...Orthodox feminists often collapse the office of deacon and deaconess
into a single office, referring sometimes to “male and female deacons”,
as if the office were identical for both. It is true that Chrysostom
referred to “woman deacons”, but he also knew that the two offices were
utterly different in kind and function. The feminists pushing hard for
the creation of an order of female deacons often emphasize that the rite
wherein the candidate was made a deaconess was a true ordination (as
opposed to a simple blessing), a true
cheirotonia, not a mere
cheirothesia,
and that it took place at the altar. That is true, but the
anachronistic distinction between ordination and blessing hides the
profound distinction between the two ordinations, and therefore the
office to which the candidate was ordained. That is, both male deacons
and female deaconesses were given the ceremonial
orar (which was rapidly becoming customary among subdeacons also, indicating that the bestowal of the
orar
did not indicate sacramental parity between deacon and deaconess), but
the deaconess wore it differently than did the deacon. The deacon was
given the chalice during his ordination, so that he could help
administer it during the Eucharist that followed, while the deaconess
immediately returned the chalice, expressing her exclusion from
Eucharistic administration. Also, the deacon was ordained while kneeling
on his knee, resting his head on the altar, while the deaconess stood
and merely inclined her head. Most significantly of all, the prayers of
ordination for the two orders were entirely different. These liturgical
differences were not merely stylistic; they reveal that the two orders
are different in kind.
Read the rest
here.
