esteem as an icon of God was diminished in the collective consciousness of the people, and as a result she would not even be able to imagine herself on the hieratic post of a deaconess; but nor was the society able to even bear seeing her rise to a hieratic post. Therefore, to the degree that the Orthodox Church, affected by secularist humanist mentality [again we mean the various people inside the Church who become affected for the Ecclesia herself is spotless and cannot be affected by any humanism], loses her respect towards Woman, she cannot imagine a female on a hieratic post. Brief inner spiritual processes keep the respect of people towards Woman on a purely secular level, not allowing any room for female participation in the Holy Orders; not even to the lowest of sub-orders, namely to that of the deaconess.

It is true that, at least on Hellenic soil, the issue on Ordination of Females would not have come to the forefront of the "news" had we continued to enjoy the freedom we used to have even a few years ago; indeed not just in Greece and the State Church, but also in our worldwide Church and the world in general. The New Order of things defines the things of the world, leading all towards the pan-religion. Therefore it is not surprising to find that those who direct the things of the world also promote, through New Age humanism, practices of equalisation of the various religions' parachurches. The ordination of females makes the Orthodox and the Protestants look more similar, more equal, since the Protestants have already accepted females in all three orders of "priesthood" through ordination of females (those that do accept the three orders of course, or rather their view of what the orders are supposed to be). We look more and more "equal".

(A parenthesis: the same type of issue can be found in other aspects of our faith especially those not touching on dogmatic issues; e.g. in the States, it is not uncommon for some Diaspora temples to still accommodate some sort of organ, despite the clear distaste of Blessed Chrysostom on the use of instruments and the fact that instruments ceased in New Testament times - all this in another article. While one can speak of the problems of modernity in the Diaspora etc., it would be more honest to note that some of these limited liturgical innovations on Music came up in the 1960s, thanks to the combined efforts of certain innovating Hierarchs who seem to have known fully well what they were doing: this way, the Orthodox would begin to look more similar to the Papists who also have organs. However their plan has not succeeded because many parishes that used to have an organ have utterly rejected this innovation to this day and bravo to them.)

If also we Orthodox accept females on the first level of Priesthood through ordination, then the road opens up to offer them Priesthood on the other two levels of diaconia, using analogous rationalistic - exo-ecclesiastical excuses and arguments, like the ones that are being used in order to succeed in the re-instating of deaconesses in the Orthodox Church.

In the meantime, we observe a great bustle in the bosom of the Papic parachurch for the establishment of females through ordination on the orders of Priesthood. Lack of male men plagues the orders of the Papist clergy, due to the cacodoxical institution of compulsory celibacy that we have discussed on the site; and not only. For this reason, female papist monastic sisterhoods, influenced by "new" pastoral protestant practices, content rather seriously to participate in the papist holy orders. If we do not appraise the over-ten-centuries-old blessed cessation of the institution of deaconesses with ecclesiological criteria, then we will of course reel to and fro like drunkards within the suffocating limits of in-world non-Orthodox rationale.

Unfortunately, the secularist mindset (humanist or globalising) pushes us all to become doped with the drugs of New Age. From being beggars of the divine Grace of the divine mercy, we are being taught (by world media) that we must become contesters, to demand things from God (our "rights"); with the danger of losing that which is most needed and precious to us, namely our salvation.

Unfortunately, modern-day feminist movements faze both female and male men. Males and females, male feminists and female feminists, should (if they really cared about the real face of Woman and her value), at least through the power and persuasiveness of their spoken word, not allow the degradation of the female persona inside the extensive and ever-expanding sex market. They should, through a God-given mightiness and zeal, condemn the cheap and abusive treatment of females today being conducted in every possible way by those who remain unaccountable for their way of dealing with women's affairs.

Feminist shepherds and Christian feminist females need to help in every way possible so that females who work do not become an easy sex object in the hands of their male bosses, whether in the public or the private sector.

At any rate, the many problems of females today are certainly not the "feminist demand" of reinstating the institution of deaconesses.

If we love and care for the Woman (and the term "feminism" as a non-Christian ideology shares nothing with the true love of our Holy Fathers and Mothers shown to the face/person of the Woman), we need to inspire her christo-pedagogically in order for her to escape the unattainable vision of Career or at least help her (after she flies high in the skies of a career) land safely in the noble role of the Wife inside the honest and blessed Marriage and the highest and extremely blessed role of motherhood (lived of course according to the Theometoric prototypic example).

Extremely happy and always blessed pious Christian mothers never think of contentions of ecclesiastical "posts", since they are paid by the crucified-for-our-sake Christ to offer these instead to their (male) children and to their husbands.

If we truly respect and love the Woman, we can help her find even a small part-time occupation in order for her to be able to face, together with her husband, today's difficult financial situations.

If we truly love and respect the Woman, there is no need to enchant her with the sinful prospect of the deaconess institution; but we can (with all the power of our word and discernment that we possess as Orthodox Church) to plead our governors that they obey the laws that protect the Woman in order that she does not become an object (res) of exploitation.

If we truly love and respect the Woman, we should project the humility of the All-Holy personality of the Lady Theotokos with which she nurtured and raised our Lord, with which she accompanied Him simply, in humility and silently, until His burial and His Resurrection. It is in this way that she will raise children to become Saints, like the Saintly Mothers of the Holy Hierarchs did, who of course never even thought of becoming ordained as deaconesses. Could not blessed Chrysostom's own mother, who lived for many years as a widow, have contested to become ordained as a deaconess?

More specifically, how could the holy hegumenesses (female hegumens, abbesses) and the Holy female monastics (nuns), who know of the blessed cessation of the institution of a deaconess, ask to be ordained as deaconesses? With what boldness (parresia) and with what attitude would they proceed to ask this? Since they know that the source of all these demands is the hidden secularised ecumenism, how can they fall victims of this secularist mindset? The holy hegumenesses and the holy female monastics have our Lady Theotokos as an all-holy archetype of the monastic life in Christ. Therefore how, with what courage, with what boldness will they dare ask to be ordained as deaconesses, a charisma the Ever-Virgin never asked for but which was also not gifted to Her by Christ?

The various "academic theologians" (technologians, as St. Basil calls them) who support the ordination of females bring as an example St. Nectarius who allegedly ordained, as they believe, two deaconesses. We humbly believe that "the exception proves the rule". Even though the Saint carried out a pastoral action that was not common for his time, he did not manage this way to activate the institution of deaconesses … simply because that had not been his purpose! Had the Saint also been accompanying us today in body (apart from in spirit) he would not want his nuns to become the first victims of the ecumenist globalising feminist mindset of the institution of deaconesses, something which stems from a study of his very rich ecclesiological erudition and extremely discerning pastoral sensitivity for which he was known for. However, a more careful examination of the events shows a different picture. During the last Hierarchy of the Church of Greece of October 2004, His Holy Excellence of Hydra, after careful research, ascertained the Hierarchs that St. Nectarius had established two nuns as sub-deaconesses without endowing them with any new ritualistic diaconia, except for only a "blessing" (i.e. an okay) for them to be able to give communion to the other nuns when they needed it. In all other respects the two nuns would continue to carry out the usual work of a neokorissa, who would serve ("diacono") inside the holy step, as it happens in all modern-day female monasteries.

As the technologians are forced to admit, after St. Nectarius' times, the examples we have are also very scant (and are explained in a similar manner, i.e. they constitute pastoral oeconomia). We find Archbishop Chrysostom Papadopoulos who established deaconesses only in Aegina while former Archbishop Christodoulos had established the hegumeness of the Holy Monastery of St. Spyridon in Promyrius as a deaconess, while he was Metropolitan of Demetrias.

All the above examples show abundantly clear that the Body of our Holy Orthodoxy around the world appears extremely unwilling to accept a many-centuries-old silenced institution such as this; both among its Bishops and among its Laity.

(A parenthesis: the same holds true in the issue of a small number of organs in Worship in the Diaspora, although unlike the above examples their presence is not due to pastoral oeconomia but a temporary anomaly turned down even by parishes where this innovation had first been imposed upon and which will eventually be effaced, to be sure. Also, even if the issue of an organ had expanded around the temples of most Orthodox Churches it would still be a far less serious problem than the issue of re-instating deaconesses in the Church would be.)

The modernist "academicians" however continue to motion Archbishops and Bishops (but in vain) to introduce ordinations for deaconesses since, as they say, the ordination of deaconesses continues "in potentia". So does that mean then that for more than 1000 years the practice of the Catholic (i.e. Orthodox, not Papist) Ecclesia with her thousands of Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Monks and Laity has been in spiritual and liturgical … aphasia, none of whom ever thought to re-instate this institution? Not one of them during all these centuries had been thinking in a liturgical manner with the exception of one, two or three cases that were mentioned above? That passes for logic among some circles, does it?

As regards the ordination of hegumenesses to deaconesses we observe that the hegumenic post/deaconate of the Ecclesia is the first in order inside the Holy Monastery and is above the one of the deaconess. It is not possible for a hegumeness, with her innumerable institutional obligations opposite Christ and each one of the sisters individually, to also have the responsibilities that come with the post of a deacon.

As regards the nuns, for many centuries now they alternate in the diaconate of the holy steps (those who are found more suited to this task); without any of them having set demands (that will certainly come forward through latent and clandestine antagonistic contentions for ordination). The Orthodox priests know (from the subtle and sensitive work of holy confession performed in female monasteries) that the position of the Holy Hegumeness is an extremely difficult one. There is need for a lot of holy-spiritual enlightenment and discernment in order for her to be able to keep the spiritual balances between the female monastics that she has near her throughout the course of the day. If some of them become ordained as deaconesses, we will be faced with never-ending problems of antagonism, even greater than any already existing ones; and perhaps it is for this reason that the all-wise affectionate mother, our Orthodox Ecclesia, having had an experience on the institution of monasticism for a long time, ended the institution and ordination of the monastics into deaconesses in practice, for self-evident (at least to those priests acquainted with female monasticism) reasons.

It seems therefore that the "technologians but not theologians" (rationalists) who support the reinstating of this institution have had little or no pastoral experience as priests in a female monastery in order for them to be unable to appreciate these delicate points; and of course this is hardly surprising since they are probably too busy looking for more references and sources to support their delusions from the comfort of their desk instead of shepherding their flocks in a meaningful way.

Apart from the wildfire that would result from such an institution inside female monasteries, an even worse wildfire is to be expected inside our in-world holy temples if the post-fallen female snobbery and kenodoxia, dragging along the male shepherds of our Ecclesia to sensuality and pro-hedonism, ever manages to stand her conceited demonic banners amidst Holy Orthodox Priesthood and Archpriesthood.

Let us pray that we never witness such an atrocity in our midst. Amen.