Nicholas,
I wish I could tell you chapter and verse, but I can't. This is something that was told to me many years ago by Bishop Mitrophan of Boston. I know that this was something he did in cases where he had no one else to serve. Is this canonical? I don't know, I assumed because of the personage that it was.
Deaconesses, Baptism and Catechumens
The following is the answer I received regarding my query on the order of deaconesses...hope this is helpful....
I quote:( This was answered by Fr Andrew from the Orthodox England site)
As regards sources for information on deaconesses, there is the life of St Elizabeth the New Martyr, who was very keen on restoring the order of deaconesses, and also the Book of Canons of the Orthodox Church ('The Rudder'; see especially Canon 15 of the Fourth Council, Canons 14, 40 and 48 of the Sixth Council and Canon 24 of St Basil). There are other works in Russian. I would recommend in particular the work by S. Troitsky, 'Deaconesses in the Orthodox Church', St Petersburg 1912, which has not yet been bettered. It is in Russian but must surely be in the Jordanville Library.
A number of general points can be made on Orthodox Deaconesses and female altar-servers:
First of all, it is quite untrue to say that women are not allowed into the altar. The fact is that nobody is allowed into the altar without the blessing of a bishop - therefore all those who are ordained are allowed into the altar and any others who have the blessing to do so, which is delegated from the bishop to the priest and so.
Thus, both pre-menstrual girls and post-menstrual women are allowed in the altar. The latter occurs quite normally in convents (like the nun you met), the former occurs in parishes where there are no boys. Bishop Mitrophan (whom I met in France and greatly respected) was of course absolutely right. Indeed, I have myself on specific occasions blessed girls to serve in the absence of boys. There is nothing unusual in this. If you hear any man objecting to this, he is either ignorant or else a misogynist! There is no canon about this, either for or against, but there is no need for one, since it is perfectly normal and part of the unquestioned Tradition of the Church.
Secondly, in the first centuries Orthodox deaconesses had to be of post-menstrual age. They were consecrated (not ordained) by bishops. They were also allowed into the altar, notably to take communion just like deacons do today.
Thirdly, as regards deaconesses, it has to be understood that their function was never the same as that of deacons. For example, one of their activities was helping in the prepartion of women for baptism, another visiting sick women. Indeed, the order of deaconesses as such began to die out when everyone was baptised, perhaps around the sixth century, even earlier in the West.
Today the word 'diakonissa' means a deacon's wife, and interestingly, many a deacon's wife now actually continues the functions of the deaconess, for example visiting lonely women. Where there is no deacon, it is often another lady who may in fact continue some of the deaconess' functions. (You can think of the activities of the Sisterhoods in parishes, in catechism and organizing visiting, sewing, or meals, or flowers). St Elizabeth wanted to restore the charitable functions of deaconesses in distributing food and clothes to the poor, for example. This was debated by the Synod in Moscow some six years before the Revolution. St Elizabeth was eventually justified by the bishops, despite the misunderstandings and opposition of some who thought that the concept had Protestant links.
Hope this answers more than it raises questions 
Liudmilla
-
Julianna
-
bogoliubtsy
- Sr Member
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Wed 16 April 2003 4:53 pm
- Location: Russia
-
bogoliubtsy
- Sr Member
- Posts: 666
- Joined: Wed 16 April 2003 4:53 pm
- Location: Russia
