Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology [1 ed.] 152750008X, 9781527500082

Citation preview

Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology

Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology Edited by

Petros Vassiliadis, Niki Papageorgiou and Eleni Kasselouri-Hatzivassiliadi

Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology Edited by Petros Vassiliadis, Niki Papageorgiou and Eleni Kasselouri-Hatzivassiliadi This book first published 2017 Cambridge Scholars Publishing Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Copyright © 2017 by Petros Vassiliadis, Niki Papageorgiou, Eleni Kasselouri-Hatzivassiliadi and contributors All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ISBN (10): 1-5275-0008-X ISBN (13): 978-1-5275-0008-2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................................ xi Patriarchal Message .................................................................................. xiii Introduction ................................................................................................. 1 Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology: Introduction to the Conference Theme and to the Volume Petros Vassiliadis Part I: The Messages Message by the Dean of the School of Theology of AUTH Prof. Miltiadis Konstantinou .................................................................... 11 Message by the Former Dean of Holy Cross, Greek Orthodox School of Theology, Fr. Tom Fitzgerald ..................................................................................... 13 Message by the President of the Department of Theology of the University of Athens His Eminence Metropolitan of Messinia, Mgr Chrysostomos ................... 17 Message by the President of the Department of Theology of AUTH Prof. Chrysostomos Stamoulis .................................................................. 19 Message by the President of the Department of Social Theology of the University of Athens Prof. Georgios Filias .................................................................................. 23 Part II: Special Session to Honor Prof. Emeritus Evangelos Theodorou Chapter One ............................................................................................... 27 Laudatum: Praising the Life and Witness of Prof. Evangelos Theodorou, Principle Proponent for the Rejuvenation of the Ordination of Deaconesses Kyriaki Karydoyanes-FitzGerald

vi

Table of Contents

Chapter Two .............................................................................................. 37 Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology Response by Prof. Emeritus Evangelos Theodorou Part III: The Papers Chapter Three ............................................................................................ 47 Women and Christianity Ioannis Petrou Chapter Four .............................................................................................. 61 Men and Women “in the Service of Christ”: Reflections on the Diaconate in the Orthodox Church John Chryssavgis Chapter Five .............................................................................................. 67 Naming God in Orthodox Tradition: Neither Male nor Female Emmanuel Clapsis Chapter Six ................................................................................................ 85 Theological Presuppositions and Logical Fallacies in much of the Contemporary Discussion on the Ordination of Women Valerie Karras Chapter Seven............................................................................................ 99 Lex orandi est Lex Credendi: Women Deacons as Emissaries of Theion Eleos (Divine Compassion and the Witness of the Ordination Rite of Deaconesses) Kyriaki Karidoyanes-FitzGerald Chapter Eight ........................................................................................... 113 The Ordination of Deaconesses and the Gender or Genderlessness of Incarnated Christ Constantine Yokarinis Chapter Nine............................................................................................ 127 Junia as an “Apostle” (Rom 16:7) and the Consequences for the Ordination of Deaconesses John Karavidopoulos

Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology

vii

Chapter Ten ............................................................................................. 137 Mary Magdalene and the Deaconesses Katerina Drosia Chapter Eleven ........................................................................................ 149 Orthodox Theological Criteria from 1 Peter for Women’s Ordination in the Church Arthur J. Keefer Chapter Twelve ....................................................................................... 159 Martha and Mary as Models of Christian Witness Niki Papageorgiou Chapter Thirteen ...................................................................................... 171 The Ordination of Deaconesses in the Orthodox Liturgical Tradition Panagiotis I. Skaltsis Chapter Fourteen ..................................................................................... 179 Deaconesses and Women in the Public Worship of God: The Evidence of Orthodox Canon Law Theodore Yagou Chapter Fifteen ........................................................................................ 199 The Religio-Historical and Sociological Typology of Women’s Submission to Men: The Ecclesiological Consequences of the Ordination of Women Christophoros Arvanitis Chapter Sixteen ....................................................................................... 221 Women’s Ordination and the Eschatological Body: Towards an Orthodox Anthropology beyond Sexual Difference Spyridoula Athanasopoulou-Kypriou Chapter Seventeen ................................................................................... 231 Orthodox Christian Anthropology: ǹ Proposal of “Christocentric” Hermeneutics Constantinos Agoras Chapter Eighteen ..................................................................................... 255 Unique Bodies, Unique Gifts: Towards a Liturgy that Deifies Ȃaria Gwyn McDowell

viii

Table of Contents

Chapter Nineteen ..................................................................................... 263 Rejuvenating the Diaconate: Building up the Body of Christ Teva Regule Chapter Twenty ....................................................................................... 277 The Order of Deaconesses and Liturgical Renewal in the Orthodox Church: Historical, Teleturgical and Theological Aspects Srboljub Ubiparipoviü Chapter Twenty One................................................................................ 287 The Theological Significance of Perichorisis: Its Consequences for the Ordination of Deaconesses Ioanna Sahinidou Chapter Twenty Two ............................................................................... 301 “Woman from Man…Judge among yourselves”: I Cor 11:8b,13a— Social Transformation, Demythologizing Female Deities or Paschal Reversal? Evanthia Adamtziloglou Chapter Twenty Three ............................................................................. 317 The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching on Women: Encounter and Mutual Influence between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy Evangelia Voulgaraki-Pisina Chapter Twenty Four ............................................................................... 353 The Position of Women in the Church according to Patristic Texts up to the V Ecumenical Council Eirini Artemi Chapter Twenty Five ............................................................................... 367 Women in the History of the Church Antonia Kyriatzi Chapter Twenty Six ................................................................................. 381 The Question of Women’s Ordination: Feminist Challenge or an Ecclesiological Desideratum? (Comments on the Rhodes Document) Ioannis Lotsios

Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology

ix

Chapter Twenty Seven............................................................................. 395 Elisabeth Behr-Sigel and the Institution of Deaconesses Eleni Kasselouri-Hatzivassiliadi Chapter Twenty Eight.............................................................................. 403 Deaconesses and the Ordination of Women in the Theology of Nikos Matsoukas Maria Hatziapostolou Chapter Twenty Nine .............................................................................. 421 Problems in the Rejuvenation of the Ministry of Deaconesses Dimitra A. Koukoura Chapter Thirty ......................................................................................... 431 Human Sexuality in the Latin Tradition Fotios Ioannidis Chapter Thirty One .................................................................................. 441 Mulier infirmior viro: Some Thoughts on Thomas Aquinas’s Teaching on Woman as God’s Creature Elpidoforos Lampriniadis Chapter Thirty Two ....................................................................................... The Problem of the Catholic Church on Deaconesses and the Ordination of Women Dimitrios Keramidas Chapter Thirty Three ..................................................................................... Catholic Women Deacons: Past Arguments and Future Possibilities Phyllis Zagano Chapter Thirty Four ....................................................................................... Ordination, Apostolic Succession, and Ecumenism Elizabeth M. Smith Chapter Thirty Five ....................................................................................... The Order of Deaconesses in the Ancient Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches: Sources, Historical Processes and the Modern Situation Nikolaos Kouremenos

x

Table of Contents

Chapter Thirty Six ................................................................................... 508 The Ordination of Women in the Anglican Community and the Official Theological Debate within it: A Critical Evaluation from an Orthodox Viewpoint Vassiliki Stathokosta Chapter Thirty Seven ............................................................................... 522 Sex and the Divine Persons: Problematic English Language in The Church of the Triune God Stuart George Hall Chapter Thirty Eight ................................................................................ 529 The Theological Problematic in the Various Protestant Denominations Sotirios Boukis Chapter Thirty Nine ................................................................................. 551 The Liturgical Presence of Women in Ancient Greece Anna Koltsiou Chapter Forty ........................................................................................... 561 The Final Communiqué Contributors ............................................................................................. 568

PREFACE

This book is about the admission of women into the sacramental diaconal priesthood of the Christian Church. Its main focus, as well as its point of departure, is Orthodox theology. In addition to the restoration of the ancient order of deaconesses, the book also deals (from a purely theological perspective) with the overall issue of the ordination of women. It covers almost all fields of theological scholarship and thus provides an objective and paramount picture of a thorny and divisive issue. The nearly forty chapters of this book are scientific papers that were presented at the international conference, “Deaconesses, Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology”, that took place in Thessaloniki, Greece, January 22-24, 2015, at the Center of Ecumenical, Missiological and Environmental Studies, “Metropolitan Panteleimon Papageorgiou”. Most of the papers were originally presented in Greek and translated by the authors themselves into English. The rest are published here in Greek with a summary in English. The book is dedicated to His Beatitude, the Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa, Theodoros II, as a humble expression of gratitude for the recent, very important conciliar decision, taken by the Autocephalous Orthodox Church under his leadership, to proceed with the restoration of the order of deaconesses.

Easter 2017 The Editors

PATRIARCHAL MESSAGE

INTRODUCTION DEACONESSES, THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN AND ORTHODOX THEOLOGY: INTRODUCTION TO THE CONFERENCE THEME AND TO THE VOLUME PETROS VASSILIADIS

Abstract: The author analyzes the place of the conference within the 2-yearproject of CEMES: “Humble Theological Contribution to our Orthodox Church on Her Way to the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council”, by referring to the official intervention of the Primate of the Church of Cyprus on the issue, which prompted the inclusion of this conference within the overall framework of the project. He then refers to the importance of Prof. Emeritus Evangelos Theodorou’s scholarly contribution, 60 years ago, on the ordination of deaconesses into the sacramental priesthood in the Orthodox Church. He also discusses the necessity of a review of the official Orthodox position, expressed in the Rhodes Consultation Statement in the early 1990s, taking into consideration the progress in recent biblical and theological scholarship. He underlines the centrality of “Orthodox theology” in the title of the conference, with “deaconesses” as its next but parallel focus without, of course, neglecting the overall “ordination of women” issue. The various contributions to the conference are then enumerated. Most of these concentrate on the “theological” approach to the ordination of women, whereas others also cover the historical, pastoral, and sociological dimension of the issue. The concept of the conference, as announced after the completion of last year’s consultation with the same title, is then briefly explicated. Brief reference is made to the profound meaning of “tradition” (as it is repeatedly stated in the so-called “argument from tradition”), reminding the reader of the distinction between the authentic apostolic “Tradition” (with an upper case T) and the historical “tradition” (with a lower case t), as well as the difference between latent and historical expression. Finally, light is shone on the inconsistency in the general traditional Orthodox view, which is based on “tradition” with regard to the overall “ordination of women into the sacramental priesthood”, but which ignores it when dealing with

2

Introduction

the rejuvenation of the order of deaconesses in the priestly and diaconal ministry of the Orthodox Church.

The conference, which was organized by the Center of Ecumenical, Missiological and Environmental Studies “Metropolitan Panteleimon Papageorgiou” (CEMES), in collaboration with the Theological School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (AUTH) and the Theological School of the Holy Cross in Boston, U.S.A., was entitled: “Deaconesses, Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology.” It was dedicated (with gratitude) to Prof. Emeritus Evangelos Theodorou, former Rector of the National University of Athens, and former Dean of the Theological School of AUTH, in recognition of the publication – more than 60 years ago – of his internationally recognized scientific contribution to the conference’s theme. It was the first part of a two-year international project of CEMES, as a small theological contribution toward the process of the ecumenical throne of the Pan-Orthodox Synod of 2016, under the general title: “Humble Theological Contribution to our Orthodox Church on its Way towards the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council”. CEMES engaged with the theme of missiological concern (I refer to the international inter-faith symposium: “An Orthodox Approach to a Theology of Religions”, again with the same co-organizers) two academic years ago and, last year, with a subject of ecumenical concern (I refer to the seminar on “Deaconesses and Women’s Ordination”). It had originally planned that during this academic (and ecclesiastical) year it would deal with an environmental issue. However, last year’s decision by the Primates of the Orthodox Churches to convene the long-awaited PanOrthodox Synod in 2016, forced us to reconsider our priorities (see appendix I). Although the issue of deaconesses (and indirectly the ordination of women) is not on the agenda of this vital Pan-Orthodox Synod, the official position of the Archbishop of Cyprus, Mgr. Chrysostomos, at that meeting of the Primates last March, stated that: we should ask ourselves the question of the status of women in the Church. Great Christian Denominations, like Anglicanism, have introduced the ordination of women. With biblical and Patristic arguments we should consolidate our position, and study seriously and proceed to the restoration of the order of deaconesses in the Church, taking of course into account all aspects of the issue.

This forced us to first attempt a theological – and general scientific – approach to this issue. After all, the future of the witness of the Church

Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology

3

(and of theology) primarily revolves around the treatment of women in the Church and in society at large. More than 60 years ago, Prof. Emeritus Evangelos Theodorou, now 96 years old, opened the discussion within the Orthodox theological circles on the thorny issue of the ordination of women to the sacramental priesthood, with his doctoral dissertation on deaconesses. Honoring this pioneer in modern Greek-Orthodox theology, CEMES decided to dedicate this conference to him, especially considering His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew’s personal remark when at a meeting with the CEMES Executive Committee informing him about its future research planning: “he really deserves it”. The conference’s aim was not a communicative and partisan one (i.e. to promote one or another point of view in the ongoing discussion, either at an ecumenical level or, lately, in Orthodox theology), and nor was it a strictly objective and scientific treatment of the subject without ecclesial reference. It was rather a systematic analysis of all parameters of the problem and a submission of preliminary conclusions and recommendations to the appropriate committees and regional synods of all Autocephali Churches of Orthodoxy, especially their coordinating center, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. For several decades, the Orthodox Church had, of course, taken a particular theological position on the question of women's ordination; not in a canonical conciliar way, but through the findings of the famous InterOrthodox Rhodes Conference of 1988. Recently, however, the views have been considered by His Eminence Metropolitan Kallistos (Ware), the first modern Orthodox theologian who systematically formulated theological views on this issue; the studies by the late Elizabeth Behr-Sigel; the Orthodox Dogmatic Theologian of this institution (AUTH), the late Nikolaos Matsoukas; some recent doctoral dissertations and post-doctoral monographs by Orthodox researchers; and especially the enormous developments in biblical, systematic, historical, patristic, and even sociological studies. These reviews and considerations have resulted in better documentation of the official theological position of the Orthodox Church – a quite urgent need. And this is true not only for the Orthodox Church, but for other Christian churches (especially the Roman Catholic Church) and even for those that have already adopted female priesthood (such as the Anglican Church), as well as some conservative evangelicals who firmly deny it. The program of the conference included sober Orthodox theological views that are critical to the prevailing arguments, as well as those that support them, each on different theological and scientific grounds. It also included descriptive presentations of other churches and

4

Introduction

Christian denominations, as well as some scientific views by heterodox researchers who are friendly to Orthodoxy in their biblical and theological arguments. Let us remind ourselves at this point that, several years ago, His Eminence Metropolitan of Pergamon John (Zizioulas), representing the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and addressing the Anglican communion during their regular conference at Lambeth, drew attention to the fact that the solution to this thorny issue – which torments the Christian world and has divided various Christian denominations vertically and horizontally – can be found neither through arguments from sociology, nor exclusively via arguments from tradition. What the Christian community desperately needs is mainly theological arguments. This is precisely what the main concept of this conference is all about, while of course not ignoring other purely scientific approaches. In the homonymous seminar during the academic year 2013-14 – mainly involving professors, doctoral and post-doctoral students, and researchers co-organizing this conference – all the theological arguments in favor and against the participation of women in the diaconal sacramental priesthood were thoroughly analyzed, with the intention of presenting to the Orthodox Church (but also the global Christian community) all authentic theological (and not merely sociological or traditional) arguments on the issue. The international theological conference – all scientific papers of which are included in this volume – had Greek and English as its official languages, and was held in both conventional and electronic formats, thanks to modern technological services offered by AUTH. This parallel electronic format was chosen not only for economic reasons but also for environmental ones, sticking to the principles of CEMES, which is not only a centre of the “ecumenical” and “missiological,” but of the “environmental”, too. It is worth noting that the conference was a zerobudget one, and I take this opportunity to thank all the participants outside Thessaloniki, including some from abroad (speakers and attendees), who participated at their own expense. The conference was launched symbolically on the feast of St. Mary Magdalene, “equal to the apostles” in the liturgical tradition (or “apostle of the apostles” according to certain Fathers of the Orthodox Church), on July 22, 2014. It was an open invitation to all interested theologians, scholars and clergy from all over the Christian community, with the promise that all contributions would be broadcast by the electronic facilities offered by AUTH, and be published (in Greek) electronically on the conference and CEMES website (cemes.weebly.com). As stated in the

Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology

5

program, the papers covered all areas of biblical, patristic, liturgical, and systematic theology, as well as some other areas related to the theme of the conference. The main area of concern of the conference (and its basic concept) was the “Orthodox theology” of the title, with “deaconesses” being the next, but equally important, parameter. However, the conference also dealt with the “ordination of women”, especially in terms of the theological dimensions of the thorny issue of the admission (or not) of women into the sacramental priesthood. This somewhat reversed the wording of patriarchal invitation of the similar conference in Rhodes in the late 1980s, with the emphasis shifting from “exclusion” to “admission”. This small but substantial change was prompted by the reflections of last year's international symposium, based mainly on the thoughts and proposals by the professor emeritus that we honored. This was, after all, the concept of the conference that we asked the speakers to reflect upon, based mainly on some of Prof. Theodorou’s radical remarks, also published last year in the electronic ecclesiastical media (http://www. amen.gr/article17226): In the debate on the general ordination of women the Orthodox theology should not resort to inappropriate use of human, biological concepts about the alleged male or female sex of each of the persons of the Holy Trinity, thus destroying the apophatic and inaccessible to human intellect character of the Trinitarian doctrine. Ecclesiological rather criteria must be used aimed at building the Church of Christ. We must also use the Christological theology, which teaches about a Theanthropic God and in God’s salvific work which incorporated and received the whole human nature, male and female. And so we must seek the division of responsibilities of the Church’s ministers according to the variety of their charisms. This variety of charisms has particularly brought forward the ancient Church.

Allow me to also put forward some of the additional concerns expressed in the aforementioned seminar: Is historically the exclusion of women from the sacramental priesthood based on human law (de jure humano) or on divine law (de jure divino)? In selecting theological criteria, should priority be given – and if so how much – to the long-standing "primary" liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church over the various doctrinal expressions that were subsequently formulated? How and to what extent the basic theological position that in the eschaton there will be no discrimination based on biological sex may influence the debate about the ordination of women? Does the invocation of elements of ontological reduction and the division of humans into two

6

Introduction hierarchically superimposed sexes negates the doctrine of the Divine Incarnation and annul its objectives? Can the exclusive “male priesthood” – derived from the historically indisputable male form of the Incarnate God – be a binding element of divine grace, and how strong is this argument? If, according to the Orthodox Christian anthropology, the archetype of the human being is Christ, does the invocation of male sex of the Word of God (and not his perfect human nature) provide theological, canonical, historical-critical, and liturgical grounds for the exclusion of women from sacramental priesthood? Great theologian saints, such as St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom, speak about the priesthood with metaphors based not on male parental models, but rather on examples of virtue for the community. Additionally, both hierarchs use both masculine and feminine metaphors to describe the method and the ministry of the priesthood. What theological arguments, therefore, can justify the exclusion of women from this priesthood?

And to come now to the central theme of the conference, the reinstitution (also liturgically) of the order of deaconesses: How important for the Orthodox Church’s theological arsenal is the fact that this institution of deaconesses has conciliar ecumenical and canonical foundation, which in fact has never been repealed by subsequent synodal decision? If the deaconesses, as our beloved professor Theodorou said, were installed into their ministry through ordination (ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ) which was the same as that of the major orders of clergy, and not by simple laying on of hands (ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ), and their ordination had an absolute likeness in form and content with the ordinations of the major orders of clergy, what does that this mean for the general issue of women's ordination? The same is true with the proposed distinction of higher ordination and sacramental priesthood to "diaconal" and "hierourgic", a quantitative rather than qualitative distinction. Moreover, how can the clear wordings in the ancient prayers, that Christ did not ban women also from having liturgical duties in the Churches («‫ ݸ‬ȝȘį‫ ޡ‬ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ…ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖİ߿Ȟ IJȠ߿Ȣ ܼȖȓȠȚȢ Ƞ‫ݫ‬țȠȚȢ ıȠȣ ܻʌȠȕĮȜȜȩȝİȞȠȢ»), affect the theological argument of the Orthodox Church regarding the ordination of women also in the higher sacramental priesthood?

At this point I could remind us of another important observation made by Prof. Theodorou, that the interpretation in our canonical sources – that the deaconess as a symbol of the Holy Spirit had a higher position than that of the presbyters, who were considered as symbols of the apostles – should at least upgrade the status of women regarding the theological legitimacy of participation in the sacramental priesthood. Absolutely none of the Orthodox theologians involved or engaged in theological investigation of the matter (Metropolitan of Diokleia Kallistus, Metropolitan Anthony

Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology

7

of Souroz of blessed memory, and all the speakers of the conference, including Prof. Theodorou) dispute that, on the basis of “tradition” and the current canonical order of the Orthodox Church (“IJȩ Ȗİ ȞȣȞ ȑȤȠȞ”, as Prof. Theodorou brilliantly underlined) women are excluded from the sacramental “hierourgic” priesthood, but not from the “diaconal” one. The argument, therefore, “from tradition” (a concept so important in the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church and unfortunately for many, even today, even more so than the teachings of Jesus Christ) continues to be, despite the warning by Metropolitan Pergamon that I mentioned above, a powerful and largely non-negotiable criterion for a reopening of the theological debate on the issue. In many cases, even without the necessary distinction between the apostolic “T”radition and the various subsequent “t”raditions. But beyond this necessary distinction, which officially the Orthodox Church has adopted – the pre-eminence of the apostolic Tradition – adding that it is its authentic bearer and custodian, modern theological scholarship has advanced an equally important distinction: that of authentic but latent tradition, and that which was historically formed. The institution of deaconesses is an example of this in a classical sense. Taking also into account this historical Orthodox tradition, should we not consider the gradual degradation of women in the Western Christian world on three issues: the position of Mary Magdalene, St. Junia the Apostle, and the order of deaconesses, when the long tradition of the East (as it is now widely accepted scientifically) took pride in these women and institutions? The most indisputable scientific existence in the New Testament and during the first Christian centuries of women bearing the solemn attribute of “apostle” (e.g. Junia) should not affect the Orthodox theological arguments on the issue of restoring the order of deaconesses (i.e. of the admission of women to the sacramental “diaconal” priesthood). Indeed, this is especially the case today when it is more urgently needed than ever, as the Ecumenical Patriarch has recently declared at a similar international meeting in Constantinople. Before concluding this brief introduction to the theme, character and theological rationale of this conference – and also of this book – allow me to make a brief reference to what Patriarch Gregory of Antioch wrote in a speech on the Myrrh-bearers, as late as the 6th century AD, which connects women with both the “apostolic” office, and the “ordination”: “Let Peter who has denied me learn that I am able to ordain also women as Apostles,” PG 88f. 1864b (ȂĮșȑIJȦ ȆȑIJȡȠȢ ‫ܻ ݸ‬ȡȞȘıȐȝİȞȩȢ ȝİ, ‫ݺ‬IJȚ įȪȞĮȝĮȚ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ȖȣȞĮ߿țĮȢ ܻʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞİ߿Ȟ). This textual evidence, an indirect reference to the latent authentic tradition, perhaps proves that a different

8

Introduction

attitude of Orthodox theology regarding the liturgical status of women is not completely without evidence in the Eastern Christian tradition, at least in the sense that it is different from the conventional one. Notwithstanding what I have very briefly mentioned so far, out of scientific responsibility I have to say that there are also difficulties and problems in restoring the order of the sacramental priesthood of deaconesses. Recently, in the Orthodox diaspora (mainly among converts from the extreme conservative evangelical stream), the following argument has been developed: any rejuvenation of the order of deaconesses, although evidenced in the long Eastern Orthodox tradition and, despite its ecumenical, synodical and canonical validity, is undesirable for the simple reason that it may open a window for the further adoption of the ordination of women. Such novel views which, as it happens, in many issues have been imported into our tradition (especially among conservative circles) justify the inclusion of a theological approach to the general issue of women's ordination in the conference’s title. To return to the issue of deaconesses, our main theme, such arguments – fortunately not officially formulated by the Orthodox Church – create a feeling of unacceptable theological inconsistency which will irreparably damage the reliability of Orthodox theology. How can some theologians continue to basically rely on tradition for the general issue of the ordination of women, while at the same time ignoring or rejecting it in the case of the ordination of deaconesses? This was the concept of the conference, and all these issues are dealt with in this volume, with scientific knowledge and fidelity to the authentic Christian tradition.

PART I: THE MESSAGES

MESSAGE BY THE DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY OF AUTH PROF. MILTIADIS KONSTANTINOU

ȅ ĮȡȤȚȝĮȞįȡȓIJȘȢ ȃİȩijȣIJȠȢ ǺȐȝȕĮȢ, Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ʌȡȫIJȠȣȢ țĮșȘȖȘIJȑȢ IJȠȣ ȆĮȞİʌȚıIJȘȝȓȠȣ ǹșȘȞȫȞ țĮȚ ȝİIJĮijȡĮıIJȒȢ IJȘȢ ǺȓȕȜȠȣ, ĮʌȠįȓįİȚ ȦȢ İȟȒȢ ıIJĮ ȚįȚȩIJȣʌĮ İȜȜȘȞȚțȐ IJȠȣ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ IJȠȣ ıȣȞIJȐțIJȘ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ʌĮȡĮįİȓıȠȣ ȞĮ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐȥİȚ ʌĮȡĮıIJĮIJȚțȐ IJȘȞ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ ȐȞįȡĮ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ: «ȀĮ‫ ޥ‬İ‫ݭ‬ʌİȞ ‫݃ ݸ‬į‫ޠ‬ȝ, ȉȠࠎIJȠ İ‫ݭ‬ȞĮȚ IJެȡĮ ‫ݷ‬ıIJȠࠎȞ ‫݋‬ț IJࠛȞ ‫ݷ‬ıIJ‫ޢ‬ȦȞ ȝȠȣ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ı‫ޟ‬ȡȟ ‫݋‬ț IJ߱Ȣ ıĮȡțާȢ ȝȠȣ· Į‫ވ‬IJȘ ș‫ޢ‬ȜİȚ ‫ݷ‬ȞȠȝĮıș߱ ܻȞįȡަȢ, įȚިIJȚ ‫݋‬ț IJȠࠎ ܻȞįȡާȢ Į‫ވ‬IJȘ ‫݋‬Ȝ‫ޤ‬ijșȘ» (īİȞ 2:23). ǵʌȦȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȓıȦȢ ȖȞȦıIJȩ, Ƞ ȞİȠȜȠȖȚıȝȩȢ «ਕȞįȡȓȢ» ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ țĮIJȐ ȜȑȟȘ ĮʌȩįȠıȘȢ IJȘȢ İȕȡĮȧțȒȢ ȜȑȟȘȢ «ȚıȐ», ʌȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ șȘȜȣțȒ ȝȠȡijȒ IJȘȢ ȜȑȟȘȢ «ȚȢ» (= ȐȞįȡĮȢ) İȞȫ Ș ijȡȐıȘ «ș੼ȜİȚ ੑȞȠȝĮıșો», ĮʌȩįȠıȘ IJȘȢ İȕȡĮȧțȒȢ ʌĮșȘIJȚțȒȢ ʌȠȣ, țĮșȫȢ ıIJİȡİȓIJĮȚ ȣʌȠțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ, ȣʌȠįȘȜȫȞİȚ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȚȢ ȕȚȕȜȚțȑȢ ĮȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ, IJȘȞ ĮįȣȞĮȝȓĮ IJȠȣ ȐȞįȡĮ ȞĮ ȠȞȠȝĮIJȠįȠIJȒıİȚ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮȚ İʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ IJȘȞ ȚıȩIJȘIJȐ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠȢ ĮȣIJȒȞ. ǹȣIJȒ Ș Įʌȩ IJȠȞ Ĭİȩ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘșİȓıĮ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ ȩȝȦȢ įİȞ șĮ țȡĮIJȒıİȚ ȖȚĮ ʌȠȜȪ, țĮșȫȢ ıIJȠ ĮȝȑıȦȢ İʌȩȝİȞȠ țİijȐȜĮȚȠ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ: «ȀĮ‫݋ ޥ‬ț‫ޠ‬ȜİıİȞ ‫݃ ݸ‬į‫ޟ‬ȝ IJާ ‫ݻ‬ȞȠȝĮ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțާȢ Į‫ބ‬IJȠࠎ, Ǽ‫އ‬ĮȞ (= ǽȦȒ)· įȚިIJȚ Į‫ރ‬IJ‫߃ ޣ‬IJȠ ȝ‫ޤ‬IJȘȡ ʌ‫ޠ‬ȞIJȦȞ IJࠛȞ ȗެȞIJȦȞ» (īİȞ 3:20). ǹʌȩ IJȠ ıȘȝİȓȠ ĮȣIJȩ, ʌȠȣ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJİȓ Ș ĮʌĮȡȤȒ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ, țĮȚ İȟȒȢ, IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ıȤȑıȘȢ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ țĮșȓıIJĮIJĮȚ ȕĮıȚțȩ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ȚȠȣįĮȧțȒȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ, ĮȜȜȐ įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ĮȝijȚȕȠȜȓĮ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȩʌȠȚİȢ IJȠʌȠșİIJȒıİȚȢ IJȦȞ įȚȐijȠȡȦȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȫȞ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȫȞ țȪțȜȦȞ țĮȚ IJȐıİȦȞ ʌȐȞȦ ıIJȠ șȑȝĮ ĮȣIJȩ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪȞ ȝȩȞȚȝȠ ıȘȝİȓȠ IJȡȚȕȒȢ IJȩıȠ ıIJȚȢ ıȤȑıİȚȢ IJȦȞ țȪțȜȦȞ ĮȣIJȫȞ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣȢ ȩıȠ țĮȚ ȝİ IJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ. ǼȓȞĮȚ İȞIJȠȪIJȠȚȢ ĮȟȚȠıȘȝİȓȦIJȠ ȩIJȚ Ș ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ ȕȐıȘ ıIJȒȡȚȟȘȢ IJȦȞ įȚȐijȠȡȦȞ IJȠʌȠșİIJȒıİȦȞ İȓȞĮȚ ıIJȚȢ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡİȢ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ĮıșİȞȒȢ ȑȦȢ ĮȞȪʌĮȡțIJȘ. Ǿ ĮʌȠȣıȓĮ ȝİIJĮijȣıȚțȒȢ įȚȐıIJĮıȘȢ ıIJȘ șİȫȡȘıȘ IJȘȢ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȘ ǺȓȕȜȠ ıȤİIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ʌȡȠijĮȞȫȢ ȝİ IJȘ ȝȠȞȠșİȧıIJȚțȒ ʌȓıIJȘ, țĮșȫȢ įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ıIJȘ ıijĮȓȡĮ IJȠȣ İȞȩȢ țĮȚ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȠȪ ĬİȠȪ. ǹȞ țĮȚ Ƞ ĬİȩȢ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijİIJĮȚ ȦȢ ĮȡıİȞȚțȩȢ, įİȞ İȝijĮȞȓȗİIJĮȚ ʌȠIJȑ ȞĮ İțʌȡȠıȦʌİȓ IJȘȞ ĮȡȡİȞȠʌȡȑʌİȚĮ ȝİ IJȘ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȒ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȩȡȠȣ, ȠȪIJİ IJĮȣIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ʌȠIJȑ ȝİ ijĮȜȜȚțȐ ıȪȝȕȠȜĮ. ǹțȩȝȘ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ

12

Message by Prof. Miltiadis Konstantinou

ʌȠȣ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȚȖȡĮijȒ IJȦȞ ıȤȑıİȦȞ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ȝİ IJȠȞ ǿıȡĮȒȜ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚİȓIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ʌȡȠijȒIJİȢ Ș İȚțȩȞĮ IJȠȣ ȖȐȝȠȣ, ĮʌȠȣıȚȐȗİȚ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȖȜȫııĮ Ș İȡȦIJȚțȒ ȠȡȠȜȠȖȓĮ. ȈȣȞȑʌİȚĮ IJȘȢ ȑȜȜİȚȥȘȢ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ ıIJȠȞ ȤȫȡȠ IJȠȣ șİȓȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ ʌȜȒȡȘȢ įȚĮȤȦȡȚıȝȩȢ IJȘȢ İȡȦIJȚțȒȢ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ, ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ Ș ĮʌȠȣıȓĮ țȐʌȠȚȠȣ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤȠȣ ʌȡȠȢ IJȚȢ ȚȑȡİȚİȢ IJȦȞ ȖİȚIJȠȞȚțȫȞ ȝİ IJȠȞ ǿıȡĮȒȜ ȜĮȫȞ șİıȝȠȪ. Ȃİ IJȘ ıȐȡțȦıȘ IJȠȣ ȁȩȖȠȣ, Ș ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ ijIJȐȞİȚ ıIJȘȞ ȠȜȠțȜȒȡȦıȒ IJȘȢ, țĮșȫȢ ĮȞȠȓȖİIJĮȚ ʌȜȑȠȞ țĮȚ ʌȐȜȚ Ș įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠțĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ IJȦȞ ıȤȑıİȦȞ ĬİȠȪ țĮȚ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, țĮșȚıIJȫȞIJĮȢ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞĮ ȐȞİȣ ĮȞIJȚțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ țĮȚ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ įȚȐțȡȚıȘȢ IJȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ «‫݋‬Ȟ ȋȡȚıIJࠜ» țĮȚ ıIJİȡȫȞIJĮȢ ȑIJıȚ Įʌȩ ȠʌȠȚĮįȒʌȠIJİ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȕȐıȘ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȠȣ ijȪȜȠȣ IJȦȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȣȝȑȞȦȞ. ǹȣIJȩȢ ʌȡȠijĮȞȫȢ İȓȞĮȚ țĮȚ Ƞ ȜȩȖȠȢ ʌȠȣ IJȠ ıȪȞȠȜȠ ıȤİįȩȞ IJȦȞ ǼțțȜȘıȚȫȞ ʌȠȣ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȠʌȠȚȠȪȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ǼȜȜȐįĮ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡİȢ țĮȚ ȠȚ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡİȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓİȢ ʌĮȖțȠıȝȓȦȢ įİȞ ıȣȝʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ IJȠ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ ıIJȠȞ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ IJȠȣȢ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚıȝȩ. ǹʌȩ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȩȝȦȢ ȐʌȠȥȘ, ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ Įʌȩ ȐʌȠȥȘ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȒȢ ȝȑȡȚȝȞĮȢ ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȒȢ țȓȞȘıȘȢ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İȝijĮȞȓȗİȚ ȟİȤȦȡȚıIJȩ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞ țĮȚ İȓȞĮȚ İʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ İȟĮȚȡİIJȚțȒȢ ıȘȝĮıȓĮȢ Ș ʌȡȦIJȠȕȠȣȜȓĮ IJȩıȠ IJȦȞ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ ȈȤȠȜȫȞ IJȠȣ ǹȡȚıIJȠIJİȜİȓȠȣ ȆĮȞİʌȚıIJȘȝȓȠȣ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȉȚȝȓȠȣ ȈIJĮȣȡȠȪ IJȘȢ ǺȠıIJȫȞȘȢ ȩıȠ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȀȑȞIJȡȠȣ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȫȞ, ǿİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ȆİȡȚȕĮȜȜȠȞIJȚțȫȞ ȂİȜİIJȫȞ «ȂȘIJȡȠʌȠȜȓIJȘȢ ȆĮȞIJİȜİȒȝȦȞ ȆĮʌĮȖİȦȡȖȓȠȣ» ȞĮ ıȣȗȘIJȘșİȓ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ ıİ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȩ İʌȓʌİįȠ ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ İȞȩȢ įȚİșȞȠȪȢ ıȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ. Ȃİ ĮȣIJȑȢ IJȚȢ ıțȑȥİȚȢ ıĮȢ țĮȜȦıȠȡȓȗȦ ıIJȠȣȢ ȤȫȡȠȣȢ IJȠȣ ȀȑȞIJȡȠȣ ǻȚȐįȠıȘȢ ǼȡİȣȞȘIJȚțȫȞ ǹʌȠIJİȜİıȝȐIJȦȞ IJȠȣ ǹ.Ȇ.Ĭ., țĮȚ İȪȤȠȝĮȚ İʌȚIJȣȤȓĮ ıIJȚȢ İȡȖĮıȓİȢ IJȠȣ ȈȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ!

MESSAGE E BY THE FORMER DEAN OF HOLY CROSS, GREEK ORTHO ODOX SCHOOL C OF F THEOLO OGY FR. TOM FIT TZGERAL LD

Christ is in Our Midstt! The Facuulty of Holy Cross C at the Greek G Orthodoox School of Theology T is honored tto co-sponsor this conferen nce, with the S School of Theeology of the Aristottelian University of Th hessaloniki, aand the Ceenter for Ecumenical,, Missiologicaal and Environ nmental Studi dies. This confference is a valuable eexpression of the significan nt relationshipp which existss between our theologiical schools, our o faculties and a our studennts. I want to express a special wordd of gratitudee to Prof. Petrros Vassiliadiss, and the meembers of his committtees, for plannning and orrganizing thiss very signifiicant and timely confeerence. The connference will be examinin ng the topic: “The Deaco oness, the Ordination oof Women annd Orthodox Theology.” T Thhis is a very important i topic for stuudy, given thee fact that theere are continnuous and verry serious recommendaations for the restoration off the ordainedd diaconate forr women. The most reecent recomm mendation for the rejuvenatiion of the ord der of the deaconess hhas come from m St. Catherine’s Vision, an internatio onal PanOrthodox oorganization of o women th heologians annd other lay servantleaders.

14

Message by Fr. Tom Fitzgerald

These recommendations frequently refer back to the historic statement of the Inter-Orthodox Symposium on Rhodes in 1988. The participants unanimously declared that: “The apostolic order of the deaconess should be revived. It was never all together abandoned in the Orthodox Church although it has tended to fall into disuse. There is ample evidence, from apostolic times, from the patristic, canonical, and liturgical tradition, well into the Byzantine period (and even in our own day) that this order was held in high honor.” I hope that this conference, after serious discussion, will also call for the full restoration of the order of the deaconess. Furthermore, I also hope that this recommendation is presented to His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and the Secretariat for the coming Great and Holy Council. This conference honors Emeritus Professor Evangelos Theodorou of the University of Athens. Over the past 60 years, his scholarly research, writings and presentations have contributed greatly to calls for the restoration of the order of the diaconate for women. Those of us who know him, recognize him to be a true gentleman and scholar. He has been an inspiration and mentor to countless theologians and clergy. My wife and I had the pleasure to first meet him in 1985, at the Faith and Order Commission meeting in Stavanger, Norway. Some years later, in 1990, Professor Theodorou received an honorary Doctor of Theology degree from the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. The Orthodox Church is presently preparing for a Great and Holy Council. In speaking of the importance of the Council, His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew has called upon the Autocephalous Churches to strengthen the bonds of unity among themselves, and to join together in addressing critical issues facing both the Church and the world in which we live. He has challenged the Autocephalous Churches to put aside past disputes and tendencies towards self-sufficiency, and to bear witness together to Christ and His Gospel, “for the life of the world” (John 6:51). We theologians also have a special responsibility to contribute to strengthening the relationships between the Autocephalous Churches, and to study the critical issues facing our Church and our world. Among these issues is the involvement of women in the life of the Church. The saving message of the Gospel of Our Lord, as known by the Orthodox Church, must be made relevant to this generation and to every society. Finally, I want to tell you how honored I am to be back in Thessaloniki and to join with the faculty members and students of the School of Theology for this conference. From the time when we studied here, my

Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology

15

wife and I have deeply appreciated the special character of this place. It is a city of saints and scholars and missionaries. It is a center of culture, learning and history. We were deeply enriched by our studies here. We benefited greatly from the guidance of many professors, most especially from Professor Anthony-Emil Tachiaos. My colleagues from Holy Cross join with me in affirming the significance of this conference. We offer our prayers to the Lord and send our best wishes to the organizers and the participants.

MESSAGE BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THEOLOGY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS HIS EMINENCE METROPOLITAN OF MESSINIA, MGR CHRYSOSTOMOS ȈİȕĮıȝȚȫIJĮIJȠȚ DZȖȚȠȚ ǹȡȤȚİȡİȓȢ, DzȜȜȠȖȚȝȫIJĮIJȠȚ ȀȪȡȚȠȚ ȀĮșȘȖȘIJȑȢ, ȂİIJȐ ʌȠȜȜȒȢ ȤĮȡȐȢ, ȤĮȚȡİIJȓȗȦ IJȘ įȚȠȡȖȐȞȦıȘ IJȠȣ ʌĮȡȩȞIJȠȢ ǻȚİșȞȠȪȢ ȈȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ, ȝİ IJȠ ʌȠȜȪ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞ șȑȝĮ: «ǻȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ, ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ», IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ IJȠ ʌȡȫIJȠȞ IJȝȒȝĮ İȞȩȢ įȚİIJȠȪȢ İȡİȣȞȘIJȚțȠȪ ʌȡȠȖȡȐȝȝĮIJȠȢ, ȣʌȩ IJȠȞ ȖİȞȚțȩȞ IJȓIJȜȠȞ: «ȉĮʌİȚȞȒ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ıȣȝȕȠȜȒ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȝĮȢ țĮș ’ ȠįȩȞ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ȆĮȞȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ȈȪȞȠįȠ IJȠȣ 2016». ǼțijȡȐȗȦ IJĮ șİȡȝȐ ȝȠȣ ıȣȖȤĮȡȘIJȒȡȚĮ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ ȆȡȩİįȡȠȞ IJȠȣ ȀȑȞIJȡȠȣ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȫȞ, ǿİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ȆİȡȚȕĮȜȜȠȞIJȚțȫȞ ȂİȜİIJȫȞ «ȂȘIJȡȠʌȠȜȓIJȘȢ ȆĮȞIJİȜİȒȝȦȞ ȆĮʌĮȖİȦȡȖȓȠȣ», ǼȜȜȠȖȚȝȫIJĮIJȠȞ ȀĮșȘȖȘIJȒȞ ț. ȆȑIJȡȠȞ ǺĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘȞ, țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ İȚȢ IJȚȢ įȪȠ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ȈȤȠȜȑȢ IJȠȣ ǹ.Ȇ.Ĭ. țĮȚ IJȘȢ ǺȠıIJȫȞȘȢ, įȚȐ IJȘȞ ıȣȞİȡȖĮıȓĮȞ IJȘȢ įȚȠȡȖĮȞȫıİȦȢ țĮȚ İȪȤȠȝĮȚ ȠȜȠțĮȡįȓȦȢ įȚȐ IJȘȞ İʌȓIJİȣȟȚȞ IJȦȞ ıțȠʌȫȞ ĮȣIJȠȪ. ǼʌȓıȘȢ, ıȣȖȤĮȓȡȦ įȚȐ IJȘȞ ĮȡȓıIJȘȞ ʌȡȦIJȠȕȠȣȜȓĮȞ, ȩʌȦȢ ĮijȚİȡȦșȒ IJȠ ʌĮȡȩȞ ǻȚİșȞȑȢ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠȞ İȚȢ IJȠȞ ȜĮȝʌȡȩȞ ǻȚįȐıțĮȜȠȞ țĮȚ ȀĮșȘȖȘIJȒȞ ȝĮȢ ț. ǼȣȐȖȖİȜȠȞ ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, İȚȢ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠȞ İȪȤȠȝĮȚ ȠȜȠȥȪȤȦȢ Ƞ ĬİȩȢ ȞĮ IJȠȣ įȓįİȚ ȣȖȚİȓĮȞ țĮȚ įȪȞĮȝȚȞ, ȫıIJİ ȞĮ ȝĮȢ ȝİIJĮįȓįİȚ IJȘ ȖȞȫıȘ, IJȘ ıȠijȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ İȝʌİȚȡȓĮ IJȠȣ. ǼȚȢ IJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒȞ ȝĮȢ ȩʌȠȣ IJĮ įȚȐijȠȡĮ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȐ țȚȞȒȝĮIJĮ İʌȚșȣȝȠȪȞ ȞĮ İʌĮȞĮʌȡȠıİȖȖȓıȠȣȞ țĮȚ ȞĮ İʌĮȞĮʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȓıȠȣȞ IJȘ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ, įȘȝȚȠȪȡȖȘıĮȞ IJȠ «įȣIJȚțȩ ijĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠ», IJȘȞ ĮȟȓȦıȘ įȘȜĮįȒ, ȞĮ İȞIJȐııȦȞIJĮȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȚȢ IJȐȟİȚȢ IJȠȣ ȚİȡȠȪ ȀȜȒȡȠȣ țĮȚ ȞĮ ĮȞȑȡȤȦȞIJĮȚ IJȠȪȢ ȕĮșȝȠȪȢ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ, ĮțȩȝȘ țĮȚ İȚȢ ĮȣIJȩȞ IJȠȞ IJȡȓIJȠȞ ȕĮșȝȩȞ IJȘȢ ǹȡȤȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ. DzIJıȚ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȒșȘțĮȞ IJİȡȐıIJȚĮ ʌȡȠȕȜȒȝĮIJĮ ıİ ȩȜȠ IJȠȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȩ țȩıȝȠ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ĮįȚȑȟȠįĮ ıİ țȐʌȠȚİȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȑȢ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȓİȢ țĮȚ įȚĮȚȡȑıİȚȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮȣIJȫȞ. ȉȠȪIJȠ IJȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȟȑȞȠ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ĮijȠȪ ȠȣįȑʌȠIJİ İȞȑıțȣȥİ IJȑIJȠȚȠȣ İȓįȠȣȢ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȉȘȢ, țĮȚ IJȠȪIJȠ ȩȤȚ ȑȞİțĮ «ıIJİȞȩIJȘIJȠȢ

18

Message by His Eminence Metropolitan of Messinia, Mgr Chrysostomos

ıțȑȥİȦȢ», «ıȣȞIJȘȡȘIJȚıȝȠȪ», «ȣʌȠțȡȚıȓĮȢ» Ȓ «IJȣijȜȩIJȘIJȠȢ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ țȩıȝȠȣ», ĮȜȜ’ İʌİȚįȒ ȠȣįȑʌȠIJİ Ȓ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȝĮȢ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȚȠʌȠȓȘıİ IJȠȪȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢ ıİ ȐȡıİȞ țĮȚ șȒȜȣ, ȠȪIJİ țĮȚ ȑșİıİ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıİ țĮIJȫIJİȡȘ țȜȓȝĮțĮ țĮȚ ȕȐıȘ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ, ȒȜșİ ȑȟȦșİȞ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚıȝȩȢ. ǵʌȦȢ įİ ıȘȝİȚȫȞİȚ ȩ ȝİȖȐȜȠȢ șİȠȜȩȖȠȢ ǹȜȑȟĮȞįȡȠȢ ȈȝȑȝĮȞ: «ȈIJȘȞ ȠȣıȚȫįȘ ĮȜȒșİȚĮ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ, ȝȩȞȘ ıȣȞȚıIJȐ IJȠ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ IJȘȢ ʌȓıIJİȫȢ ȝĮȢ țĮȚ įȚĮȝȠȡijȫȞİȚ ȠȜȩțȜȘȡȘ IJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ıIJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ ǺĮıȚȜİȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ IJȑȜİȚĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ, IJȑȜİȚĮ ȖȞȫıȘ, IJȑȜİȚĮ ĮȖȐʌȘ țĮȚ IJİȜȚțȐ Ș «șȑȦıȘ» IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȐ «ȐȡıİȞ țĮȚ șȒȜȣ». ǹțȩȝȘ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ, ı' ĮȣIJȒ IJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ, IJȘȢ ȠʌȠȓĮȢ ȖȚȞȩȝĮıIJİ ıȣȝȝȑIJȠȤȠȚ İįȫ țĮȚ IJȫȡĮ, ȩȜȠȚ İȝİȓȢ - ȐȞįȡİȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, įȓȤȦȢ țĮȝȓĮ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ - İȓȝĮıIJİ ‘ȕĮıȚȜİȓȢ țĮȚ ȚİȡİȓȢ’, įȚȩIJȚ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ȠȣıȚȫįȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ijȪıİȦȢ țĮȚ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȒȢ, IJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ĮʌȠțĮIJȑıIJȘıİ ı' İȝȐȢ». ȂȐȜȚıIJĮ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ, ȩIJȚ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ įȚȐțȡȚıȚȢ IJȩıȠ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJĮ țȡȚIJȒȡȚĮ, ȩıȠȞ țĮȚ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJĮȢ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑıİȚȢ. Ǿ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ įȚȐıIJĮıȚȢ IJȘȢ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȚțȒȢ ȆĮȡĮįȩıİȦȢ «ȕȚȐȗİIJĮȚ» İț IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ ĮȡȤȫȞ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑıİȦȞ IJȦȞ ıȣȖȤȡȩȞȦȞ ĮȞIJȚȜȒȥİȦȞ IJȘȢ ǻȪıİȦȢ, İȞȫ įİȞ șȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ȝĮȢ įȚĮijİȪȖİȚ țĮȚ IJȠ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩȞ ȝȑȤȡȚ ıȒȝİȡȠȞ įȚıİʌȓȜȣIJȠȞ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȒȢ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȠıijȠȡȐȢ IJȠȣ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJȠȢ, ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠȞ țĮȚ ȣʌȩ IJȠ ʌȡȓıȝĮ IJȠȣ ȠʌȠȓȠȣ ȠijİȓȜȠȝİ ȞĮ șİȦȡȒıȦȝİȞ țĮȚ IJȠ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ IJȘȢ «ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮȢ Ȓ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ». DzIJıȚ, Ș ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ, Ș ȝİȜȑIJȘ țĮȚ IJİȜȚțȫȢ Ș ȜȪıȘ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠıijȐIJȦȢ ĮȞĮijȣȑȞIJȠȢ ĮȣIJȠȪ ʌȡȠȕȜȒȝĮIJȠȢ, ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȝİ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ȝİ țȡȚIJȒȡȚĮ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȐ Ȓ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȐ. ǼʌȚȕȐȜȜİIJĮȚ ȞĮ įȠȪȝİ IJȘ șȑıȘ țĮȚ IJȘ ȖȞȫȝȘ IJȦȞ ȆĮIJȑȡȦȞ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȝĮȢ, IJȘ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ țĮȚ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȝĮȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ, ĮijȠȪ, ıIJȠ ȑıȤĮIJȠ ȕȐșȠȢ IJȘȢ ĮȖȐʌȘȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȖȞȫıİȫȢ IJȘȢ, IJȘȢ ȤĮȡȐȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ IJȘȢ, Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ IJĮȣIJȓȗİȚ IJȠȞ İĮȣIJȩ IJȘȢ ȝİ ȝȓĮ īȣȞĮȓțĮ, IJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ İȟȣȝȞİȓ ȦȢ «IJȚȝȚȦIJȑȡĮȞ IJȦȞ ȋİȡȠȣȕȓȝ, țĮȚ İȞįȠȟȠIJȑȡĮȞ ĮıȣȖțȡȓIJȦȢ IJȦȞ ȈİȡĮijȓȝ». ȂİIJ’ İȣȤȫȞ țĮȚ İȣȜȠȖȚȫȞ ȅ ȂǼȈȈǾȃǿǹȈ ȋȇȊȈȅȈȉȅȂȅȈ ȆȡȩİįȡȠȢ IJȠȣ ȉȝȒȝĮIJȠȢ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJȠȣ Ǽ.Ȁ.Ȇ.ǹ.

MESSAGE BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THEOLOGY OF AUTH PROF. CHRYSOSTOMOS STAMOULIS

ĬİȠijȚȜȑıIJĮIJİ, ȀȪȡȚȠȚ țȠıȝȒIJȠȡİȢ, țȪȡȚȠȚ ʌȡȩİįȡȠȚ, țȣȡȓİȢ țĮȚ țȪȡȚȠȚ ıȣȞȐįİȜijȠȚ, ijȓȜİȢ țĮȚ ijȓȜȠȚ, ȉȠ 1988 ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȠʌȠȚȒșȘțİ ıIJȘ ȇȩįȠ, ȣʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȚȖȓįĮ IJȠȣ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȠȪ ȆĮIJȡȚĮȡȤİȓȠȣ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȚȞȠȣʌȩȜİȦȢ, ȆĮȞȠȡșȩįȠȟȠ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ ȖȚĮ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ȈIJȠȞ ĮʌȩȘȤȠ ĮȣIJȠȪ IJȠȣ ȈȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ ȝȚĮ ȠȝȐįĮ ijȠȚIJȘIJȫȞ İȓȤĮȝİ ıȣȞĮȞIJȒıİȚ IJȠȞ ȝĮțĮȡȚıIJȩ țĮșȘȖȘIJȒ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ ĭȠȣȞIJȠȪȜȘ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ ȞĮ IJȠȞ ȡȦIJȒıȠȣȝİ ȖȚĮ IJĮ ıȣȝʌİȡȐıȝĮIJĮ IJȠȣ ȈȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȑȢ IJȠȣ șȑıİȚȢ. ȈĮȞ IJȫȡĮ șȣȝȐȝĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȒ IJȠȣ ıIJȠ țİȞIJȡȚțȩ ȝĮȢ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ ʌȠȣ Ș ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ įİȞ ʌȡȠȤȫȡȘıİ ıIJȠ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞ țĮȚ įİȞ ʌȡȠȤȦȡȐ țĮȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ ıIJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ: «ȀȠȚIJȐȟIJİ ȞĮ įİȓIJİ», ȝĮȢ İȓʌİ, «ȠȚ ȜȩȖȠȚ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȠȓ, țĮȞȑȞĮȢ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȩȢ ȜȩȖȠȢ įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ. ȅ ȝȩȞȠȢ ȜȩȖȠȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ Ș ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȚĮ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ Ș ȝȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȚĮ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȠȣ ıIJȘȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ. ȀĮȚ ıIJĮ ʌȜĮȓıȚĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ įİȞ ĮȜȜȐȗİȚ țȐIJȚ İȐȞ Ș șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȡȤȒ IJȘȢ ĮȞȐȖțȘȢ įİȞ IJȠ ĮʌĮȚIJİȓ». ĬȣȝȐȝĮȚ, ȕȑȕĮȚĮ, țĮȚ ȝȚĮ įİȪIJİȡȘ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞįȑİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȠ șȑȝĮ. ȉȠȞ ǿȠȪȞȚȠ IJȠȣ 2003, ıIJĮ ʌȜĮȓıȚĮ ǻȚİșȞȠȪȢ ȈȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ ʌȠȣ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȠʌȠȚȒșȘțİ ıIJȘ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ țĮȚ įȚȠȡȖĮȞȫșȘțİ Įʌȩ IJȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȈȤȠȜȒ, Ƞ ȝĮțĮȡȚıIJȩȢ țĮșȘȖȘIJȒȢ ȃȓțȠȢ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮȢ, țȜȒșȘțİ ȞĮ ȝȚȜȒıİȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ȈIJȘ ȝȑıȘ IJȘȢ İȚıȘȖȒıİȫȢ IJȠȣ, ıIJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ ȜȓȖȠ ʌȠȜȪ ȣʌȠıIJȒȡȚȗİ ʌİȡȓʌȠȣ ȩȜĮ ȩıĮ ȣʌȠıIJȒȡȚȗİ țĮȚ Ƞ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ĭȠȣȞIJȠȪȜȘȢ, Ș ĮȞIJȚʌȡȠıȦʌİȓĮ IJȦȞ ʌȡȠȤĮȜțȘįȠȞȓȦȞ ǼțțȜȘıȚȫȞ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ıȣȝȝİIJİȓȤİ ıIJȠ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ, ıȘțȫșȘțİ İʌȚįİȚțIJȚțȐ țĮȚ ĮʌȠȤȫȡȘıİ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȓșȠȣıĮ.

20

Message by Prof. Chrysostomos Stamoulis

ȀȣȡȓİȢ țĮȚ țȪȡȚȠȚ, ȅ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ıȣȞįȑİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ȦȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ, ȩʌȦȢ ĮȣIJȒ İȟĮȚȡȑIJȦȢ ĮʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ 4Ș ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȒ ȈȪȞȠįȠ IJȘȢ ȋĮȜțȘįȩȞĮȢ. Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȝİ IJȘ ıİȚȡȐ IJȘȢ, ʌȠȣ ıȣȞįȑİIJĮȚ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȋȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ, țȚȞİȓIJĮȚ ıIJĮ ȩȡȚĮ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ijȣıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİȚ IJȘ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ țĮȚ İȟȐʌĮȞIJȠȢ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȒ ıȤȑıȘ IJȦȞ ȝİȜȫȞ IJȠȣ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȠȪ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ. ȂȚĮ ıȤȑıȘ įȣȞĮȝȚțȒ țĮȚ ȤȦȡȘIJȚțȒ ʌȠȣ ȝİ IJȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ țĮIJĮȞȠİȓ țĮȚ ĮʌȠįȑȤİIJĮȚ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ «ȐȡȡİȞ țĮȚ șȒȜȣ», ȦȢ ıȣıIJĮIJȚțȐ IJȠȣ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ȈIJĮ ʌȜĮȓıȚĮ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ĮȡȤȒȢ ȑȤȦ IJȘȞ ĮȓıșȘıȘ ȩIJȚ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ įȚĮȕĮıIJİȓ țĮȚ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ, ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ Ș ıȘȝİȡȚȞȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȤȡİȚȐȗİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ĮȞIJȜȒıİȚ IJȡȩʌȠ ȣʌȐȡȟİȦȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ IJȩȜȝȘ IJȘȢ ĮȡȤĮȓĮȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ· ȝȚĮ IJȩȜȝȘ ʌȠȣ ıIJȘȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȞ ıIJȘȞ İȝʌİȚȡȚțȒ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJĮ ʌȡȐȖȝĮIJĮ, IJȘ ȖȞȫıȘ țĮȚ ȠʌȦıįȒʌȠIJİ IJȘ ȕĮșȚȐ ıȣȞİȓįȘıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȞIJȚİȟȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȩIJȘIJȐȢ IJȘȢ ʌȠȣ ĮȞIJȜİȓ ĮʌİȣșİȓĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȠȣ ıĮȡțȦȝȑȞȠȣ ȁȩȖȠȣ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ. ȂȚĮ IJȑIJȠȚĮ ĮȞIJȚİȟȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȚțĮȞȒ ȞĮ ȖȚĮIJȡȑȥİȚ IJĮ IJȡĮȪȝĮIJĮ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ ȠȚ țĮȚȡȠȓ İʌȚıȫȡİȣıĮȞ ıIJȠ ıȫȝĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȀĮȚ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȜȒșİȚĮ ʌȦȢ İıȤȐIJȦȢ, ĮȡȖȩıȣȡIJĮ țĮȚ ıIJĮįȚĮțȐ, Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ĮʌȠțIJȐ įȣȞĮȝȚțȩIJİȡȠ țĮȚ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȩIJİȡȠ ȡȩȜȠ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ȗȦȒȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ. ȆȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȠȣ İʌȚIJȡȑʌİȚ IJȩıȠ ıİ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȩıȠ țĮȚ ıİ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȞĮ ĮʌȠțĮȜȪȥȠȣȞ IJȠȞ ȕĮșȪIJİȡȠ, ĮȜȜȐ ıİ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ țİțȡȣȝȝȑȞȠ IJȠȣȢ İĮȣIJȩ, ʌȠȣ ĮȞĮȖȞȦȡȓȗİȚ ıIJȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȘȢ țȐșİ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ IJȠȞ ȋȡȚıIJȩ Ȓ țĮȜȪIJİȡĮ țĮȚ ıĮijȑıIJİȡĮ ıIJȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ IJȘȞ țȐșİ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ· ĮȜȒșİȚĮ ʌȠȣ țĮșĮȡȠȖȡȐijİIJĮȚ ȣʌĮȚȞȚțIJȚțȐ țĮȚ įȘțIJȚțȐ ıIJȠ «İȣĮȖȖİȜȚțȩ» ʌȠȓȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ǽȦȒȢ ȀĮȡȑȜȜȘ, ȝİ IJȠȞ İȟĮȚȡİIJȚțȩ IJȓIJȜȠ: Ǿ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ. DzȞĮȢ IJȓIJȜȠȢ ıȒȝĮ, țĮșȫȢ ȑȞĮ țĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȖȡȐȝȝĮ, ȝȓĮ țĮȚ ȝȩȞȘ ȜȑȟȘ, ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ șȘȜȣțȩ Ș Įȡțİȓ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ıȘȝĮȞșİȓ țĮȚ İȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȦ ȞĮ ȝİIJĮȕȜȘșİȓ Ș ıțȜȘȡȒ ȕİȕĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ țĮȚ ȞĮ ĮʌȠțĮȜȣijșİȓ IJȠ ĮȚȫȞȚȠ ʌĮȡȐʌȠȞȠ IJȘȢ ĮįȣȞĮȝȓĮȢ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȒȢ įȚȐıIJĮıȘȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, ıIJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ ȤȦȡȐȞİ ȝĮȗȓ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮȚ ȐȞįȡĮȢ. īȡȐijİȚ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, Ș ʌȠȚȒIJȡȚĮ: ǼȖȫ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, Ș ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ, ȗȘIJȠȪıĮ IJȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȩ ȈȠȣ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ, ȒIJĮȞ ȦȢ IJȫȡĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞįȡȩȢ țĮȚ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡȫ ĮȜȜȚȫȢ ȞĮ IJȠ ȖȞȦȡȓıȦ. ȀĮȚ İʌȚIJȡȑȥIJİ ȝȠȣ ȞĮ IJİȜİȚȫıȦ ȩʌȦȢ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ ȟİțȓȞȘıĮ. ȆȡȚȞ Įʌȩ ĮȡțİIJȐ ȤȡȩȞȚĮ, ıİ ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ ȝĮȢ Ș ț. ǼȜȑȞȘ īȜȪțĮIJȗȘ ǹȡȕİȜȑȡ, İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞȠȞIJȐȢ ȝȠȣ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ, ȩIJȚ ıIJĮ įȘȝȠIJȚțȐ ıȤȠȜİȓĮ IJȘȢ īĮȜȜȓĮȢ ȖȚĮ ʌȠȜȜȐ ȤȡȩȞȚĮ įİȞ įȓįĮıțĮȞ ȐȞįȡİȢ, įİȞ ȣʌȒȡȤĮȞ įȘȜĮįȒ įȐıțĮȜȠȚ, ȝȠȣ

Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology

21

ʌİȡȚȑȖȡĮȥİ IJȘȞ İȟȒȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ: DzȞĮȢ ʌȚIJıȚȡȚțȐȢ ȖȣȡȞȐİȚ ȝȚĮ ȝȑȡĮ Įʌȩ IJȠ ıȤȠȜİȓȠ ıIJȠ ıʌȓIJȚ țĮȚ ȤĮȡȠȪȝİȞȠȢ ȜȑİȚ ıIJȠȣȢ ȖȠȞİȓȢ IJȠȣ: «ȂʌĮȝʌȐ țĮȚ ȝĮȝȐ ȑȤȦ ȑȞĮ ıʌȠȣįĮȓȠ ȞȑȠ ȞĮ ıĮȢ ʌȦ, Ș įĮıțȐȜĮ ȝĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȐȞįȡĮȢ». ǼȪȤȠȝĮȚ Įʌȩ țĮȡįȚȐȢ țĮȜȒ İʌȚIJȣȤȓĮ ıIJȠ ʌĮȡȩȞ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ. ǼȣȤĮȡȚıIJȫ Įʌȩ țĮȡįȚȐȢ ȩȜȠȣȢ IJȠȣȢ ıȣȝȝİIJȑȤȠȞIJİȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘ įȚȐșİıȘ, IJȠȞ țȩʌȠ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȖȦȞȓĮ· IJȠ IJĮȟȓįȚ. ȉȠ ȉȝȒȝĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ șĮ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȐȞIJĮ İįȫ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ıIJȘȡȓȗİȚ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤİȢ İțįȘȜȫıİȚȢ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJȠȣȞ ȩIJȚ ȝĮȗȓ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ IJİȜȠȪȞ İȞ İȖȡȘȖȩȡıİȚ. ȈIJȠȞ IJȚȝȫȝİȞȠ țĮșȘȖȘIJȒ, ĮȖĮʌȘIJȩ ȝȠȣ ț. ǼȣȐȖȖİȜȠ ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, țĮIJĮșȑIJȦ IJȘȞ ĮȖȐʌȘ ȝȠȣ, IJȘȞ ĮȖȐʌȘ IJȠȣ ȉȝȒȝĮIJȩȢ ȝĮȢ țĮȚ İȣȤȑȢ țĮȡįȚĮțȑȢ ȖȚĮ ȤȡȩȞȚĮ ȩȝȠȡijĮ.

MESSAGE BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL THEOLOGY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS PROF. GEORGIOS FILIAS

ȉȠ ǻȚİșȞȑȢ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ ʌȡઁȢ IJȚȝȒȞ IJȠȣ ȅȝȠIJȓȝȠȣ ȀĮșȘȖȘIJȠȪ ț. ǼȣĮȖȖȑȜȠȣ ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ ȝİ șȑȝĮ «ǻȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ, ȋİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ» ʌĮȡȑȤİȚ IJȘȞ İȣțĮȚȡȓĮ ıIJȠȣȢ ȝĮșȘIJȑȢ IJȠȣ İȜȜȠȖȚȝȦIJȐIJȠȣ țĮșȘȖȘIJȠȪ ȞĮ įȚĮįȘȜȫıȠȣȞ IJȘȞ ʌȡȑʌȠȣıĮ IJȚȝȒ țĮȚ İȣȖȞȦȝȠıȪȞȘ ıIJȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȠȣ ıİȕĮıIJȠȪ įȚįĮıțȐȜȠȣ IJȠȣȢ. ȅ țĮșȘȖȘIJȒȢ ț. ǼȣȐȖȖİȜȠȢ ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ- țĮIJȐ ȖİȞȚțȒ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȓĮ- ȝȓĮ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡİȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ȝȠȡijȑȢ IJȠȣ 20Ƞȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ, ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ İȜȜĮįȚțȒ ĮțĮįȘȝĮȧțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ʌĮȖțȩıȝȚĮ. ȅ ĮțȐȝĮIJȠȢ İȡİȣȞȘIJȒȢ, Ƞ ʌȠȜȣȖȡĮijȩIJĮIJȠȢ țĮșȘȖȘIJȒȢ, Ƞ İȟĮȓıȚȠȢ ȡȒIJȠȡĮȢ țĮȚ įȚįȐıțĮȜȠȢ, Ƞ ıȣȞİʌȒȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩȢ ȐȞįȡĮȢ țĮȚ Ƞ ȠȡĮȝĮIJȚıIJȒȢ ȝȚĮȢ ȗȦȞIJĮȞȒȢ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ıIJȠ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠ țȩıȝȠ, IJȚȝȐIJĮȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ ȝİ IJȠȞ țĮIJĮȜȜȘȜȩIJİȡȠ IJȡȩʌȠ: ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ ȑȞĮ ǻȚİșȞȑȢ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ, IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ İʌĮȞȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ıİ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȠȪȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪȢ ȐȟȠȞİȢ IJȦȞ İȡİȣȞȘIJȚțȫȞ ĮȞĮȗȘIJȒıİȦȞ IJȠȣ IJȚȝȦȝȑȞȠȣ țĮșȘȖȘIJȠȪ, ȩIJĮȞ İțİȓȞȠȢ ȟİțȚȞȠȪıİ IJȘȞ ĮțĮįȘȝĮȧțȒ țĮȚ İȡİȣȞȘIJȚțȒ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠıijȠȡȐ. Ȃİ ĮȚıșȒȝĮIJĮ ȕĮșȣIJȐIJȘȢ ȤĮȡȐȢ ȤĮȚȡİIJȓȗȦ IJȘ įȚȠȡȖȐȞȦıȘ IJȠȣ ʌĮȡȩȞIJȠȢ ǻȚİșȞȠȪȢ ȈȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ, İȪȤȠȝĮȚ İț ȕĮșȑȦȞ IJȘȞ İʌȚIJȣȤȓĮ ıIJȚȢ İȡȖĮıȓİȢ IJȠȣ țĮȚ ıIJȡȑijȠȞIJĮȢ IJȘȞ İȣȖȞȫȝȠȞĮ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ȝȠȣ ıIJȠ ıİȕĮıIJȩ ȝȠȣ įȚįȐıțĮȜȠ țĮȚ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȩ ȝȠȣ ʌĮIJȑȡĮ ıIJȘȞ İʌȚıIJȒȝȘ IJȘȢ ǿıIJȠȡȓĮȢ țĮȚ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȁĮIJȡİȓĮȢ ȅȝȩIJȚȝȠ țĮșȘȖȘIJȒ ț. ǼȣȐȖȖİȜȠ ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, țĮIJĮșȑIJȦ IJȚȢ ȕĮșȪIJİȡİȢ İȣȤȑȢ ȝȠȣ, ȫıIJİ Ƞ ĬİȩȢ ȞĮ ȝĮȢ IJȠȞ ȤĮȡȓȗİȚ ȖȚĮ ʌȠȜȜȐ ĮțȩȝȘ ȑIJȘ ȦȢ ijȦIJİȚȞȒ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ țĮȚ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȝİȜȜȠȞIJȚțȒ ʌȠȡİȓĮ IJȘȢ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ.

PART II: SPECIAL SESSION TO HONOR PROF. EMERITUS EVANGELOS THEODOROU

CHAPTER ONE LAUDATUM: PRAISING THE LIFE AND WITNESS OF PROF. EVANGELOS THEODOROU, PRINCIPLE PROPONENT FOR THE REJUVENATION OF THE ORDINATION OF DEACONESSES KYRIAKI KARYDOYANES-FITZGERALD

ĬİȠijȚȜȑıIJĮIJİ, Reverend Clergy, Distinguished Rector, Deans, Esteemed Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen, Good evening! It is a unique life honor for me to be invited to offer this laudatum tonight, here in Thessaloniki, honoring Prof. Emeritus, Evangelos Theodorou. It is a singular privilege for my husband and I to be with all of you this evening. I wish, especially, to thank Prof. Petros Vassiliadis and the Center for Ecumenical, Missiological and Environmental Studies, “Metropolitan Panteleimon Papageorgiou” (CEMES), as well as the rest of the scientific committee for extending the invitation and affording me an opportunity to offer a few remarks regarding the person, work and witness of Prof. Theodorou, on behalf of this esteemed gathering. Again, thank you. I will begin the honored task you set before me now. Beloved of God and highly distinguished Prof. Emeritus, Evangelos Theodorou, I bid you salutations on behalf of all the organizers, participants, attendees, internet viewers and listeners. Allow me to indulge myself to offer an extra-warm and special greeting from my faculty, the Hellenic College and Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, a co-organizer of this event, whom you honored by coming to Boston to receive an honorary doctorate not too many years ago. On behalf of the School, we greet you with profound appreciation and esteem.

28

Chapter One

You also have additional greetings steeped in deep gratitude from St. Catherine’s Vision (SCV), a Pan-Orthodox organization of women theologians, and other lay servant-leaders, blessed by the Canonical Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of the U.S.A. Since June, you had been advising us in the writing of an international “Call for the Rejuvenation of the Ministry of the Ordained Deaconess in the Orthodox Church,” which was launched last November on the St. Catherine’s Vision website and Facebook pages. This document is addressed to His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and the Secretariat of the Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church. This “Call for the Rejuvenation of the Ministry of the Ordained Deaconess in the Orthodox Church” is dedicated to you, dear professor. In this text, we cite your ardent prayers, which are being echoed by many others around the world who, as you have stated, sincerely “desire to experience the witness and ministry of the ierosyni of the deaconess”.1 All of us together offer thanks to God for you and praise Him for the service you have been offering for many, many years. The purpose of our gathering for these days, as I understand it, is to cultivate more deeply and to bear witness to the Orthodox theological understanding of the ministry of women, especially as it concerns the ordination of women. The heart of this conference gives special attention to discerning more fully the various considerations related to the ministry of women ordained to serve in the diaconate and, I think, for most of us attending, to advocate for its rejuvenation! From the human side of the equation, we would not be meeting here together for these days if it were not for you! And by the providential grace of God. Most of us here are scholars, academics and educators in the service of Orthodox theology. We are gathered to engage in this effort in the presence of the loving God and all the saints, in a manner that also honors you as a person, your scholarly endeavors and your witness. Through your many activities both inside and outside of Greece, beloved professor, you are a cherished mentor and father in the holy discipline of theological study to many, many clergy and laypersons alike; persons who are now serving as bishops, pastors, monastics, professors, academicians, educators and in other vocations. As part of your academic responsibilities, you have been frequently invited to represent the Church of Greece at international theological meetings, consultations and conferences. You and I met for the first time during the mid-1980s, while we were serving as appointed representatives to Faith and Order 1

Professor Theodorou, October 9, 2014, telephone interview. See Appendices

Laudatum: Praising the Life and Witness of Prof. Evangelos Theodorou

29

Commission meetings for the World Council of Churches. Even from our first encounter, you surprised me with your familiarity of my small contribution on the topic of deaconesses, published in Father Thomas Hopko’s 1983 volume titled, Women and the Priesthood. I believe that my chapter contribution may be the first public Orthodox effort to intentionally and aggressively make your work better known to the English-speaking world. As the years progressed, you were very encouraging of me, a Greek Orthodox Christian of Greek descent from outside of Greece. At one point, you encouraged me to continue on with this research, telling me in a somber tone that Greek Orthodox theologians in Greece were under an “embargo” and were prohibited from publicly writing on the topic. You did not say more than this, despite my questions. Instead, you encouraged me to not back down from studying and disseminating information concerning this important treasure of the Church. I am sure you also encouraged many other persons like me. The result is not only this gathering, but the education and spiritual awakening of many faithful Orthodox Christians to the importance of this ministry. By the grace of God, there has been a resurgence of interest in recent years, publicly expressing the desire for the rejuvenation of the ministry of deaconesses, despite some very loud and misinformed opposition. All over the world, within the context of more deeply exploring the various aspects of ministry in the life of the Church, groups of faithful Orthodox clergy, laywomen and laymen have begun to prayerfully meet privately, semiprivately and even to organize conferences, that also include in their conclusions a “call” for the rejuvenation of this ministry. These persons have been carefully attending to many of your scholarly findings that bear witness to the conscience and practice of the Church. You have kept your eyes on the prize, who is Christ himself, you have not allowed the noise of detractors to impede your witness, even when there were years when theologians were discouraged from addressing this topic in public. You have faithfully served your entire adult life as a servant of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Today, a devoted man of prayer, you are also an advisor, mentor and guide to younger colleagues, a respectful and straightforward theological collaborator, a true friend, loving grandfather, delighted great-grandfather, appreciative father and devoted husband to your unforgettable and precious wife, Harikleia, of blessed memory, whom you married on January 27, 1946, sixty-nine years ago! Harikleia, also a dedicated and skilled theologian, served and witnessed to the Lord by your side for many blessed and fruitful decades, as your syzygos, your faithful friend, the mother of your children and

30

Chapter One

colleague. Through our Lord’s loving grace, she is present with us today. While delighting in Him in heaven, tonight at the very sight of you, her beloved Evangelos, she rejoices. Perhaps most of all, she rejoices in how you have persevered over these many years, en ypomone, maintaining your peace, integrity and humility in the Lord. En ypomone, you have been advocating for the rejuvenation of this ministry. En ypomone, you have been persevering over countless hurdles, many quite visibly large, and even far more, quite invisibly small and subtle. Up until this very moment, she is a witness to you fighting “the good fight”, en ypomone, and by the love of the merciful Lord, she never leaves your side. Those of us who know her, even a little bit, know that she has always been there by your side, even when you had to be temporarily physically apart. Last week, you shared with me on the telephone how, in 1952 and 1953, while you were studying in Germany, conducting research on the ordination of deaconesses which resulted in your now famous 1954 doctoral dissertation, The “Ordination” or “Appointment” of Deaconess (in Greek), she remained behind in Athens. She remained behind in order to raise your two cherished sons. What a sacrifice for all of you! During those years, technology and the economy being what it was, you had no other means of communication but letter-writing. No emails, no instant text messages, not even fax machines, just letters etched in ink on paper. These letters of love were written perhaps during some of the quietest moments of the day. I could sense even over the telephone that you were smiling as you were sharing this. In actuality, you were honoring me and now, all of us gathered together — you were letting us in on a lovers’ secret — and, as a result of this living, growing love between you and Harikleia, you now have four large containers of love-letters. These are the letters written between the two of you that you exchanged during those many months of separation. In my imagination, which is perhaps not unlike events over sixty years ago, I see you sitting once more during the quietest moments of the day, savoring the potent sweetness released that is contained in these letters, merely by reading a few. They carry with them a love that has traveled through the course of time, unscathed. This is a gift of love that keeps on giving. What a source of consolation for you, praise, God! The love exchanged and demonstrated between the two of you, is a witness to the thrice-holy God of love whom you both have been serving. At some point, maturing love impels us to take risks, to make sacrifices. Repeatedly, you both demonstrated a willingness to take sacrificial risks and reach outside fallen, human-defined parameters, seeking instead to

Laudatum: Praising the Life and Witness of Prof. Evangelos Theodorou

31

“hear the word of God and do it (Luke 8:21).” During these earlier years of your married life, before and after your studies abroad, you were both instrumental, together with the help of Archimandrite, later Metropolitan Barnabas, to begin a school for “lay” deaconesses, sponsored by the Church of Greece in Athens, where you both served as faculty. This set the stage for the establishment of a graduate level college. Although this program had, by 1990, been completely absorbed by the School of Social work, this bold and noble effort offered a witness that we honor today, and it inspires us even now to continue moving forward, treasuring their memory and trusting the compassionate thrice-holy God. During this same telephone conversation, you also offered other examples of your willingness to take risks beyond the expected. You revealed the delightful manner by which you became interested in deaconesses. You befriended a couple of strangers in Athens who happened to be German Protestant deaconesses. I wonder if your sensitivity to reach out in this manner is founded, at least in large part, in your early life’s journey. Born in Asia Minor in 1921, your family and you were forced to become refugees, due to the “population exchange” in 1922. In a profoundly exquisite and personal manner, you know from deep experience what it is like to be alone and a stranger. You know what it is like to be invisible to the dominant society. You know what it is like to have petitions repeatedly ignored, even mocked, by “the powers that be”. Instead of hardening your heart, as it is so very easy to do, you cultivated an open-eyed compassion for the other, while trusting the loving providence of God. Instead of shunning these foreigners, you took the risk and opened yourself, allowing yourself to come to know them a little bit better. By so doing, you were inspired by them as unique persons and by their ministry. They gave you literature and documentation that described their order and their work. After studying their Protestant literature, you were moved to explore and study Orthodox sources, so as to examine closely the witness of Orthodox Christian tradition regarding deaconesses. In large part, due to this unexpected meeting and not too long after these encounters, you published your first articles on the topic of Protestant deaconess sisterhoods, as well as the caregiving diaconal activities of the Roman Catholic Church, in the periodical Anagenisis, in 1945-46. Let us, the audience, step back a moment and take note that it is now seventy years since you first published on the issue of the ordination of deaconesses. Even from these, the earliest years of your academic vocation, you were inspired to “cultivate the idea of the rejuvenation of the order of

32

Chapter One

women deacons in the Orthodox Church.” This led to the publication of your first book regarding deaconesses, in 1949, titled, Heroines of Love: Deaconesses through the Ages. The younger members of your audience today may not appreciate how these early post-war years, during which you were conducting your research regarding deaconesses, came during another very difficult time in Greek, as well as world, history. World War Two had just ended, yet this ending initiated the beginning of a new wave of civil strife that continued for years. This served as another face of oppression, a face that resulted in a national famine. It seemed as if this face was intent on breaking the Greek people, as well as the people of the surrounding Balkan countries. While you responded to the needs of your own family and community, you nevertheless did not waver from exploring the riches of the Orthodox Church regarding this grossly underappreciated expression of ministry. When I asked you last week how you were able to do this during such turbulent political times in the midst of famine, you replied in a simple and unassuming manner: “Of course, we had to keep working while we were hungry”. Nevertheless, you share, perhaps unknowingly with your readership, some of the depths of your unwavering commitment to this issue in your thoughtful, extensive prologue for my first book, Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness and Ministry.2 In my book, you convey that it was writing your first book, published in 1949 by the Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece, that sparked your service as a scholar and educator and to become an advocate on behalf of this ministry, which is something you apparently did not expect would happen. You referred to your first book as marking, “the realization of the first step in the endeavor of developing the ministry of women deacons in the Orthodox Church of Greece.” You go on to say that, “I was the first among my colleagues to advocate for this.”3 You continue by identifying other instances of this, all the while also pointing out examples of your contemporaries, including Prof. Basil Vellas from the School of Theology of the University of Athens, who also served as the General Director of the Apostoliki Diakonia of the Church of Greece. Prof. Vellas openly supported the evidence you brought forward, and your conclusions regarding the rejuvenation of this order of ministry. Dear professor and Father, your efforts have withstood the ravages of time. Your work and you have endured much, much testing. Nevertheless, 2

Karidoyanes FitzGerald, Kyriaki. Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness and Ministry, Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1999. 3 Ibid. p. xxi.

Laudatum: Praising the Life and Witness of Prof. Evangelos Theodorou

33

over these decades, your efforts have inspired others to follow suit. This success has not happened quickly, nor are the detractors completely silenced, but the providence of God has been working through your efforts. Your efforts helped promote the unanimous recommendations articulated in the statement that resulted from the historic “Inter-Orthodox Symposium on the Place of the Woman in the Orthodox Church and the Question of the Ordination of Women,” held October 30 through November 7, 1988, on the island of Rhodes, Greece. Inspired by the Holy Spirit and informed very much by the veracity of your research, the Rhodes Statement correctly says: The revival of this ancient order… would represent a positive response to many of the needs and demands of the contemporary world. This would be all the more true if the diaconate in general (male as well as female) were restored in all places in its original, manifold services (diakoniai) with extension into the social sphere, in the spirit of the ancient tradition and in response to the increasing specific needs of our time. It should not be solely restricted to a purely liturgical role or considered to be a mere step on the way to higher “ranks” of clergy.4

We remember with great reverence that this event was convened by His All-Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Demetrios I of blessed memory, and the symposium brought together hierarchs and theologians from the Autocephalous Churches. You were invited as a theological consultant and featured as one of the main presenters. Since then, in various ways, it has been a steady uphill climb, bearing witness to the depth and breathe of tradition regarding the nature and scope of this ministry. The years since the “fall” of the so-called “Iron Curtain” have also brought additional challenges and opportunities. It is clear that many Orthodox are unfamiliar with or misinformed about this expression of ministry. Some have been influenced by opportunistic fear-mongers, alleging that Orthodox men and women in favor of the ordination of deaconesses are the very same as “post-Christian” liberal Westerners. Like addicts who are “high” on their drugs of choice, these persons are inebriated with their own self-serving disdain. Not unlike self-righteous bullies, they aggressively seek to intimidate faithful, open-minded seekers, threatening them with accusations of “innovation” and “heresy,” spreading fears that women will begin clamoring to become presbyters and bishops, once the diaconate is rejuvenated for our day. 4

In, Place of Woman in the Orthodox Church and the Question of the Ordination of Women, edited by Gennadios Limouris, 31-32, Katerini, Greece: Tertios Publications, 1992.

34

Chapter One

Your research, as well as many others who have followed after you and who have been inspired by your work, documents that the Church, enlivened by the Holy Spirit who always points to Christ, has her own living, embodied memory. This is an important dimension of Christian phenomena. It is embedded in the liturgical witness and scriptures of the Church, the lex orandi est lex credendi. It is, likewise, embedded in the living testimony of our hagiographical, patristic, canonical and historical sources, which your research helped bring to light and be offered to the Church, “for the life of the world” (cf. John 6:51). Your scholarship witnesses that the ministry of deaconesses is not new. We have ample evidence through the centuries that women have been received into the diaconate. It is a joy to anticipate some of the presentations that will be offered in the coming days at this important conference that will shed more light on this issue. This is an issue that has not gone away, nor will it. I believe that the loving Lord has blessed you to see the desire for the rejuvenation of the ministry of female deacons, or deaconesses, begin to reach a blessed “critical mass” of awareness within the life of the Church. By the grace of God, your prayers, your scholarly research and your advocacy have helped the Church come to this moment. This highlights the female side of the coin regarding the need for the rejuvenation of the entire diaconate, male and female. We all look forward to the coming presentations, many of which will be cultivating the treasure you have given us. I am sure that I am speaking for many others as I end by expressing my heartfelt gratitude to the thrice-holy, compassionate God for you, and to you for your unquestioning, bold consent to “hear the word of God and do it.” You have been courageously and with great faith, bearing witness to the scriptures, the Fathers, the ancient liturgical texts, the canons and other important sources in the life of the Church regarding the ministry of women who have been “filled” with “the grace of the diaconate.”5 Together, these and more all echo, in their way, the same affirmation by our Father among the saints, St. John Chrysostom, who was apparently very familiar with the third century document, the Syriac Didascalia, asserting that, “the ministry of a woman deacon is especially important and necessary.”6 He, the great Patriarch of Constantinople himself

5 From the second prayer of invocation (epiclesis) for the deaconess from the Byzantine ordination rite; See: Theodorou Evangelos, The “Ordination” or “Appointment” of Deaconess, 55-56, Athens; See also: Women Deacons, FitzGerald, pp. 202-04. 6 Syriac Didascalia, III: 12.

Laudatum: Praising the Life and Witness of Prof. Evangelos Theodorou

35

declared that, “this order is also in the highest degree necessary, useful and proper in the Church.” 7 Thank you, dearest professor . . . Axios!

7

Homily 11 on Timothy.

CHAPTER TWO DEACONESSES, THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN AND ORTHODOX THEOLOGY RESPONSE BY PROF. EMERITUS EVANGELOS THEODOROU

Your Grace, Respected and beloved participants, Allow me first of all to express my warm gratitude and congratulate my former student and now distinguished and esteemed colleague, Prof. Petros Vassiliadis, for the nice initiative within the framework of activities of the brilliant theological Center of Ecumenical, Missiological and Environmental Studies, to organize such a nice conference. Thanks are also due to his elect partners, the speakers, male and female, and especially to my former and new colleagues at the Theological School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. This School has always been a pioneer in many fields, and radiant. The show and the organization, after all, of this conference is clear proof. I am proud because, many years ago, for eight consecutive years (which were perhaps the most beautiful years of my life), I was a professor of this School. From the bottom of my heart, I also greet my dear, old and new, members of the Holy Cross Theological School in Boston, U.S.A., which is also innovative and has a special place, a distinct position, among all American theological schools. To this School, too, I am connected through many beautiful, old memories. Special thanks are also due to my dear colleague of the Higher Ecclesiastical Academy of Athens, Prof. Dimitrios Passakos, whose technological skill has allowed my spiritual presence among you, something that made my great regret affordable, because I cannot be physically present among you.

38

Chapter Two

Great is also my gratitude to Prof. Kyriaki Karydoyanes FitzGerald, who came from the U.S.A. and spoke with both compliments and praise for me. Many years ago, Prof. FitzGerald, along with her fine husband, Reverend Prof. Thomas, have on many occasions promoted my contribution to theological literature, especially the institution of deaconesses. I am very pleased with their presence at this conference. Finally, I wholeheartedly thank all of you who, with your presence, animate this prestigious conference to my honor, supporting in this way the issue of the ordination of deaconesses. Sixty-five years ago, in 1949, with my book entitled, Heroines of Christian Love: The Deaconesses through the Centuries, and in 1954, with my doctoral thesis on the ordination of deaconesses, I sowed a few seeds that afterwards flourished, thus highlighting and promoting the issue of the ordination of deaconesses. Today, Roman Catholics and Orthodox do not have deaconesses. Deaconesses are variously in Protestant, Old Catholic, and Anglican communities. We have not yet this traditional institution, but it is auspicious – promising I would say – that there is a huge movement in all the Orthodox churches and the Roman Catholic Church, to revive the institution of deaconesses. Today, the sounds of more and more voices are heard in favour of reviving the institution of deaconesses and their ordination. In Orthodoxy, I would like to remind you of the courageous efforts made many years ago by the Apostoliki Diakonia to establish the School of Deaconesses, print my first book Heroines of Christian Love, and spread the idea for the renewal of this old institution of the Church. Not to mention, of course, the numerous inter-Orthodox conferences which have focused on this issue, and particularly and above all the PanOrthodox Conference of Rhodes — convened by the care and under the auspices of the Holy Ecumenical Patriarchate — which showed the need for the revival of the institution of deaconesses. The presence among the speakers of my colleague and old friend, Dr. Zagano, underlines the huge traffic that takes place in America to renew this diaconal institution. Dr. Zagano, in her books and other publications, makes frequent reference to my own works on this issue. Like Prof. FitzGerald in the Greek Orthodox Church in America, Dr. Zagano, within the Roman Catholic Church, has become an apostle of the revival of this institution. And in Europe, there is huge movement in this direction, especially in Germany. There are reports, there are cardinals, there are theological schools, there are doctoral dissertations, seminars, etc., all of which are pushing to revive the institution. Enough women are already prepared to become deaconesses, and all of them are waiting for the

Response by Prof. Emeritus Evangelos Theodorou

39

approval of the Vatican, to authorize the ordination and their accession to the active diaconal service of the Church. I am sure, though, that the distinguished speakers in the various sessions of the conference will highlight anything that advocates the revival of the institution of ordained deaconesses, indicating at the same time the difficulties and obstacles that must be left aside. Allow me to now say a few words on this issue. I will not, of course, bring owls to Athens. I will not say anything new, but repeat some of what I have said and written over these past 65 years. I will only highlight a few key points that should perhaps be identified and addressed during the conference. Deaconesses undoubtedly existed in the Church of the apostles. It is well known what St. Paul the apostle wrote about the existence of Phoebe, a deacon in the Church of Kechreae, near Corinth, whom he extols in the Letter to the Romans. But up to the end of the 4th century AD, we do not have ordination prayers, i.e. texts that show the structure of ordination in the various ranks of the clergy in the Church. Since the end of the 4th century, however, the Apostolic Orders has included a special rite for the consecration of deaconesses, similar in form and content to that which exists for all the upper and lower clergy ranks. At that time, of course, no distinction was made within the Church between upper and lower clergy. The rite of ordinations says: Prayer or epiclesis on the ordination of Bishop, then Prayer and epiclesis on the ordination of Deacon, then of Presbyter, then of Deaconess, Subdeacon, Reader etc. And the blessing and grace of God is sought to send the Holy Spirit to consecrate the deaconess and the other ordained. But from the 5th century AD onwards, the ordination rite developed and became more extensive and, I would say, triumphant. We notice that, for the ordination of deaconesses, requested again within it is God's blessing and grace to send the Holy Spirit to make the ad valorem of the becoming deaconess a servant and celebrant of the Church. Thus, for the ordination rite of deaconesses, there are two longer prayers of consecration, similar to the other ranks of the upper clergy, that of the bishop, the presbyter and the deacon. In both of these prayers, what is stressed is that God gave his blessing and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, not only to men but also to women, and they ask God to send his Spirit to sanctify the deaconess. This is done in both prayers. In between, the prayers for peace are inserted, where again the Church prays ȣʌȑȡ IJȘȢ ȞȣȞ ʌȡȠȤİȚȡȚȗȠȝȑȞȘȢ to become worthy of the office, which is called to serve.

40

Chapter Two

Careful study of these ordination rites, both morphologically and in terms of content, leads to the following conclusions: 1. During these described ordination rites, the laying on of hands of the so-called lower clergy, (i.e. the singer, the reader, the subdeacon) were performed outside the sanctuary, not during the Eucharistic liturgy. Further, this took place without singing, “the divine grace that always heals the patient etc.” For the deaconesses in the process of ordination, as for upper clergy – bishop, presbyter and deacon – two prayers were heard. And we can discern that the deaconess standing before her ordination in front of the beautiful gate had her head covered with a maphorion and, when the time came, she was transferred to the altar, where she was ordained by the bishop with the laying of his hands on her head, invoking the Holy Spirit to make her worthy for the service she was about to undertake. It should be noted that the invocation prayer: Ș ĬİȓĮ ȋȐȡȚȢ Ș ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ IJĮ ĮıșİȞȒ șİȡĮʌİȪȠȣıĮ, (the divine grace that always heals the patient), which is heard in the ordinations of the senior clerics and of deaconesses, is a feature only of senior ordinations. It is never heard during the laying on of hands of the lower clergy. From this evidence it becomes obvious that during the ordination of deaconesses, all the essential elements of the ordination of a deacon are present. The deaconess is vested, like the deacon, with diaconal orarion and she communes at the time of Holy Communion, like the deacon, inside the Holy Sanctuary, taking the Holy Grail from the hands of the bishop and placing it on the altar. One would normally expect that, with the expansion and more elaborate ordination rites and ceremonies of the deaconesses, like those of all the priests, the deaconess would be relegated to the lower clergy. The Church, however, took her and put her ordination together with those of the higher ordinations of the upper clergy. All these explain why, in the canonical orders of the Church, the female deacons have many tasks related to the diaconal sacramental priesthood. They certainly did not have the tasks of the presbyters but, we should not forget that neither did the deacon, because he never performed sacraments. 2. Also, the following topic should be investigated: the so-called Syrian teaching, the 3rd century AD Didaskalia, and the Apostolic Orders of the late 4th century, reveal a hierarchy of degrees of priesthood. The bishop, who is the symbol of God the Father, stands higher, followed by the deacon as a symbol of Christ. Then there is the deaconess, as a symbol of the Holy Spirit, after which comes the presbyter, as a symbol of the

Response by Prof. Emeritus Evangelos Theodorou

41

apostles. This hierarchical arrangement must be explained: why is the Syrian teaching of the apostles and apostolic orders placed with the deaconesses even before the presbyters? 3. It should be noted that in the canonical rules of the Church, the deaconesses are mentioned within the ranks of the clergy. The 1st, 4th, and the quinisext ecumenical councils all have special rules for the ordination of deaconesses. The subsequent civil law, which we know represents the Church practice of the time, and in particular the Corpus Juris Civilis, the famous Codex Justinianus, incorporates deaconesses in the clergy. It has an arrangement with the inscription: "on bishops and priests", where it also places deaconesses. Then we have the nouvellae — the neares — as we call them, of Justinian, which frequently mentioned women deacons. The 6th nouvella, for example, has the characteristic title ʌİȡȓ IJȠȣ ʌȦȢ įİȚ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞİȓıșĮȚ IJȠȞ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȞ" (how the bishop should be ordained), which refers to the bishops, the presbyters and the deacons, male and female. We also have the 3rd Justinian nouvella, which determines the number of the clergy in various churches, listing the number of clergy serving in the Hagia Sophia as 60 priests, 100 deacons and 40 deaconesses. 4. It should also be borne in mind that in the Orthodox Church, against the various doctrinal or canonical expressions developed later, the primacy belongs to the earlier advanced primary liturgical experience and practice of the Church, the worship of which — as the late German professor, Friedrich Heiler would say — is “das gebetete dogma” or, in other words, the praying doctrine expressed in the liturgical prayer. Let us also recall the well-known Latin expression, lex orandi est lex credendi, i.e., the Law of Faith is associated with the Law of Worship. For these reasons, all opinions refusing the ordination of deaconesses are simply unwarranted. It is testified in the liturgical texts and, the dogmatic expressions for various ranks in the priesthood are later than these liturgical texts. Therefore, these liturgical texts of the Church should not be overlooked. Finally, we should never forget that while the ecumenical councils, as we said, recognize the ordination of deaconesses, no church doctrinal decision exists to date that repeals the ordination of deaconesses. This is potentially still valid in the Church and, it seems, has survived throughout history in some monasteries: St. Nektarios, a 20th century saint, ordained deaconesses on the island of Aegina; the penultimate Archbishop of Athens, the late Archbishop Christodoulos, ordained a deaconess in a convent of the Metropolis of Demetrias.

42

Chapter Two

5. We must distinguish between the “diaconal” sacramental priesthood and the “hierurgic” sacramental priesthood. All senior clerics have a sacramental priesthood, but some have special gifts and functions. The deacon cannot do what a priest does. The deaconess, like the deacon, has no operational tasks, but this is the division which the Church makes according to the different gifts. But the priesthood is one, and always presupposes the descent of the Holy Spirit and, the deaconesses undoubtedly have such priesthood. 6. Some say that today, there are not many devout female persons who could be ordained deaconesses, while there are plenty of fine women who, in different parishes, perform many diaconal services, especially in the field of solidarity and charity. But we must not forget that in the history of the Church there were always devoted women. Remember the immense work of John Chrysostom, who had next to him not only the St. Olympias, but many deaconesses: Sylvina Pentadia, Procla, Amproukle, Saviniane, Elissanthia, Palladia, Martyria, and many others. Our struggle is the awakening of the Church, in order that, in a time of crisis, like the present one, the diaconal service is not limited to soup kitchens and various other ministerial departments. It must remember that one of the main tasks is to care for Christ in the person of suffering brothers. A great Roman Catholic theologian, Karl Rahner, remarked that “in the future the Church will either become diaconal or will cease to exist”. Of course, this was a rhetorical exaggeration, because the Church has not only diaconal services, but liturgical, missionary, preaching, tacking etc., too. What Rahner wanted to emphasize was that the Church must be awakened and undertake bold diaconal services in society. Perhaps Pope Francis today moves in this direction on behalf of the Catholic Church. The revival of the institution of deaconesses, finally, can start from the monasteries with the nuns of the great order (megaloschemes), as at the end of the Byzantine period. After all, in the ancient Church, the deaconesses were selected among pious virgins and widows. However, by the end of the Byzantine period, deaconesses were taken from the megaloschemes. It is easier to start from them because the nun has an ecclesiastical appearance with robes, which will not seem extraordinary. And once parishioners realize that some prestigious monasteries have deaconesses/nuns, then they would wish their parishes to become diaconal centers which also have deaconesses. What I herewith propose, is the reverse process of the one followed in the ancient Church. The institution of deaconesses in parishes spread to the monasteries. Today, conversely, the monasteries can spread slowly and quietly to parishes.

Response by Prof. Emeritus Evangelos Theodorou

43

Of course, the issue of reviving the institution of deaconesses will meet problems. When it starts to be more actively operated, it is likely to trigger some separation. This must be taken into account and avoided at all costs because, I would say, the demand for the peace and unity of the Church is also an ecclesiological request and should not be underestimated. 7. As for discussion on the overall issue of the “ordination of women”, our Orthodox theology should not resort to the inappropriate use of human, biological concepts about sex and the alleged male or female form of each of the persons of the Holy Trinity, thus relegating the apophatic character – inaccessible to human intellect – to Trinitarian doctrine. The Orthodox should use ecclesiological criteria aimed at building the Church of Christ. They should also use Christological theology, which teaches on the GodMan, that the salvation in His work incorporated and received all human nature, male and female. And so they should seek the division of responsibilities among the services of the Church, according to the variety of their charisms. This diversity of charisms is what was particularly raised by the ancient Church. Once again, I feel obliged to express my warm gratitude to Prof. Vassiliadis, all the members of the scientific and organizational committees, those who sent messages to the conference in my honor, those who labored in many respects, Prof. FitzGerald for her very touching laudatum, the chairpersons of the various sessions of the conference, those who travelled from America and other parts of Greece, and all the participants. I wish all good success to the conference, with the blessing of the Honorary President of the Center of Ecumenical, Missiological and Environmental Studies, “Metropolitan Panteleimon Papageorgiou”, His Eminence Metropolitan of Thessaloniki Mgr. Anthimos, who creates hope that, with his well-organized diaconal services in his diocese – and of course the same is true for the Archdiocese of Athens and the other holy dioceses – it will also be including, in the near future, the order of deaconesses. I will not add anything else. I only intended to remind you of some basic points on the issue, and to wish your conference successful and good results for the benefit of our Church. Many thanks for your patience.

PART III: THE PAPERS

CHAPTER THREE WOMEN AND CHRISTIANITY IOANNIS PETROU

Abstract: Women’s issues in society and the Church constitute many multidimensional aspects. Those issues have been perceived more broadly over the last century. Within this century, efforts have been made to address the various dimensions. This paper will first examine how these issues have been brought forward in society, what the role of the feminist movement was and what other factors led to this awareness. Moreover, reference will be made to the reasons that paved the way, during the 1970s, for a clear change in the issue of women’s participation in cultural production. Questions related to Christianity, churches, feminist theology and the theological research of women will also be explored. Whether or not Christianity and the churches have contributed, and whether they can actually contribute, to the liberation of women will also be examined. Some basic questions will be examined within this framework. What is the position of women in the Church? Could the historical research of ecclesiastical concepts help to understand the place and role of women and gender? What are the necessary presuppositions in our time, in order to approach this topic from an ecclesiastical standpoint? Finally, the question of women’s priesthood will also be addressed.

The issues of women in society Issues related to the position and role of women in society are actually issues of discrimination against women. The usual way of approaching such issues is to research the stereotypes associated with them, which contribute to the maintenance and reproduction of perceptions and practices that were formerly dominant. As is the case with any social problem, it is necessary to be aware of the negative aspects and accept that those are not valid. The procedure for the recognition of these problems started very late in the history of civilization. It was in the late 19th century that the first considerations emerged in Europe and North America. But had it not been for the efforts of modern times, in terms of human liberation from the shackles of traditional society, there could not have been any discussion about women's issues. In common with other

48

Chapter Three

cases, where thinkers have rigorously judged the imperfections of modernity and disregarded the importance of the changes made in relation to traditional society, this happened with the feminist movement. It was especially critical of modernity, reproaching various aspects of it, particularly the point that it had not contributed to the liberation of women. Yet those reproaches point to the fact that it has not been understood that, without modern conceptions of society and human beings, there could be no change in anything, including the situation of women, and there could be no feminist movement either. For changes to take place in society in general, it was necessary to question its traditional structure and realize that society is not a given thing but something that constantly changes. This means that human beings can intervene and alter existing social situations. In addition, without accepting the release of the individual from his community, and recognizing that every person has value and can act according to his/her free will, it would not be possible to even conceive of any intervention or change. All this shows that the following factors play an important role in making meaningful social change. First, how relationships among people are understood. Secondly, the relationship between people and society. Thirdly, how social roles are formed, whether they are given or shaped according to will or if, more simply, roles are biological or social constructs. These issues require a lengthy process of elaboration. It is not only women who have suffered discrimination but other parts of the population as well. This is why it is necessary to realize that everyone has a right to claim a place in society and it is not justified to have various kinds of discrimination within it. Such issues have claimed our concern in modern times as we are constantly becoming aware of new dimensions. Initially, therefore, it was necessary to accept that equality applies to all and not just to some people. Secondly, it was vital to show that the dominant language represents a situation full of discrimination against women and is influenced by them. Thirdly, it had to be proven that the past cannot constitute a tool for supporting social change because it contains and reflects the marginalization of women. The cases of some women who, because of their special position in traditional society had more freedom of movement, do not constitute evidence for the role of women in general, since most of them were marginalized. Fourthly, stereotypes ascribed social degradation but, at the same time, contributed to the reproduction of the discrimination regime. Women's research was mainly targeted at these issues and it was acutely expressed. It goes without saying that if one does not present an existing negative situation in

Women and Christianity

49

dark colors, one will not be able to succeed in raising awareness about its negativity. The reversal of this reality required long-term and arduous struggle. Of course, it could be argued that it was only these struggles that brought about the change in perceptions and realities. Other factors, which contributed to the constant change in society and the great rearrangements of the 20th century were those that, together with women's struggles, helped change the broader cultural context. Amongst such factors, one might mention the movement of populations, urbanization, the need for more members of each family to work, the broadening scope of education in combination with the cultivation of critical thinking, the claiming of equal participation in politics, and so on. It might not be wrong for one to argue that it was the combination of all the above that acted as a catalyst in the issues of women. It is important to mention here that when the book The Second Sex (1949) was written by Simone de Beauvoir, women's claims were expressed particularly strongly. Of course, in the early postWorld War Two period, referring to history or developing arguments regarding the participation of women in the production of culture could not be considered. The situation, though, would start to change later on, as we shall see below. It should also be noted that the research on language codes initially turned towards an investigation of the language of the Bible. For this reason, a Bible for women (which contained language interventions) appeared quite early. It is unacceptable that basic texts, written during periods of the male dominance that they reflect, remain unchanged. The research was mainly directed towards a disapproval of the patriarchy and sexism that were predominant in traditional society. This situation was not only a problem of the West and the East; there were no differences in these issues between the East and the West. The thorough historical research in the West confirmed the problems women were facing in traditional society. The research of Olwen Hufton has been particularly enlightening but other research projects, belatedly being carried out at present in the East, confirm that there was no difference in women's issues compared to the West. This will also be shown in the discussion of the perceptions of the East, below.

Changes in women’s historiography The decades of the 1970s, and especially the 1980s, brought about a diversification in women's research on the subject of history and culture. What happened, exactly, that caused this change in attitude? What is more,

50

Chapter Three

there appears to have been an elaboration of relevant terminology, and new terms were created regarding the role of gender in history and culture. As is generally the case with history and its recording, the same applies to the case of women's history. Older histories referred to the rulers and their war exploits and ignored the activities of ordinary people. It took a great deal of deliberation, as well as challenging the data, for historiography to start approaching culture as a creation of all people and not just a few. But this change necessitated several centuries being disputed. In the case of women, it was necessary to first challenge the previous situation, to realize that it was demeaning and to make the request for gender equality more widely accepted, at least in theory. Only when it was broadly understood that the request was fair, could the effort for the deconstruction of stereotypes begin, along with the painstaking endeavor of implementing new concepts in practice. That seems, at least theoretically, to be a given fact of the 1970s. This was the main reason for the launch of a different kind of approach, reflected both in the research objectives and the theoretical negotiation that developed from that decade onwards. Of course, we cannot present here a reflection on those issues in detail. We will just mention the basic data and its essential outcomes. The concept of gender became the centerpiece of research, with a distinction made between biological and social sex. In this case, it is how gender is shaped that really matters. Simone de Beauvoir had already argued that one is not born a woman, but becomes one. One may assume that in this there is a dimension that denies biology, but this is not really the case. At the same time, during the 1960s, there was a broader discussion about the humanization of man, equivalent to the issue of gender. Nobody was claiming that man is not biologically a man, and that he will become one. What was meant was the constitution and the building of man’s personality in such a way that captures the essence of human existence. This dimension can be particularly noticeable in human freedom, the refusal of violence and the acceptance of the other. The same applies, initially in a negative way, with respect to women. The particular social role assigned to women did not, in all respects, result from biology but from a set of concepts reproduced through stereotypes and the desire to keep women enclosed inside the home, dealing only with the birth and upbringing of children, and without the rights and opportunities. After questioning its background and history, this kind of thinking about gender positively altered in the sense that women now have the ability and the right to freely shape their role and participate in social, political, economic and cultural life in whatever way they deem most appropriate to themselves. The principle of equality has been accepted as a fact and is

Women and Christianity

51

now processed and consolidated. Its consolidation is directed at reversing negative situations and behaviors in the modern world. At the same time, these ideas are spreading to other areas, despite the opposition encountered. This new situation allows for a change in the field of women's historiography. Previously, the idea of researching the past was rejected, because it could not provide arguments for the liberation of women. But now, the criterion of gender is being used to turn research towards this direction. Historians, who were usually men, omitted many details concerning women and only recorded what could be referred to as the activities of men. The patterns of this thinking are similar to those previously associated with the passage of historiography: from only recording hegemonic activities, to recording the activities of ordinary people as well. Despite the unfavorable situation of women, they were not absent from the production of culture and, these dimensions must now be investigated and recorded. The criterion of gender is, thus, now used in a fresh way. This does not mean that the modern demands of women are put aside and that the past is suddenly considered to be positive for them. The two forms of research can run parallel to one another.

Feminist theology Broader female research and thought can also be traced in the field of feminist theology, as well as in the research of women theologians. At a very early stage, there was criticism of traditional language that enunciated patriarchal and male-centered structures. The 1960s initially witnessed a continuation of criticism and research, as well as growing concern about the place and role of women, not only in society but also in the Church. The shift that occurred in women's thought and reflection from the 1970s onwards, also appeared in the field of feminist theology and women's theological research. Therefore, the presence of women in the history of the Church is also explored, particularly in terms of the behavior of Jesus towards women, which was different from the one that later gradually appeared in the Church. Typical of this is the conversation between Jesus and the Samaritan woman, which made his students admire the fact that “he spoke with a woman” (Jn. 4.27). His broader circle of students included women as well, and they were the first to bring the message of the resurrection. It is true that the general attitude of the Church later changed and was adjusted to the requirements of the society of the time. In other words, instead of having the Church influence society, the opposite happened. Nevertheless, many women were involved in the social work that developed in the Church, particularly from the 4th century onwards.

52

Chapter Three

These activities are recorded by female theological research and constitute a very powerful argument. If, at a time when women were degraded in society they participated in the Church, then the responsibility for this issue in modern times is much broader. Now that society has recognized the equality of men and women and makes a serious effort to deconstruct negative situations for women, the Church is no longer justified in maintaining stereotypes and situations that reflect the attitudes of an era that was highly negative for women. In other words, it is not justified to preserve social data that has long been overcome by society itself. To all this, we must add a very important dimension of women's issues that derives from the theology of liberation. This theology, that developed mainly in Latin America but also in other parts of the world, is more interested in action. In the 1990s, there was an adjustment to a new global cultural context. Women theologians who were dealing, within the frame of this theology, with the problems of the poor, found out that women actually faced many more problems than men, such as violence against them, sexist attacks and female discrimination. They therefore stressed the need to consider those problems in a special way, taking into account not only the dimension of poverty, but also gender, which placed an extra burden on women’s shoulders.

Women’s Issues and the Tradition of the Church It is now necessary to briefly look at the status of women in the tradition of the Church and the gradual evolution of relevant perceptions. We will mainly limit ourselves to the tradition of the East. As already been mentioned, Jesus’ attitude towards women was radical for the time, in the sense that it surpassed the stereotypes that did not allow women to be involved in any public activity or consider it permissible for men to socialize with them. However, there were still women's activities at that time presented in the Old Testament, as well as in the early Church. It should not be forgotten that, in the New Testament, there is specific mention of the deaconesses Phoebe, Priscilla and Lydia (student of Ap. Paul). This means that women were not only active in the early Church, but they also had a special place. Yet Paul had certain attitudes and perceptions that can be judged as rather contradictory. More specifically, in Galatians, he talks about the equality of man and woman “in Christ” (3:28). By this, it is understood that the early Church could, to a limited extent and only within its communities, talk about new relationships and perceptions. Of course, much later, events led to the general acceptance of this perception without

Women and Christianity

53

the conditions set by Paul, with the reference “in Christ”. This means that the modern Church ought to recognize this aspect as a fact of our time. Equality is a general perception accepted by modern society, without regarding the conditions set by the Christian community to be necessary for its acceptance. But while Paul talks in Galatians about equality between men and women, even “in Christ”, in I Corinthians he refers to the hierarchy of men and women and subjugates the latter to the former (I Corinthians 11:3-12). He certainly mentions respect and love between men and women, but this cannot refute his basic position, which contradicts what he says in Galatians. The best interpretation, based on the present time reality, postulates the acceptance of what is said in Galatians as a basic principle, and considers what is said in I Corinthians to be an adaptation to cultural conditions of his time. This interpretation should be considered as more appropriate, putting paid to the efforts made on the basis of improbable claims, to prove the position of I Corinthians to be correct. It is preferable to approach the understanding and regulation of relations from the perspective of equality and intellectual cultivation of men and women, to help achieve a balance between them. Paul repeats what has been said in Genesis and, with those views that were suited to the cultural context of his time, he had a bigger influence than from what he said in Galatians. So, one can see relatively quickly that, in the framework of the Church, there has been concern about what the woman is. Clement of Alexandria mentions that the woman should also be called "human". This means that this idea was challenged. She is called woman because, as has been noted, she was taken out of man. This makes evident the fact that the relative narrative of the Old Testament influenced perceptions. So, while man has a name, woman is simply “wife”. Throughout the ecclesiastical tradition, the Old Testament narrative, which actually has a symbolic character, was considered to be historical fact. It is only in modern times that this has been challenged by modern theology, which maintains that the narrative is symbolic and should not be construed as historical fact. At the beginning of the 4th century, St. Athanasius the Great, speaking disparagingly about the goddesses of the pagan religion, stated that we (meaning Christians) do not take women into account, even for simple advice, while the pagans have turned them into goddesses (Athanasius, Contra Gentes 10, PG 25, 21C). This clearly shows how pejoratively women were treated. Only at the end of the 4th century, St. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa claim that women are also created in the image of God (Basilius, Homilia in 1 Psalmum, PG 29, 216D-217A; Homilia in

54

Chapter Three

Martyrem Julittam PG 31,241A. Gregor of Nyssa, De hominis opificio 16, PG 44, 182 A-C). In contrast, St. John Chrysostom maintains that it is indirectly through man that women acquire this (Hom. 26,2 in 1 Cor PG 61,214; Hom. 2 in Gen PG 54,589). These are indicative views to show how controversial the perceptions about women were, even among prominent representatives of the Church. It is not possible to describe here in detail how the relevant perceptions evolved, and so they will be mentioned only briefly. The woman is considered to be the cause of all evil. She can attract men, so her body should be covered and she should not try to beautify herself. This is apparently a negative attitude towards the body and beauty. These perceptions were generally prevalent in the East. These days, they can still be observed in Muslim communities and, in some cases, amongst the working classes that live in the countryside. It is argued, though, that the woman was raised in the face of the Virgin. However, in traditional texts from the 6th century about the Virgin Mary, especially in the homilies on Theotokos which were falsely attributed to St. Gregory of Neocaesarea, there co-exists on the one hand these special honors to the Virgin and, on the other, the devaluation of the other women who are considered to be the cause of all evil. In those texts, one can find the famous saying: “it is through woman that all evil has come to us, but also all good” (PseudoGregory Thaumatourgos, Annunt 3, Pg 10,1177A). The second part refers to the Virgin Mary and the first to the woman in general. Of course, it can be easily understood that such views, which strongly influenced the position of women in ecclesiastical tradition, can be neither accepted in our time, nor justified. They should simply remain in the past and be considered valid proof that the past and the tradition cannot be used in order to draw arguments about the position of women in our time. They are nothing but historical data. According to traditional ecclesiastical and social perceptions, women were thought to only be fit for the home: they had to do the housekeeping and be occupied with the birth and upbringing of children. Young women were especially obliged to serve others and were dependent on their husband’s will or, before that, their father’s or guardian’s. In traditional society, women had very limited opportunities for training and education and, such opportunities were mainly available just for the young women of aristocratic families. But such was the extent of the connection between prevailing social perceptions and Church practices, that society’s basic demands for the reproduction of social situations were interwoven into religious rules. In the case of any deviation within the framework of marriage, the woman was punished very severely. For this reason, some

Women and Christianity

55

Fathers, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa, stigmatized this practice of discrimination against women. In the West, discussions about whether or not the woman was an accomplished human being continued in later times, until the Middle Ages. The question of whether or not a woman has a soul was also raised. This question is a clear indication of cultural perceptions at the time. Often, young women were sent to monasteries instead of being allowed to have a family. This was mostly to preserve family property. Moreover, the brutal treatment of women and the derogatory treatment of girls was common practice until later periods. This very practice forced St. Cosmas the Aetolian to react and try, by using soteriological arguments, to persuade men to behave better towards their wives. These are some of the characteristic examples of how women were treated in traditional “Christian” society. Additionally, some ecclesiastical texts regarded women as unclean; these perceptions derive from the Jewish tradition. Obviously, these ideas cannot be supported in our time but still, the Orthodox Church avoids discussing this issue and does not cease using these texts in the worship.

The order of deaconesses Nevertheless, it should be noted here that, traditionally, the fact that women participated in the social work of the Church should be considered real progress. In this context, the institution of deaconesses played an important role. This was an institution that was originally created to provide assistance in the Church, particularly with the practice of adult baptism. The deaconesses assisted in the baptism of women. We will not be concerned here with whether the deaconesses were ordained (ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ) or whether they followed another procedure (ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ). The important thing is that there were specific blessings for their participation in this institution and a standard procedure, as in the other ordinations. After the introduction of infant baptism, deaconesses devoted themselves to the social work of the Church. As can be easily understood, the creation of such an institution during a period of severe degradation of women brings a lot more responsibility to the Church in our time, when the role of women in society has clearly improved. The Church can no longer simply prevaricate with arguments from tradition that interpret unilaterally various texts. This, of course, was what forced the InterOrthodox Conference of Rhodes (1988) to discuss the necessity to at least restore the institution of deaconesses in the Orthodox Church.

56

Chapter Three

The Church and the social emancipation of women The Church, influenced by traditional social perceptions about women, understandably did not conduce to liberation in modern times. It may, indeed, be said that even now it supports the traditional views that are contrary to contemporary perceptions about women and their position in society. Referring specifically to the Greek case, the liberation of women from the shackles of traditional society came gradually with the acceptance of certain basic facts: the wider acceptance of views about gender equality and equal participation of women in political and social life; ensuring women’s rights to education and teaching; the urbanization of the population; the need for more working members in the modern family; and the principle of freedom in shaping the personality and role of women in society. The most essential of all those, though, was the acceptance that social roles, and therefore the content of gender, are formulated on the basis of freedom and that nothing is pre-defined in such a way that means it cannot be changed. Such perceptions should be admitted by the Church which, particularly in recent decades, speaks of personal freedom as a basic principle. Individual freedom also means freedom for people to shape social roles. These things are considered selfevident in contemporary society and no one can ignore them. The disregard of these views by the Church simply deteriorates its position, as women have already accepted them and claim their realization. This is the reason why there are no roles defined by tradition. Everyone is free to choose how they will shape their personality and role. Any choice is respected. These are all essential presuppositions that must be accepted by the Church According to polls, women maintain their relationship with the Church to a greater extent than men. The percentage is almost double compared to men. How can one explain the fact that women maintain their relationship with the Church despite the disparaging attitudes it holds about women? More specifically, how do they perceive blessings about their uncleanness and texts that speak of their subordination to men? Of course, one would be naive to argue that women accept these perceptions. What seems most plausible is to assume that either, quite a few of them do not understand these texts, which are expressed in a language not easily understood by the average woman of our time, or that they choose to ignore these perceptions of the Church because they have separated their social practice from religious traditions and customs. The second explanation seems to be more likely. However, whatever the explanation is, the Church should at some point understand that it cannot continue reproducing traditional

Women and Christianity

57

perceptions about women. Since it particularly values life, it cannot connect the cycle of life with perceptions that refer to uncleanness; this is just a natural (bodily) function of women and nothing more than that. Another key element should be mentioned here. Egalitarian ideas do not have the potential by themselves to change negative attitudes and (especially) abusive, exploitative behavior towards women. To overcome those coordinated and targeted efforts in the social field are absolutely necessary. But whoever wants to denounce these practices should initially take action on the rehabilitation of women in their own field. This particularly applies to the Orthodox Church. It cannot escape our attention that very little has been done in this direction. Apologetic attitudes reflected in the recruitment of several women cannot cover imperfections. Over the past two decades, women have achieved high levels of participation in education. This, indeed, remains at high levels in terms of religious education in public secondary schools, but also in theological schools at university level. In fact, the percentage of women attending courses in theological schools is very high; life goes on without paying attention to the backward perceptions held by some and, those perceptions cannot stop the progress of society. This development, as usually happens, may help the kind of perceptions held about women in traditional society to fade. But it is not right to use this “forgetfulness” to idealize the past. It is necessary for young men and women to know what existed previously and how, through struggles and laborious efforts, the current situation was reached. Moreover, whatever is painstakingly achieved must be protected against those who always regard former realities as positive, or who try in any way to reproduce silly and unintelligent stereotypes. There are positive and negative aspects to every period. Humans should make an effort to overcome what is negative but also protect what is positive.

The position of women in the Church Despite the fact that the change in Greece has become obvious, even in the theological space, it is worthy of particular attention that feminist theology and women's research has not developed in the field of theology. What are the reasons for this? It should probably be attributed to the fact that society ensures the free choice and development of women’s personalities. Yet, it is still necessary for women to develop a particular vision of society, the Church and theology, based on their own perspectives. Efforts are made for this particular vision to be expressed by people who reproduce traditional apologetic attitudes, and not by progressive people who offer their own elaboration and sensitivity to

58

Chapter Three

various issues. Of course, the issue of women in the Church should not be addressed separately from the broader issue of the position of the laity. But this is something that the Orthodox Church is trying to circumvent, arguing that such a thing does not exist in its space. The fact, though, that it becomes all the more introverted constitutes proof that a serious issue exists. The truth is that the involvement of women could lead to the development of very useful social projects; the field of social work with the application of modern methods is open. What is needed is the appropriate will and imagination, but such a thing requires the opening of the Orthodox Church and the acceptance of the notion that much can be done, in practice, based on a variety of gifts. And those cannot only be limited to what the clergy can do. In this way, it can be understood that the Church has got many members and it should not be simply identified with the clergy. Finally, it is necessary to raise this issue of the priesthood of women. This has increasingly concerned Christian Churches in recent decades. There is clear variation in the practices that are followed. The Catholic and the Orthodox Church deny the mere existence of the issue. But the need that leads them to find arguments that respond negatively to this issue constitutes evidence that the problem exists. The Protestant Churches have moved forward and ordained women priests and bishops. This differentiation leads to controversy. In reality there are no strong theological arguments to prevent this practice. The argument “of tradition”, that is used by the Orthodox Church, is not enough to prevent the implementation of a different practice in modern times. What was mentioned earlier about the position of women in traditional society clearly show that it was impossible to discuss such issues in the context of tradition. So, how can one expect to get answers from those who never care to ask any questions?

Bibliography (A selection, mainly in Greek) Avdela Ǽ. – Psara ǹ. (eds.), Feminism in Interbellum Greece: An Anthology, Athens 1985 (in Greek). Avdela Ǽ. – Psara ǹ. (eds.), Silent Stories: Women and Gender in the Historical Narrative, Athens 1997 (in Greek). Arx, U. v.- A. Kallis (eds.), Bild Christi und Geschlecht. Gemeinsame Ueberlegungen und Referate der Orthodox- Altkatholischen Konsultation zur Stellung der Frau in der Kirche und zur Frauenordination als oekumenischem Problem, Bern 1998.

Women and Christianity

59

Gioultsis Ǻ., “Women Theologians in Education,” Scholarly Annals of the School of Theology, vol. 9, Thessaloniki 1999, pp. 67-82 (in Greek). —. Woman: she-individual (īȣȞĮȓțĮ: Ș ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ), Special issue of the periodical ȀĮș’ ȠįȩȞ, Thessaloniki 1994, issue 9. (in Greek). Hufton, O., The Prospect Before her: A History of Women in Western Europe, I: 1500-1800, London, 1995. Englesi Ch., Women’s Faces, Masks of Consciousness: Formation of Female Identity in Greek Society, Athens 1990 (in Greek). Koukoura, D., "Women in Leadership Positions of Theological Education, Scholarly Annals of the School of Theology, vol. 10, Thessaloniki 2001, pp. 73-82 (in Greek). Limouris G. (ed.), The Position of Woman in the Orthodox Church and the Discussion about the Ordination of Women. International InterOrthodox Conference (Rhodos 30/10-7/11/1988), Katerini 1994 (in Greek). Bakalaki, ǹ. (ed.), Anthropology, Women and Gender, Athens 1994 (in Greek). Papataxiarchis, Ǽ., Papadelis, Th. (eds.), Identities and Gender in Contemporary Greece. Anthropological Approaches, ǹșȒȞĮ 1992 (in Greek). Petrou, ǿ., “The Issue of Women and the Ecclesiastical Tradition,” Scholarly Annals of the School of Theology, vol. 10, Thessaloniki 2001, pp. 221-27 (in Greek). Saunders Ross, Die Fauen im Neuen Testament, Darmstadt 1999. Schottroff, L. - Schroer S. - Wacker M.Th., Feministische Exegese. Forschungsertaege zur Bibel aus der Perspective von Frauen, Darmstadt 1995. Skouteri-Didaskalou, ȃ., The Issue of Women from an Anthropological Perspective, Athens 1984 (in Greek). Theodorou Ǽ., Heroines of Christian Love. The Deaconesses through the Centuries, Athens 1949 (in Greek). Haramantidis Ag. (ed.), The Orthodox Woman in United Europe. Proceedings of an Inter-Orthodox European Conference, Katerini 2001 (in Greek).

CHAPTER FOUR MEN AND WOMEN “IN THE SERVICE OF CHRIST”: REFLECTIONS ON THE DIACONATE IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH JOHN CHRYSSAVGIS

Abstract: The principal focus of this presentation is not merely the historical and theological, or even the liturgical and canonical dimensions of women and the diaconate or women and ordination, but rather the pastoral and practical concept of authority and ministry in the church. There can be no clear understanding of the priesthood or even of the episcopate unless we first properly appreciate the diaconate. From his experience as a deacon of over 30 years, the author claims that the theology of the priesthood should not begin from the top down, but rather from the notion of humble service and diakonia, without which none of the priestly ministries make any sense at all. And he concludes that a creative revival of the diaconate could become the source of resurrection for the ordained ministry in general, thereby playing a crucial role in the mission of the Church. In this respect, the restoration of the diaconate may well prove both timely and vital.

Let me open by saying how delighted I am to be a part of this conference and to be invited by Prof. Vassiliadis to address this gathering. I should preface my words by noting that my principal interest in this subject is not merely the historical or theological dimensions of women and the diaconate, or women and ordination, but rather the pastoral and practical concept of authority and ministry in the Church. It is my conviction that there can be no clear understanding of the priesthood, or even of the episcopate, unless we first properly appreciate the diaconate. Having served as a deacon of over thirty years, I believe that our theology of the priesthood should not begin from the top down, but rather from the notion of humble service and diakonia, without which none of the priestly ministries make any sense whatsoever.

62

Chapter Four

Introduction: Re-Learning to Serve I learned from a young age, at the feet of my presbyter-father, that our noblest task is to bear the cross of Christ, to imitate Christ, who came to serve and not to be served (Mark 10.45). This means that the noblest thing is to be a Christian – not a bishop, a priest, or a deacon. It also means that this noblest vocation of all is open equally and unequivocally to both men and women. Over time, of course, the Church established the three ordained orders. Among these, the diaconate (derived from the word diakonia (service), which in itself implies an absence of institutional or hierarchal structure) is the first order of priestly ministry. Moreover, if no one can become a priest or a bishop without first being ordained to deacon, this underscores the fact that the diaconate can be neither overlooked nor undermined. Regrettably, however, the diaconate has in fact been disregarded and reduced, to the detriment of the priesthood in general. It is time, then, for a revitalization of the diaconate, both for the purpose of a reorientation of the ordained ministries (a matter of profound theological and spiritual significance) as well as for practical reasons (including the understanding of the salient role of women for a proper appreciation of the diaconate). Reclaimed in its historical and sacramental dimensions, a revived diaconate could provide a crucial and timely response to contemporary needs.

A Reorientation of the Ordained Ministries In a meeting of Orthodox bishops several years ago in Chicago, one hierarch touched on the heart of the problem, when he asked: “Is someone called to the diaconate? Do we not say people are called to the priesthood?” Once again, the precise response to this question is that we are called primarily to bear the cross of Christ; we are called first to the royal priesthood, to the priesthood of all believers. Unfortunately, such questions also underscore the confusion surrounding the sacrament of ordination. For one is not called to the diaconate any more than one is called to the episcopate; in fact, mystically – or, more correctly, hierarchically – one is not even called to the priesthood at all, at least, the priesthood as a distinct order. Rather, one is called to the priestly ministry of the Church, which has three distinct orders. After all, each of the specific terms applied to ordained ministers – episcopos (bishop), iereus or presbyteros (priest), and diakonos (deacon) – are in fact properly and only reserved for Christ.

Men and Women “in the Service of Christ”

63

In recent centuries, the diaconate has enjoyed a symbolic or transitional role in our Church. Parish clergy are ordained to the priesthood after serving only briefly as deacons. It is as if they are expected to “move on!” or “move up!” The diaconate itself has been reduced to little more than a preparation or stepping-stone for the priesthood or episcopate. The latter two stages are often considered more significant for the ordained ministry, whereas the diaconate resembles a kind of sub-priesthood, rarely perceived as a lifelong or permanent office. This is clearly part of the problem surrounding the suspicion or trepidation of bishop – and, to a lesser degree, also congregations – with regard to the ordination of women deacons, who are seen as seeking promotion to higher clerical orders. In many Orthodox churches, the diaconate has been still further reduced, relegated in some to a purely aesthetic or, at most, to an exclusively liturgical office. While not insignificant, these functions only scarcely express the full potential of the diaconate. Indeed, from an historical perspective, the purely liturgical obligations were traditionally delegated to subdeacons, who were neither ordained nor consecrated but simply “named” or “appointed.” Deacons, however, were always responsible for more than liturgical order; deacons functioned as an essential aspect of the Christian community and its diverse manifestations and expressions. So, my first argument is that there is something seriously missing from the ordained ministry if deacons are undervalued or omitted in the overall picture. A fuller vision of the ordained ministry should recognize the role of the bishop as the bond of unity and spokesman for doctrine. Likewise, it should respect the role of the presbyter in celebrating the presence of Christ in the local community. Yet it should also realize the role of the deacon as servant in completing and complementing this circle of unity and community in the local Church. And this role may be fulfilled by men and women alike. The authentic image of the Church that we should be seeking – in our minds and hearts as in our ministry – is that of a dinner table, not of a corporate ladder. The Church is not a pyramid, where all attention and authority is turned towards the summit. We are to imagine the Church as comprising a sacrament, where the principal and essential focus is the celebration of the Eucharistic feast, in which “the least is greatest” (Matt. 23.11), “the last is first” (Matt. 20.16), and “the leader is servant” (Matt. 20.26). Accordingly, if the image of the table – the picture of the Church-asEucharist – is our formative and normative icon of the Church, then we might imagine deacons as waiting at festive tables or serving community

64

Chapter Four

needs, rather than as pawns at the bottom of some powerful or political organization, and certainly not as apprentices or interns awaiting promotion or self-fulfillment. Each of the orders is self-sufficient, not incomplete or contingent upon further advancement. From this perspective, we can appreciate the invaluable and inviolable importance of deacons, male and female alike. After all, what greater gift could anyone ever ask for than – merely, only, simply – to serve? For some ministering socially at tables in the mystical body of Christ, just as for others ministering liturgically at the mystical supper? I certainly know of no other, no better, no more sublime.

A Practical Revitalization In the Orthodox Church, at least unlike other denominations, we have always retained the order of deacons. The diaconate has never fallen into complete disuse, even if it is merely a shadow of its shining prestige during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. For far too many years, the potential of the diaconate, for both men and women, has not been brought to fruition or even adequately fulfilled. So what we do (or can do) with deacons in our Church is the question we must now address. In my humble opinion, today the diaconate could express the diversity of gifts found among the laity as the “royal priesthood,” which ought to be embraced and enlisted in a sacramental (namely, in an ordained) manner by the Church. Thus, ministerial dignity may be conferred upon certain members of the laity, male and female, whose particular qualifications would be formally incorporated and integrated within the community. Such persons should be commissioned or empowered through the imposition of the hands and grace of the Spirit, their various charismata – ceremonially or sacramentally – recognized and intimately bound with the altar. In this way, they would support – and not be regarded as substituting – the ordained ministry of the Church. Matters of pastoral care, practical administration, financial concern, and even theological education could quite easily be delegated to deacons. Here is my vision: someone whose administrative gifts are welcomed in the organization of a parish might be “ordained” to perform this task in the community. He or she could be a deacon serving (whether part-time or full-time) in that capacity. The same could happen in cases where someone has certain unique gifts in specific areas: for instance, as a youth minister or even financial controller (just as monasteries have a novice master and a steward [oikonomos]), as catechetical instructor or hospital chaplain, as pastoral assistant or social worker, and so on. Deacons may also be officially “called and commissioned” to preach or counsel, perform

Men and Women “in the Service of Christ”

65

functions of parish or public service, as well as assist in liturgical and community affairs, such as administering the sacraments to members of the community who are in need. I would dare to go a step further and venture to claim that there is no reason whatsoever for educators in theological schools and seminaries to be ordained presbyters unless their principal ministry lies in parish ministry. There is, after all, a long tradition of this in our Church. Otherwise, we are passively surrendering to another deleterious temptation in our Church, namely, that of clericalism, no matter how spiritual our justification or how logical our vindication may be. Here is the fundamental and essential question for me: does someone have to be a priest in order to do what he is doing? “Ordained” is one thing; “ordained a priest” is another. The rebalancing of our hierarchy – the reorientation of our ordained ministries – through the restoration and reinvigoration of the diaconate (both male and female) could invariably have profound theological significance, spiritual influence, and practical consequences for the development of our parishes and the growth of their ministries.

Lessons Learned: Personal Observations 1. I learned over a number of years in church administration, parish ministry and theological education, that the priesthood is the cause of much confusion that, in many ways, results from a misunderstanding of authority, both by those in priestly orders as well as by the laity. This has proved deeply hurtful both for those ordained and for those aspiring to ordination. If we properly understand the diaconate, then we will better understand the other orders of the priesthood, too. We will also understand why, and how, women can quite naturally – by which I mean traditionally, rather than exceptionally – participate in the diaconate without arousing hierarchical fears of ordination to the presbyterate or foregoing theological discussion about the male priesthood. Candid, objective, and dispassionate conversation about the priesthood can only enrich our appreciation, equally, of the ordained ministry and the royal priesthood. 2. I have also come to appreciate that part of the challenge lies perhaps in the unrealistic expectations that we have of the priesthood, upholding the priest as a perfect icon or infallible model. Contemporary theologians cite patristic sources about priests manifesting and realizing the priesthood of Christ and the priesthood of all believers.

66

Chapter Four

This perception is encountered in more traditional, as well as in more enlightened, theologians. Yet, it is romantically idealistic, if not spiritually perilous, to claim that a priest represents Christ or even all people. It is more humble to believe that the priesthood presents God to the people (as in the Old Testament) and the community to Christ (as in the New Testament). There are innumerable “ordained” ways of doing this. One of them is precisely the diaconate. It is similarly arrogant to claim that the priesthood is “not simply one of the ministries” – that is to say, “not only one vocation among many” – and that the priest somehow embraces “all vocations” and not just a “religious vocation,” which all people have without any distinction whatsoever. So, certain theologians go as far as to claim that the priest has no ministry at all because he is somehow the term of reference for, and ultimate consummation of, all ministries. In my humble opinion, such claims are presumptuous, both opening up to diverse forms of abuse and alluding to yet a third challenge, to which we have already made reference. 3. One of the critical problems in our misunderstanding of the priesthood – and especially in our misconception of the diaconate in relation to its incorporation of women – is the confusion between priesthood (as inclusively embracing the ordained bishop, priest and deacon, but also the royal priesthood) and priest (as a distinct order of the ordained ministry). Unless we disabuse ourselves of this confusion – which only further advocates secular and unsacred authoritarianism – then we cannot really appreciate any of the three orders of priesthood.

Conclusion: Fulfilling a Vital Role The diaconate could be expanded and enhanced to reflect a modern ministerial expression, even while being rooted in the historical apostolic experience. Perhaps deacons will gradually also awaken other ministries from their hardened roles and traditional expectations. A creative revival of the diaconate in our age could become the source of resurrection for the ordained ministry in general, thereby playing a crucial role in the mission of the Church. In this respect, the restoration of the diaconate may well prove both timely and vital.

CHAPTER FIVE NAMING GOD IN ORTHODOX TRADITION: NEITHER MALE NOR FEMALE EMMANUEL CLAPSIS

Abstract: While the Rhodes consultation unreservedly recommended that the Church study ways of reviving the ministry of the deaconess and, while it is true that women continue to be active in the life of the Church, a disheartening question still persists: Why has the Orthodox Church not yet studied or taken any concrete steps towards reinstating the ministry of deaconesses in faithfulness to its tradition and in conjunction with the pastoral challenges in the modern world? The writer has chosen to focus on the nature and the meaning of theological language in Orthodox tradition. In order to respond to the critique of feminist theologians about the use of exclusively masculine language in naming God, he proceeds to carefully study the nature, function, and significance of religious language and names in patristic literature. He considers it important for the Church, in light of feminist critique and proposals, to rethink the nature of “Godtalk.” From the patristic tradition the Greek Fathers’ apophatic reflections on naming the divine, as well as analyzing God’s many names in the biblical and ecclesiastical literature, and without neglecting the feminine images of God, the author came to the conclusion that no human concept, word, or image can circumscribe the divine reality, since they all have their origins in human language. Nor can any human concept express, with any measure of adequacy, the mystery of God, who is ineffable. The very incomprehensibility of God demands a proliferation of images and a variety of names, each of which acts as a corrective against the tendency of any one to become reified and literal.

Introduction In 1985, the Orthodox Church, with the support of the World Council of Churches, convened in Rhodes (Greece), a Pan-Orthodox consultation on “The Place of the Woman in the Orthodox Church and the Question of

68

Chapter Five

the Ordination of Women,”1 The consultation unreservedly recommended that the Church study ways of reviving the ministry of the deaconess and provide ample space for women to offer their particular gifts to the Church. Thirty years later, we still have another consultation, once again discussing the need to restore the ministry of the deaconess. While it is true that women continue to be active in the life of the Church, a disheartening question still persists: Why has the Orthodox Church not yet studied or taken any concrete steps towards reinstating the ministry of the deaconess, in faithfulness to its tradition and in conjunction with the pastoral challenges in the modern world? Personally, I wholeheartedly embrace and advocate the theological and historical arguments in support of reviving this particular ministry of women, not only as a token of historical faithfulness but also as a strong sign of inclusivity. However, this does not mean that we do not recognize the need to study the parameters of this revival with great sensitivity to the Church’s unity. Currently, there is a need to study how to reinstate this particular ordained ministry in light of the pastoral challenges of the Church; a need to recognize the particular gifts that the Holy Spirit has bestowed upon women; and a need to uphold the Church’s catholicity without putting her unity at risk. In the present paper, I have chosen to discuss the nature and meaning of theological language in Orthodox tradition. Christian feminist theologians have noted that God is traditionally conceived as masculine, is addressed with masculine pronouns, and described by masculine images. They are upset by this and blame the male-dominated Church hierarchies and chauvinist attitudes of the Church’s leading theologians down the centuries. Feminist theologians conceive as their task as the “new naming of self and world and, consequently, of the whole Christian tradition.” They passionately raise the question of language and how it has been used in Christian tradition and strongly criticize the image of God as Father which, in their opinion, has been both absolutized by some and, in recent times, found to be meaningless by others.2 Feminist theologians have raised our awareness that the names, images and attributes by which Christians until very recently have referred to God can be “humanly oppressive and religious idolatrous”3. Language about God decisively influences the very understanding of what it means to be a human since human beings are created in God’s image. They argue that the language used about God can be oppressive for women because its 1

Istanbul, Turkey: The Ecumenical Patriarchate, 1988. Sallie McFague, Metaphorical Theology - Models of God in Religious Language, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982, p.145.

2

Naming God in Orthodox Tradition: Neither Male nor Female

69

images, metaphors and concepts have been drawn almost exclusively from the world of ruling men. Such exclusive speech about God, in their view, serves in manifold ways to support an imaginative and structural world that excludes or subjugates women. It undermines the human dignity of women as equally created in the image of God. It is idolatrous because of its exclusive use of male language as the only fitting language to refer to God; it absolutizes a single set of images, metaphors and concepts and thus obscures the divine mystery, damaging the very truth of God’s being. From a positive perspective, feminist theologians insist that, by using female images to refer to God, they do not only undermine the metaphysical supremacy and support of patriarchy, but also create the conditions for the formation of community characterized by relationships of mutuality and reciprocity, of love and justice. The voices of the feminist theologians will not be silenced. On the contrary, they have become stronger, inviting churches to move beyond the patriarchal language, structures and practices that perpetuate the oppression and marginalization of women. The use of inclusive language has become a divisive issue within churches and in their relationships with each other. It is a contributing factor to the disunity of God’s churches. Furthermore, the positive challenge that feminist theologians pose to churches can be seen as an opportunity to reflect on the renewal of theological language in the light of new global cultural realities, and in continuity with the living tradition of the Church. How does the Orthodox Church respond to the critique of feminist theologians about the use of exclusive masculine language in naming God? There are two typical responses: the first is an outright rejection of the feminist project of more inclusive theological language, by rejecting the substitution of God the Father with a female goddess. The second is an appeal to the apophatic theology that leads, inevitably, to the affirmation that God is beyond gender and sexuality. For example, in their responses to questions about language and imagery regarding God, the Orthodox participants from the United States, in the study of the Faith and Order Commission on “The Community of Women and Men in the Church,” stated: “We would never think of questioning that God was the Father, and could never conceive of God as Mother. Christ named God the Father; if we believe Christ, we cannot compromise.”3 Yet, the Orthodox in France have stated: “The true meeting with God takes place beyond all images and all words, in the silence that is not speechlessness. This “apophaticism” 3

Melanie A. May, 'Conversations on Language and Imagery of God - Occasioned by the Community of Women and Men in the Church Study,' Union Seminary Quarterly Review 40(1985) 15.

70

Chapter Five

permeating Orthodox belief avoids the trap of a unilaterally masculine image of God. Orthodox iconography never represents God the Father. The divine paternity would not be represented by sexual image. The Heavenly Father should not be imagined as a bearded patriarch.”4 The Godhead, according to Kallistos Ware, is in possession of neither masculinity nor femininity. He recognizes that “although our human sexual characteristics as male and female reflect, at the highest and truest, an aspect of divine life, yet there is in God no such thing as sexuality. When therefore, we speak of God as Father, we are speaking not literally but in symbols.”5 Based on this assumption, it could be argued that it is also possible to refer to God in feminine symbolic terms, since female characteristics “reflect at the highest and truest, an aspect of divine life.” He recognizes that Aphrahat, one of the early Syriac Fathers, speaks of the believer’s love for “God his Father and the Holy Spirit his Mother,” while in the medieval West we find Lady Julian of Norwich affirming: “God rejoices that he is our Father, and God rejoices that he is our Mother.” He considers these references to God as Mother to be exceptions in Christian tradition and concludes that “almost always the symbolism used of God by the Bible and the Church’s worship has been male symbolism.” He concludes with a short reflection on the “revealed and given” nature as well as the function of symbols in the Orthodox Church which, in his view, justify the prohibition on feminine symbolic language in referring to God. We cannot prove by arguments why this should be so, yet it remains a fact of our Christian experience that God has set his seal upon certain symbols and not others. The symbols are not chosen by us but revealed and given. A symbol can be verified, lived, prayed – but not “proved” logically. These “given” symbols, however, while not capable of proof, are yet far from being arbitrary. Like the symbols in myth, literature, and art, our religious symbols reach deep into the hidden roots of being and cannot be altered without momentous consequences. If, for example, we were to start saying “Our Mother who art in heaven”, instead of “Our Father”, we should not merely be adjusting an incidental piece of imagery, but replacing Christianity with new kind of religion. A Mother Goddess is not the Lord 6 of Christian Church.

4

Ibid. Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995), pp. 33. 6 Ibid, p. 34. 5

Naming God in Orthodox Tradition: Neither Male nor Female

71

Such challenges compel us to study carefully the nature, function, and significance of religious language and names in patristic literature, in the hope that this study will help us respond creatively to this important issue.7 Regardless of whether we disagree or agree with such a statement, it is important for churches, in light of the feminist critique and proposals, to rethink the nature of “God-talk.”

Naming the Divine Naming God was an issue of reflection for the Fathers of the Church. They believed that human wisdom, apart from divine revelation and without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is incapable of understanding (and therefore of naming) the divine being. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, in his Second Theological Oration, recognizes the problem of religious knowledge and language.8 Responding to the Eunomian claim that the nature of God can be defined, he states: To Know God is difficult, to speak of him impossible, as one of the Greek theologians taught – quite cleverly it seems to me: for in saying it is difficult, he appears to have comprehended him and yet escapes examination because of his inexpressibility: but in my opinion to speak of God is impossible and know him even more impossible. For what is known some word can perhaps make plain, if not adequately at least obscurely to anyone who has not completely lost his hearing or is mentally slow. But it is altogether impossible and impracticable mentally to encompass so great a subject, not merely for the indolent with lowly inclinations but even for those who aim high and love God — indeed for created nature in that this darkness and this thick fleshiness gets in the way of perceiving the Truth […] (Orat. 28.4). It is not just the peace of God which passes understanding and knowledge […] but his very nature which is beyond our grasp and comprehension. (Orat.28.5).

Asserting both the indescribability and the incomprehensibility of God, Gregory summarizes his position as follows: 7

Stylianos G. Papadopoulos, ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ īȜȫııĮ, Katerini: Parousia,1977; Konstantinos Papapetros, ‫ ݠ‬ȅ‫ރ‬ıȓĮ IJȘȢ ĬİoȜȠȖȓĮȢ, Athens,1970, pp. 43-64; Georgios Martzelos, Ǿ ȅȣıȓĮ țĮȚ Ƞ‫ݑ ݨ‬ȞȑȡȖİȚİȢ IJȠࠎ ĬİȠࠎ țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ ȂȑȖĮȞ ǺĮıȓȜİȚȠȞ, Thessaloniki, 1984. 8 Frances M. Young, “The God of the Greeks and the Nature of Religious Language,” in Early Christian Literature and the Classical Intellectual Tradition in honorem R. M. Grant, edited by William. R. Schoedel and Robert. L. Wilken, Paris: Éditions Beauchesne, 1979, pp. 45-74.

72

Chapter Five The Christian understanding of God, influenced by Judaism and Hellenistic philosophy, asserted the otherness of God through the use of apophatic language that primarily informs not what God is, but what God is not compared with created realities. Such language was and continues to be an important corrective to the highly anthropomorphic language that one finds in Scripture and Tradition, heightening the sense of God’s mystery. Apophatic language denies the possibility of religious language and knowledge. This denial is partly philosophical: there is no logic common to ordinary language and language used for the divine. But is also partly religious: a God worthy of worship is beyond comparison with anything derivative from Him.9

In the Second Theological Oration of St. Gregory, we can find many of the apophatic terms by which Christian theological tradition defines what God is not, in its refutation of crude anthropomorphism. God is referred to as incorporeal (ਕıȫȝĮIJȠȞ) and therefore infinite (ਙʌİȚȡȠȞ), unlimited (ਕȩȡȚıIJȠȞ), without shape (ਕıȤȘȝȐIJȚıIJȠȞ), untouchable (ਕȞĮijȒȢ) and invisible (ਕȩȡĮIJȠȞ); he is unbegotten (ਕȖȑȞȞȘIJȠȞ) without beginning (ਙȞĮȡȤȠȞ), unchangeable (ਕȞĮȜȜȠȓȦIJȠȞ), imperishable (ਙijșĮȡIJȠȞ); he is the One who is “incomposite and incomparable by nature.” But none of these negative terms, Gregory argues, tell us what he is in his being. These negative references to God that Gregory uses originate from the early apologists of the Church, who adopted the criticism of anthropomorphism produced by earlier Greek philosophy and the refined philosophical notion of God to whom worship should be offered.10 Despite the affirmation of God’s indescribability and incomprehensibility, the Fathers of the Church found religious language to describe what they suggested was indescribable. St. Gregory of Nazianzus provides us with a clue by which we can understand this possibility. He asserts: The divine cannot be named [...] For no one has ever breathed the whole air, nor has any mind located or language contained the Being of God completely. But sketching his inward self from his outward characteristics, we may assemble an inadequate, weak and partial picture. And the one 9

Greg. Naz., Second Theological Oration, 28.7. As a result of adopting these two intellectual traditions, Christians were driven into a defensive position in respect of the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament. Origen confronts this problem in his exegesis of the scripture, where he found it necessary to allegorize not only God’s hands and face, but also his wrath and repentance – for emotions and change are alike foreign to the nature of God as Origen conceived him. He also faces the criticism and ridicule of the pagan, Celsus, for whom the biblical narratives made identified the Christian God with the Supreme Being incredible (Contra Celsum 4.13, 71,72). 10

Naming God in Orthodox Tradition: Neither Male nor Female

73

who makes the best theologian is not the one who knows the whole truth, for the chain (of the flesh) is incapable or receiving the whole truth, but the one who creates the best picture, who assembles more of Truth’s image or shadow, or whatever we should call it.11

It is possible to speak about God based on limited knowledge of Him through His revelation and the incarnate Logos. The Logos of God was not simply identified with the incarnate person Jesus Christ, but with revelation in the word of scripture and in the works of creation. Scripture and tradition thus supplied possible names of God, all of which could be regarded as revealed by the Logos; and further attributes could be adopted from philosophy, since the best of philosophy was plagiarized from Moses and so was likewise derived from the revealing activity of the Logos.12 Consequently, this makes the scriptural names of God foundational for the way that Christians have named the divine. What does scripture tell us about the deity? Dionysious the Areopagite states: Many scripture writers will tell you that the divinity is not only invisible and incomprehensible, but also “unsearchable and inscrutable,” since there is no trace for anyone who would reach through into the hidden depths of this infinity. And yet, on the other hand, the Good is not absolutely incommunicable to everything. By itself it generously reveals a firm, transcendent beam, granting enlightenments proportionate to each being, and thereby draws sacred minds upward to its permitted contemplation, to participation and to the state of becoming like it.13

This, according to St. Gregory of Nyssa, reflects the economy of the Holy Spirit who “has delivered to us divine mysteries and teaches the realities that are beyond discourse by means of those that are accessible…we are raised in an analogous way, through each one of the things said on the subject of God, towards a higher conception of him.”14 The way that the authors of scripture named God, signifies their life of communion with God in their particular historical situation, as well as their illumination by God’s grace that makes their human words about God the vehicle of God’s self-revelation. St. Gregory of Nazianzus suggests that attaining knowledge of God is not a matter for philosophers, but for those who have purified themselves:

11

Second Theological Oration 30.17. Strom. 2. 5. 20 ff; 4.14. 89ff. 13 Ibid, Book I, 1:2. 14 PG 45.761. 12

74

Chapter Five Not to everyone, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God...but (only) on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits. Not to all men, because it is permitted only to those who have been examined and are past masters in meditation, and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or at the very least are being purified. For the impure to touch the pure is not safe, just as it is unsafe to fix weak eyes upon the sun’s rays. And what is the permitted occasion? It is when we are free from all external defilement or disturbance, and when that which rules within us is not confused with vexations or erring images.15

Thus, we must seriously consider in our theological endeavors the scriptural and patristic witness of God’s relation with the world. We recognize in them a life of communion with God and therefore they become foundational for understanding and explicating the Christian faith. Recognizing, also, the fact that the language of Christian tradition is historically conditioned in its expression but not in its message, we must ask ourselves whether it is possible to express an understanding of God in a language other than the language of the scripture and of the Fathers, and continue to be in communion with the uninterrupted Christian tradition. If this is permissible, then we must struggle to develop criteria by which we expand the language that we use to refer to God, under the condition that such language does not reduce God to triviality but leads to a new understanding and appreciation of God’s presence in the world.

God’s Many Names St. Gregory of Nyssa understands language to be a human creation. The existence of different languages is a clear indication that God allowed men the freedom to invent and develop linguistic expressions.16 This means that no human language is God-given, not even Hebrew.17 In reference to religious languages and the naming of God, St. Gregory recognizes the historicity of such language and asserts that the names of God are the work of human thought and conception. Such a view presupposes and is grounded upon the unreserved affirmation of God’s transcendence. The recognition of human limitations in the understanding and naming of God leads him to accept that people have the right to use multiple words to name, in as much as their experiential understanding of God’s active presence in their world is possible. He states: 15

The First Theological Oration 27. Contra Eunomium 2. 200ff; 246-250; 284; 406. 17 Ibid. 2. 260-61. 16

Naming God in Orthodox Tradition: Neither Male nor Female

75

We allow ourselves the use of many diverse appellations in regards to him, adapting them to our point of view. For whereas no one suitable word has been found to express the divine nature, we address God by many names, each by some distinctive touch adding something fresh to our notion of him – thus reaching by a variety of nomenclature to gain some glimmerings for the comprehension of what we seek.18

In Christian tradition, the faithful refer to God with many names that reflect their limited understanding and experience of God’s manifold graces and love toward the world.19 “While the divine nature is simple […] and cannot be viewed under any form of complex formation, the human mind […] in its inability to behold clearly the object of its search, feels after the unutterable Being in diverse and many-sided ways, and never chases the mystery in the light of one idea alone”20 and “because in such cases there is no appropriate term to be found to mark the subject adequately, we are compelled by many and differing names […] to divulge our surmises as they arise within us with regard to the deity.”21 The names that God has assumed in Christian tradition are not arbitrary, but they signify God’s relationship to the world as this has been experienced and understood by those anointed by the Holy Spirit. “We do not signify things said of God before having conceived them and we conceive them according to what His energies teach us about Him.”22 An etymological investigation of the divine names can, at best, give us information on the thoughts by which people were led when they gave names to God. The anthropomorphic images by which people name God’s relationship with the world cannot therefore be taken literally. They are figures of speech that do not fully correspond to or describe the divine reality, “for we have given names according to our own comprehension from our own attributes to those of God.”23 The names themselves are 18

Ibid. 2. 145. Ibid 10,1. (PG 45.852): "But, as I am so taught by the inspired Scripture, I boldly affirm that He who is above every name has for us many names, receiving them in accordance with the variety of His gracious dealings with us, being called the Light when He disperses the gloom of ignorance, and the Life when He grants the boon on immortality, and the way when He guides us from error to the truth...and a physician and resurrection, and all the like, with reference to us, imparting Himself under various aspects by virtue of His benefits to us-ward." 20 Contra Eunomium, 2. 475. 21 Contra Eunomium, 2. 577. 22 Ibid, p. 269. 23 Theol Orations 5,22. 19

76

Chapter Five

expressive of the experience of God’s active presence in the world; their expression does not embody the essence of God. For God is not an expression, neither hath He His essence in voice or utterance. But God is of Himself what also He is believed to be, but He is named, by those who call upon Him, not what He is essentially, but He receives His appellations from what are believed to be His operations in regard to our life.24

The totalities of the many names by which we address God provide, by their own specificity, some glimmerings of God’s glory. Despite the fact that the nature of God cannot be apprehended by human sense or reason, it is nonetheless possible for the human mind, aided by God’s selfrevelation, to know God, “to catch some faint glimpse of what it seeks to know.”25 We name God as we experience His love in this world. God’s names primarily reveal the human understanding of his presence in the world. Yet, the naming of God is not arbitrary, but grounded in the prior existence and activity of God: “we do not say that the nature of things was a human invention but only their names.”26 The narrative of God’s revelation as it is found in scripture and revealed through creation guarantees that the names of God are more than a figment of the imagination. The theological language of the Fathers does not provide us with theoretical definitions of the being of God, in the sense of knowing the unknown through the known. Rather, their language is doxological in its basic structure. It expresses adoration of God on the basis of His works. In the adoring glorification of God, the worshiper focuses his or her attention entirely upon God, and that affects the use of language. In being used to praise God, words lose their ordinary sense. In the act of adoration, human words are transferred to the sublime infinity of God and are thus set in contrast to their ordinary meaning. For example, when we speak about God’s righteousness in doxological statements, we release this word from the manipulation of our thoughts and we become receptive to a new understanding of “righteousness” based on the reality of God.27 In the same manner and condition, the image of God as Father does not confine the being of God within the limits of this human image, but iconoclastically bursts that image and compels us to learn anew from Him 24

Ibid, p.265 (PG 45. 960). Ibid. 26 Contra Eunomium 2.283; cf 2. 171; God is not a concept of mind. 27 Edmund Schlink, The Coming Christ and the Coming Church, Philadelphia,1968, pp. 16-84. 25

Naming God in Orthodox Tradition: Neither Male nor Female

77

the truth about His fatherhood. It is a sacred duty to make use of God’s names, privative of the things that are abhorrent to God’s nature. St. Gregory of Nyssa advocates that reflections on the nature of God should struggle to work out an Orthodox formula of thought, whereby a worthy conception of God may be ensured. In the process of fulfilling this task, we must always remember that Orthodoxy is not a thing of sounds and syllables, but of the mind and, therefore, particular notions and ideas. Consequently, names can be substituted or expressed by different words that convey to us the same significance. For example, it is possible to substitute the name of God as the first cause who is without cause by other names, such as Eternal Subsistence, The Cause of all, The Principle of all, The First Cause or The One alone without cause, all of which signify like manner and force the same notion.28 All the human images and names by which we describe our understanding of God, according to Gregory of Nyssa, are metaphorical in nature. He asserts that all the names by which we refer to the deity are metaphors that express our understanding of God’s benevolent relation with His creation. Gregory states that if someone were to reject the ordinary and natural sense of the word “Son,” by which we learn that He is of the same essence as Him that begat Him, then he must transfer the name to some more divine interpretation.29 Whether this has been done or is simply an oratorical refutation of Eunomius’s ideas about the origins of language should not concern us at this time, but it is worth noting that Gregory does not exclude such a possibility. In reference to the name of God as Father, Gregory indicates that by calling God the Father we name not what the unknown God is but how He relates to His incarnate Logos, Jesus Christ.30 Furthermore, the title “Father” indicates the personal character of the first person of the Trinity, who must be always related to the second person of the Trinity, His Logos. From a Christological perspective, the fatherhood of God, and the sonship of His incarnate, Logos, indicate that the Son, Jesus Christ, is of the same nature as His Father. For this reason, St. Gregory believes that Jesus Christ passes over all those names by which the deity is indicated in the historical books, in Prophets and in the law. Jesus Christ delivers to us, as part of our profession of faith, the title of “Father” as better suited to indicate the truth, a title which, as has been said, in its relative sense connotes the Son.31 Yet Gregory of Nyssa would agree with Gregory of Nazianzus, who 28

Ibid. 7,4 (PG 45. 760-761). Ibid. 30 Ibid. 2,3 (PG 45. 473). 31 Ibid. 2,2 (PG 45. 468-469). 29

78

Chapter Five

believed that God is beyond gender since He transcends the order of human generation, which is corporeal and includes gender: For it does not follow that because the Son is the Son in some higher relation (inasmuch as we could not in any other way than this point out that He is of God and consubstantial), it would also be necessary to think that all the names of this lower world and of our kindred should be transferred to the Godhead. Or maybe you would consider our God to be male, according to the same argument, because He is called God the Father, and that deity is feminine, from the gender of the word, and Spirit neuter, because it has nothing to do with generation; but if you would be silly enough to say, with the old myths and fables, that God begot the Son by a marriage with His own will, we should be introduced to the hermaphrodite god of Marcion and Valentinus, who imagined these newfangled Aeons.32

Gregory of Nazianzus has struggled to name God with different images and concepts other than the classic name of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. But, as he confesses, all these attempts have failed to find new images or illustration in order to describe the Trinitarian nature of God. In particular, he states: I have very carefully considered this matter in my own mind, and have looked at it in every point of view, in order to find some illustration of this most important subject, but I have been unable to discover anything on earth with which to compare the nature of Godhead [...] For even if I did happen upon some tiny likeness, it escaped me for the most part, and left me down below with my example [...] Finally, then, it seems best to me to let the images and the shadows go, as being deceitful and very far short of the truth; and clinging myself to the more reverent conception, and resting upon few words using the guidance of the Holy Spirit, keeping to the end as my genuine comrade and companion the enlightenment which I have receive from him, and passing through this world to persuade all others also to the best of my powers to worship Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the one Godhead and power. To Him belongs all glory and honor and might forever and ever.33

The fact that He could not find new images in order to describe the Godhead does not void the legitimacy of his efforts to find such images and names. The doctrinal activity of the first three centuries of the history of the Christian church had already brought into prominence several scriptural and non-scriptural images to illustrate the relation of the Son to 32 33

The Fifth Theological Oration 31. Ibid. 33.

Naming God in Orthodox Tradition: Neither Male nor Female

79

the Father. The most important image is, of course, that of the Father and Son and Logos. The next most important scriptural images beside Father and Son and Logos are the icon (image or reflection) taken from 2 Corinthians 4:4 (“Christ who is the icon of God”) and Colossians 1:15 (“He is the image of the invisible God”); ਕʌĮȪȖĮıȝĮ (brightness, ray or reflection) taken from Hebrews 1:3; and character (impression or stamp) also taken from Hebrews 1:3. To these, however, Justin, Tertullian, and others have added at least three other images: the image of the stream descending from its source; that of the branch coming from the trunk or from the root; that of fire being lit from fire. Tertullian indeed elaborated these into a kind of analogy for the Trinity of Persons, using the image of source-streaming-river, and of sun-sunbeam-point of light to illustrate his doctrine of the Trinity. Gregory of Nyssa, himself, provides the following Trinitarian analogies: 1) Two of three different disciplines in the mind of a single man, e.g. medicine, philosophy, and similar arts; 2) The smell of myrrh mingling with the air in a room so they seem identical but are, in fact, distinct; 3) The light of the sun, the air and the wind mingling with each other, but still remaining separate;34 4) The analogy of two lamps being lit from a third;35 and, if we attribute to him the 38th in the collection of Basil’s Letters, we can add the image of the colors of the rainbow melting together yet remaining distinct, as an analogy for unity and distinction in the Trinity. The Cappadocians were generally uneasy with all images designed to illustrate the relations of the Persons of the Trinity to each other, whether those images were scriptural, traditional, or modern. They were much more aware than their predecessors of the weakness of virtually all images, in that they imply a lapse of time or some sort of interval between the persons. For these reasons, they repeatedly emphasized the inadequacy of all images to describe the deity. Basil of Caesarea was vividly aware of the limitations of language about God: “All theological utterance,” he wrote in one of his letters, “is less than the thought of him who speaks it, and less than the intention of him who is conducting the discussion, because language is somehow inadequate to represent our thoughts.”36 Elsewhere, he reminds his readers that the divine writers only speak of God in metaphors and symbolic language, and in images which are often contradictory when taken literally,37 and that if we believe only in that

34

Adversus Arium et Sabelium: de Patre et Filio 83. Adversus Maced. PG 45.1307. 36 Basil Letters, VII. 44. 37 Nicene Post-Nicene Fathers II, Michigan, 1954, vol. 5, 1.14 (PG 45. 300-301). 35

Chapter Five

80

which can be fully expressed in words, then Christian faith and Christian hope have vanished.38 From what we have studied, it is evident that the Cappadocians had a non-doctrinal and flexible attitude to formulae, since they were aware of the inadequacy and limitations of language in expressing propositions about God. They were more concerned with the doctrine expressed by language than the language itself. In the following passage, St. Gregory typifies this kind of flexibility: Since then it is orthodox to believe that he who is the cause of everything does not himself have any underlying cause, once this has been firmly fixed in the mind, what further controversy about words does there remain for sensible men, because every word by which such a concept is expressed comes to the same thing? Whether you say he is beginning and origin of everything or declare that he is unoriginate or that he exists ingenerately or subsists from eternity or is the cause of everything or alone has no cause, all these expressions are virtually equivalent to each other as far as the force of the things signified goes and the words have the same value, and it is futile to dispute subtly about one kind of vocal utterance or another, as is orthodoxy consisted in syllables and sounds and not in meaning.39

Feminine Images of God Is it possible to describe or refer to God’s relationship to the world through feminine images and names? From what we have discussed in this paper, the Fathers of the Church have built their theological reflection on the nature of God from the unreserved position of his total incomprehensibility and indescribability. Then, based on God’s revelation, His manifold graces and, guided by the Holy Spirit, they proceed to reach a relative understanding of his energies that lead them to doxology. Those who had an immediate experience of God’s love in their lives summarized and codified their perception in names. Since the experience of God’s presence in history varies according to circumstances and times, God has been named with many names that reflect his manifold graces. This was necessary to communicate the faith event to others. Yet, it is important to remember that whether we speak about God in theology, or to God in praise and prayer, the tools at our disposal are unequal to the task. All the images, concepts and statements are inescapably human, finite, and 38 39

Ibid. 2.24. PG 45.956.

Naming God in Orthodox Tradition: Neither Male nor Female

81

creaturely. Therefore, our attempt to express in human language something of the inexpressible mystery of God’s transcendence is humble and limited in its capacities. The scriptural names of God are authoritative and indispensable for Christians, because the Church has recognized that these names reflect the life of communion that the scriptural authors had with God, through the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In Christian tradition, many names have been used which are not necessarily scriptural to refer to God’s actions or ways of relating to the world.40 Clement urges Christians to probe more deeply into the mysteries of divine love, where they will discover the intriguing fact that God is at once Father, Mother, and lover: In his unspeakable greatness lies his fatherhood. In his fellowship with our experience is his motherhood. The Father takes a woman’s nature in his love. It is in token of this that he begot the Son from his own being. The fruit born from love was love.41

When the Fathers thought of God, it was his overflowing goodness, mercy and love which they felt bound to celebrate. This is what is known through his acts and activities, even as he remains in himself a transcendent and mysterious being. They communicated this overflowing love by blowing up the highest ideals of human love. St. John Chrysostom, in the Homily on Ps 41, provides a beautiful illustration of the overflowing love of God: God speaks of the love of birds for their young, the love of the fathers for their children, the tenderness of mothers, not because he only loves like a mother loves a child, but because we have no greater proofs of love than these examples.42

40

Recent research has been surfacing on the overlooked scriptural and extrabiblical female images of God. See especially Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, Philadelphia, 1978; Virginia Ramey Mollenkoff, The Divine Feminine: Biblical Imagery of God as Female, New York, 1983. For patristic references on the same subject see: Kari Elisabeth Borressen, "L' Usage patristique de metaphores feminines dans le discours sur Dieu," Revue Theologique de Louvain, 13 (1982) 205-220; Scot Douglass, Theology of the gap: Cappadocian language theory and the Trinitarian controversy, New York: Peter Lang, 2005. 41 Quis Dives Salvetur? translated in R.B. Tollinton, Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Liberalism, London, 1914, pp.319-320. 42 ਫȜȜȘȞİȢ ȆĮIJȑȡİȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ‫ݯ‬ȦȐȞȞȠȣ ȋȡȣıȠıIJȩȝȠȣ ‫ݓ‬ȡȖĮ, v.5, p.596.

82

Chapter Five

St Gregory of Palamas, in his mystical understanding of God’s salvific work in Jesus Christ, writes: Christ has become our brother by union to our flesh and our blood [...] he has also become our father through the holy baptism which makes us like him, and he nurses us from his own breast as a mother, filled with tenderness.43

St. John of Kronstandt, reflecting upon the beauty of nature as an expression of God’s love, writes: In how many ways does not God rejoices us, His creatures, even by flowers? Like a tender mother, in His eternal power and wisdom, He every summer creates for us, out of nothing, these most beautiful plants.44

In these references the Fathers use feminine images and refer to God as mother. To say “God is mother” is not to identify God with mother, but to understand God in light of some of the characteristics associated with mothering, and simultaneously to affirm that God, in some significant and essential manner, is not a mother. The image of God as mother may be seen as a partial but perhaps illuminating way of speaking of certain aspects of God’s relationship to the world. In a similar manner, to call God “Father” means that the unknown God becomes known and relates to us as Father of Jesus Christ and, by adoption, as our father. Any effort to take the concept of his “fatherhood” literally and define it from the ordinary understanding of fatherhood leads to Arianism and idolatry. Against Arianism, the Fathers of the Church (especially St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians) developed their theology of language, which is primarily apophatic and doxological, expressing the ecclesial experience of God’s presence in the world and, more specifically, in the lives of the saints and of His Church. While the Fathers prefer to refer to God with scriptural language, especially the way that Jesus refers to Him, they are open to other non-scriptural and philosophical names, to the extent that these names refer to, represent and express scriptural truths about God. If God has many names that do not comprehensively or essentially describe His nature but which, instead, refer to His personal way of being and to His manifold graces toward creation, are there any feminine qualities or attributes that justify calling God “mother” that do not abandon the names 43

Jean Meyndorff, Introduction a l' etude de Greoire Palama, Paris, 1959, pp .247-48. 44 My Life in Christ, Jordanville, New York, 1976, p. 27.

Naming God in Orthodox Tradition: Neither Male nor Female

83

that He assumed and has been called in the formative Christian tradition? From this study, I have concluded that no human concept, word, or image can circumscribe the divine reality since they all have their origins in human language. Nor can any human concept express with any measure of adequacy the mystery of God, who is ineffable. The very incomprehensibility of God demands a proliferation of images and a variety of names, each of which acts as a corrective against the tendency of any one to become reified and literal.

CHAPTER SIX THEOLOGICAL PRESUPPOSITIONS AND LOGICAL FALLACIES IN MUCH OF THE CONTEMPORARY DISCUSSION ON THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN1 VALERIE KARRAS

Abstract: Discussions regarding the re-establishment of the ordained female diaconate and the question of the ordination of women to the priesthood have led to a variety of arguments based on new or adapted perspectives in the areas of theological anthropology and liturgical theology, as well as differing opinions on the parameters of static permanency versus acculturation with respect to ordained orders. Unfortunately, many of these arguments come from a priori opinions that women should not and cannot be ordained, with the result that the attempt to create theological argumentation to support an already-decided view has had unintended, negative consequences with respect to such diverse topics as incarnational soteriology, as it relates to women and the symbolic and iconic function of the priest in the liturgy. This paper will provide an overview of some of these arguments and offer a cursory critique of them. In 1978 I considered the ordination of women priests to be an impossibility. Now I am much more hesitant […] What I would plead is that we Orthodox should regard the matter as essentially an open question. Let us not imagine that in this area everything is clarified and finally settled; for manifestly it is not, either for us Orthodox or for other Christians. —Kallistos Ware, Bishop of Diokleia2 1

The opening quotes here also appeared in my article, “Orthodox Theologies of Woman and Ordained Ministry,” in Thinking through Faith, ed. Aristotle Papanikolaou and Elizabeth Prodromou (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2008), 113-58. 2 Kallistos Ware, “Man, Woman and the Priesthood of Christ,” in Women and the Priesthood, new ed., Thomas Hopko, ed. (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary

86

Chapter Six The question of the ordination of women to the priesthood […] must become for us [Orthodox] a question that is asked “from the inside.” This question requires of us all an interior freedom and a deep communion with the vision and will of God, in a prayerful silence. —Anthony Bloom, Metropolitan of Sourozh3 An Orthodox woman who is competent to do so can occupy a New Testament teaching post in a prestigious theological faculty, such as that of Thessalonica. She is, however, not permitted to read the gospel in the worship of the people of God. An Orthodox theological conference declares unanimously that “any act denying dignity to the human person, any discrimination between men and women based on sex is a sin.” But, following a custom that has progressively been established in the Orthodox Church, women remain barred from the altar. —Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, French Orthodox theologian.4

No women in the Eastern Orthodox churches today are ordained to any of the so-called “major orders” of deacon, presbyter (priest), or bishop.5

Press, 1999): 5–53, at 7. 3 Metropolitan Anthony of Sourozh, “Preface to the French Edition,” in Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, The Ministry of Women in the Church, Fr Steven Bigham, trans. (Redondo Beach, CA: Oakwood Publications, 1991): xiii–xiv, at xiv. 4 Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, “Women in the Orthodox Church,” in Elisabeth Behr Sigel and Kallistos Ware, The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2000): 1–10, at 8. The embedded quote is from “Conclusions of the Consultation: Report,” in The Place of the Woman in the Orthodox Church, ed. Gennadios Limouris (Katerina, Greece: Tertios Publications, 1992): 21–34, at 28. 5 This may change in the future due to the decision of the Holy Synod of the Church of Greece (on October 8, 2004) to reinstitute the female diaconate, although the Synod decided to initially limit it to a few remote women’s monasteries. Nevertheless, some bishops seek the revival of a full, ordained pastoral ministry for women. Phyllis Zagano, a professor of religious studies at Hofstra University, penned a short article on this decision, for the online version of the Catholic magazine, America. In it, she quoted from the Athens News Agency, noting that “Chrysostomos, Bishop of Peristeri, said, ‘The role of female deacons must be in society and not in the monasteries.’ Other members of the Holy Synod agreed and stressed that the role of women deacons should be social—for example, the care of the sick.” Phyllis Zagano, “Grant Her Your Spirit,” , February 7, 2005; reproduced on the Orthodox News website sponsored by the Orthodox Christian News Service, , vol. 7, no. 6, February 8, 2005. In the early twentieth century, St. Nektarios of Aegina ordained to the diaconate two nuns in the women’s monastery he founded on the island. When

Theological Presuppositions and Logical Fallacies

87

Historically, women have never been ordained to the priesthood or episcopacy.6 Even in early Christianity and in the Byzantine Church, where women were fully ordained and ranked as deacons, their liturgical functions occurred primarily in the private, female spheres of parish life questioned about this by Archbishop Theoklitos of Athens, the saint replied that they were really akin to subdeacons. See Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness and Ministry (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998): 151–52. However, he used the ordination rite for female deacons from the Byzantine period, and the nuns he ordained chanted petitions and read the Gospel during services, which are liturgical functions of the deacon but not of the subdeacon. Moreover, these liturgical functions were not carried out by female deacons even in the Byzantine period. It seems likely, therefore, that St. Nektarios minimized the nature of the deaconesses’ ordination in order to deflect some of the criticism and opposition his actions provoked within the Church of Greece. Among the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Coptic Church in Egypt has consecrated (non-ordained) deaconesses, whose ministry includes religious education and pastoral service. In the Armenian Apostolic Church, from the midnineteenth century until about two decades ago, some nuns were fully ordained as female deacons, exercising the same liturgical functions and being vested identically (except for the addition of a veil) to their male counterparts. Elsewhere in this volume, Phyllis Zagano provides information on contemporary female deacons in the Maronite Church, an Eastern-rite Catholic church rooted historically in Lebanon. 6 A few scholars—most notably Giorgio Otranto, Mary Ann Rossi, and Karen Jo Torjesen—have interpreted epigrammatic titles such as presbytera or episcopa, a badly damaged Roman catacomb fresco, and an ambiguous letter from Pope Gelasius, as evidence that women were ordained to the offices of presbyter and bishop, but their theories have not been widely accepted within the scholarly community. Giorgio Otranto, “Note sul sacerdozio femminile nell'antichità in margine a una testimonianza di Gelasio I,” Vetera Christianorum 19 (1982): 341– 60; Giorgio Otranto, Italia meridionale e Puglia paleocristiane: saggi storici (Bari: Edipuglia, 1991); Mary Ann Rossi, “Priesthood, Precedent, and Prejudice: On Recovering the Women Priests of Early Christianity,” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 7:1 (Spring 1991): 73–93; and Karen Jo Torjesen, When Women Were Priests: Women's Leadership in the Early Church and the Scandal of Their Subordination in the Rise of Christianity (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1993). See also Joan Morris, The Lady Was a Bishop: The Hidden History of Women with Clerical Ordination and the Jurisdiction of Bishops (New York: Macmillan, 1973), an earlier work which combines a rather uncritical presentation of epigraphs with an examination of mitered abbesses in the medieval West. For a critique of these arguments, see Valerie A. Karras, “Priestesses or Priests’ Wives: The Presbytera in Early Christianity,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 51:2-3 (2007): 321-45.

88

Chapter Six

(e.g. taking the Eucharist to sick women in their homes). With the exception of (1) their ordination and reception of the Eucharist at the altar, (2) their assistance in the physical rites of baptism of adult women converts, and (3) their chanting at matins (and perhaps other services) in the Great Church of Hagia Sophia, we have no extant evidence of female deacons’ participation in public worship beyond their ministry in women’s monastic churches and within the women’s areas of parish churches and cathedrals.7 There is nothing surprising about this. The Church’s historical division, according to sex, of public and private diaconal ministries, paralleled the gendered division of functions in almost all aspects of life in the late antique and Byzantine societies in which Orthodox Christianity developed. However, in contemporary Western societies, the roles and functions of women are undifferentiated from those of men in virtually every area except within some churches, including the Orthodox Church, where women are entirely excluded from ordained orders. When questions and challenges were initially raised in the modern era, both within and outside of Orthodoxy, about this exclusion, the most common response was simply that this was the tradition of the Church. However, there are many traditions in the Church, and not all of them are theologically based and immutable in nature. In fact, some more recent “traditions” of the past few decades (or even centuries) conflict with older practices and sometimes even with canonical or nomo-canonical legislation.8 Thus, it has become common for Orthodox theologians to distinguish between “traditions” with a small “t” (that is, liturgical and other practices that may be rooted in the needs, experiences, or culture of an Orthodox people in a given time and place) and “Tradition” with a capital “T”, as a 7

For a full examination of the evidence regarding the historical ordination and functions of female deacons, see Valerie A. Karras, “Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church,” Church History 73:2 (June 2004): 272–316. See also FitzGerald, Women Deacons, op. cit.; Evangelos Theodorou, “਺ «ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» ਵ «ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ» IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ,” ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ (Theologia) 25:3-4 and 26:1 (JulySeptember and October-December 1954; January-March 1955): 430-69; 576-601; 57-76; and Theodorou, “The Institution of Deaconesses in the Orthodox Church and the Possibility of Its Restoration,” in The Place of the Woman in the Orthodox Church and the Question of the Ordination of Women, ed. Gennadios Limouris (Katerini, Greece: Tertios Publications, 1992), 207-38. 8 Most of these newer traditions are late or post-Byzantine, e.g., the wearing of crowns by bishops or the wide-sleeved robes and stovepipe hats worn by many priests and deacons. The former was forbidden while a Byzantine emperor still existed, and the latter developed from Ottoman judicial attire, which itself was adapted from French judicial clothing.

Theological Presuppositions and Logical Fallacies

89

manifestation of the underlying theology and spirituality of the Orthodox Church throughout time and irrespective of place.9 When we survey the books, articles, conference papers, blogs, and other places where the question of the ordination of women is discussed, we often find arguments that originate from an a priori assertion that women cannot be ordained, with the argumentation serving as ex post facto support for a conclusion which has already been made. Usually, authors do not announce that they have argued backwards from an already-arrived at conclusion, but some opponents of women’s ordination (e.g. Frs. Lawrence Farley and Chad Hatfield in the U.S.ǹ.) have explicitly said or written that they left their former churches (in their case, the Episcopal Church U.S.A. of the Anglican communion) at least in part over the ordination of women, and are now opposing women’s ordination (to the diaconate as well as the priesthood) within the Orthodox Church. One of the problems with this type of argumentation is that the attempt to argue backwards from a predetermined decision can lead not only to awkward and unconvincing argumentation but also to unintended consequences in areas tangential to the core topic. There are a host of arguments raised by opponents to women’s ordination, far too many to survey in this brief presentation, but I wish to examine here a few of the more common ones which have these unintended but serious theological consequences. Because it is a new publication which has received exposure on some prominent Orthodox websites, I will frequently be using a new book by Father Lawrence Farley entitled Feminism and Orthodoxy,10 as a model for these arguments,

9

As Vladimir Lossky averred, Tradition is “the critical spirit of the Church,” from “Tradition and traditions,” in his In the Image and Likeness of God (Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1974): 141–168, at 156. Kallistos Ware, who cautions that “[t]radition is not to be equated with cultural stereotypes, with custom or social convention; there is a vital difference between ‘traditions’ and Holy Tradition,” advocates a dynamic, critical, and creative appropriation of tradition: “Authentic traditionalism, then, is not a slavish imitation of the past, but a courageous effort to discriminate between the transitory and the essential. The true traditionalist is not the integrist or the reactionary, but the one who discerns the ‘signs of the times’ (Mt 16:3)—who is prepared to discover the leaven of the Gospel at work even within such a seemingly secular movement as modern feminism” (Kallistos Ware, “Man, Woman, and the Priesthood,” op. cit., pp. 10 and 26). 10 Lawrence Farley, Feminism and Orthodoxy: Quiet Reflections on Ordination and Communion (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2014).

90

Chapter Six

together with an article he has written11 and an interview he has given on this topic.12 In exploring issues regarding the ordination of women, one of the most fundamental questions is, “ordination to what?” The issues surrounding the ordination of women to the diaconate and to the presbytery, or priesthood, are very different for two important reasons: (1) there is a long, well-documented history of women’s ordination to the diaconate, and (2) the diaconate and the priesthood are two very different ministries and orders. I will return to the former issue shortly, but let me first point out, with respect to the latter issue, that the conflation of the diaconate with the priesthood is just one of the many problems in terms of liturgical theology which are made by many opponents of women’s ordination. Although the diaconate has, since early times, been ranked as what we today call a “major order,” together with the priesthood and the episcopacy, it is nevertheless a quite different ordained ministry. Unlike the presbyter, the deacon does not celebrate the sacraments (mysteria) of the church: the deacon cannot baptize, give absolution in the sacrament of penance, serve as the celebrant for a Eucharistic liturgy, or marry a couple in the sacrament of matrimony. Moreover, the funeral service for a deacon is the service of a layman, as opposed to the funeral service of a presbyter. That most Orthodox churches today lack a full-time, fully functional diaconate with a ministry of service to parish communities, has only exacerbated the failure of most of today’s faithful to recognize and understand the unique character of the diaconate as a ministry and ordained order that is quite distinct from those of the presbytery and the episcopacy. To return to the first issue, I find it incomprehensible, given all the research and publications which have illuminated the historical record and subjected it to close examination over the past century, how anyone could still attempt to argue against the incontrovertible fact of the history of fully-ordained female deacons in the late antique and Byzantine-era church. Certainly, no such argumentation can be made with intellectual honesty. For example, in an interview with Fr. Chad Hatfield, chancellor of St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary near New York City, Fr. 11

“A Second Look at the Rejuvenation of the Ministry of the Ordained Deaconess,” in “Soundings” on Orthodox Christian Network, posted December 4, 2014. < http://myocn.net/second-look-rejuvenation-ministry-ordained-deaconess/> 12 “Deaconesses,” podcast and transcript, in “Voices from St. Vladimir’s Seminary” on Ancient Faith Radio, posted December 3, 2014.

Theological Presuppositions and Logical Fallacies

91

Lawrence Farley ignores historical evidence (such as that of Pliny the Younger)13 that runs contrary to his theory that the female diaconate “did not exist for the first two hundred years of church history.” He claims, for example, that the apostle Paul’s reference to Phoebe as a diakonos (in Romans 16:1) should be translated in the generic sense of “servant,” rather than in the specific sense of “deacon,” even though this interpretation is at odds both with the exegeses of early Christian writers as disparate as Origen and St. John Chrysostom, who understood Phoebe to be a deacon,14 and with epigraphical evidence describing a 4th century female deacon as a “second Phoebe.”15 I note in passing that the association of ordained female deacons with Phoebe is also made explicitly in the second prayer in the Byzantine deaconess’s ordination rite.16 With respect to the ordination rites for female deacons, Fr. Farley follows a similar methodology to the Roman Catholic theologian AiméGeorges Martimort, underplaying the significance of major ritual elements that are similar or identical in the ordination rites of male and female deacons – for example, that the ordination occurs at the altar during the same point in the Eucharistic liturgy as the male deacon’s ordination í and instead emphasizing the few trivial differences between them (e.g. that the male deacon kneels on one knee while the female deacon stands), arguing that these minor differences are sufficiently significant to reduce the female diaconate to a lesser order, if an ordained order at all.

13 A famous letter that Pliny the Younger wrote to the emperor Trajan, in about 112 CE, mentions that two women “whom the Christians call deacons [ministrae]” had been arrested and tortured. Several scholars have noted that it is impossible to determine the nature of this term. However, the ambiguity surrounds the functions and understanding of whether ministra (Greek equivalent įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ) was an ordained “office”; that it was used as a title for certain women in the apostolic and sub-apostolic churches is not in dispute. 14 Origen, Commentary on Romans, 10, 17 (PG 14: 1278ABC); John Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 30, 2 (PG 60: 663C-664A). 15 An epigram from the Mount of Olives for a deacon named Sophia describes her as a “second Phoebe”, indicating that the 4th century Palestinian Church also understood the word to refer to a specific office rather than a generic adjective. See Ute Eisen, Women Officeholders: Epigraphical and Literary Studies (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 2000), 158-60. 16 Bar. 163.3 in Stefano Parenti and Elena Velkovska, eds, L'eucologio Barberini gr. 336 (Ff. 1-263), Bibliotheca «ephemerides Liturgicae» «subsidia», vol. 80 (Rome: C.L.V.--Edizioni Liturgiche, 1995), 185-6; Euchologion sive rituale graecorum, ed. Jacobus Goar (Graz: Akademische Druck-U. Verlagsanstalt, 1730; reprint 1960), 218.

92

Chapter Six

Such intellectual dishonesty has unintended consequences in that it distorts the liturgical theology underlying the ritual for the sacrament of holy orders. Two of the most crucial distinctions between the ordination rites for major and minor orders, for example, are that the ordinations of deacon and presbyter occur within the altar area and during the Eucharistic liturgy. By contrast, ordinations to lower orders (subdeacon, reader, etc.) occur outside of the altar and outside of the liturgy. These distinctions reflect the integral Eucharistic functions of presbyter and deacon, which is also why their placement within the liturgy reflects each order’s particular Eucharistic role: the presbyter is ordained just prior to the anaphora, with its climax in the consecration, while the deacon – who does not act as celebrant of the Eucharistic liturgy – is ordained after the anaphora but prior to the distribution of the Eucharist, an act in which he will participate. These central liturgical functions are also reflected in the presbyter’s and deacon’s reception of the Eucharist at the altar, whereas those ordained to lower orders receive the Eucharist with the laity. Fr. Farley minimizes the significance of this rubric as well, noting that, while the male deacon was given the chalice so that he could then distribute the Eucharist to the faithful, the female deacon “gave it right back” and thus, according to him, “was given the Chalice symbolically.” Fr. Farley thereby ignores both the reality of the female deacon receiving the Eucharist at the altar with the other higher clergy, and that this reception signified her liturgical role in distributing the Eucharist, albeit specifically to women in their homes. This raises another interesting issue. It is clear from church manuals and other historical documents that the female deacon did not serve the same public liturgical functions as the male deacon. For instance, while deacons of both sexes took the Eucharist to the homes of sick members of their respective sex, only male deacons distributed the Eucharist during the liturgy. Fr. Farley argues that this lack of a public Eucharistic function for female deacons somehow undermines the diaconal reality of their order. Simultaneously, he criticizes the recent document titled the “Call,” by the St. Catherine’s Vision organization, for proposing that the ordination requirements and diaconal functions of a restored female diaconate should be equivalent to those of the male diaconate. Farley and others opposed to the reinstitution of an ordained female diaconate within Orthodoxy typically argue that, since the segregation of the sexes which gave the female diaconate its primary functions no longer exist in most of the modern world, the rationale for an ordained female diaconate has died together with this social convention. Such a line of

Theological Presuppositions and Logical Fallacies

93

argument is remarkable in its irony since it is based on a dynamic, enculturated understanding of how holy orders should be organized and function, a flexible understanding of the nature of ordained ministries which runs directly contrary to the adherence to a static notion of tradition which, in almost every other respect, characterizes the opponents of women’s ordination. However, Farley and others only apply this acculturated understanding to restrict women’s liturgical functions, ignoring it when it would lead to broader liturgical functions. I am in agreement with these opponents on the philosophical principle that the rules of eligibility and the specific parameters of diaconal ministry can and should be flexible, but they should be flexible enough to allow the Orthodox diaconate to function as fully as possible with the best ministers possible in our contemporary society, not to restrict the ministry to fewer participants than were eligible a millennium ago. In fact, I would argue the opposite to these opponents of a modern female diaconate, with respect to how that flexibility and acculturation should be understood today. If we examine the cultural context of the historical female diaconate, we cannot fail but be astonished that, in a society where women served almost no public roles and held no public offices, the Church nevertheless not only employed them to serve the pastoral and liturgical needs of the female faithful, but ranked them among its major orders of clergy, fully ordaining them in a rite virtually identical to that of their male counterparts. That they were indeed ranked among the major orders of clergy is perhaps most clearly seen in Justinian’s Novel 6, specifically regulating the ordinations of just the three major orders of clergy – bishops, presbyters, and deacons, “male and female” – especially since Justinian explicitly referred to these three orders as a group, as the “priesthood” (ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ), in his prefatory comments in the novel.17 Moreover, as mentioned earlier, the ordination rite for the female deacon in the Byzantine church was virtually the same as for the male deacon, and it was always placed directly after the rite for the male deacon in Byzantine euchologia, regardless of whether the ordination rites for clergy were organized in ascending or descending order. This indicates that the female deacon was considered to be of the same rank as the male deacon. Even the more rigid rules of eligibility, with respect to age and marital status of female deacons versus their male counterparts, as well as the stricter penalties for female deacons’ misconduct, evidence both the Byzantines’

17

Novellae, Corpus Iuris Civilis, vol. 3, eds. Rudolf Schoell and Guilelmus Kroll (Berlin, Weidmann, 1959), 35-6.

94

Chapter Six

discomfort with female clergy and their recognition that these women were indeed clergy. Therefore, the appropriate question should be: “Given that, even in a patriarchal, segregated society where women had no public roles, the Church fully ordained women to the diaconate with a ministry that paralleled the public/private segregation of the sexes that existed in other areas of life, why is the Church today not ordaining women to the diaconate and, furthermore, not ordaining women and men to a diaconate with the same eligibility requirements for ordination and the same diaconal ministries and functions, reflective of the integration of women and men in today’s society?” But, of course, the opposition of some to the ordained female diaconate in the Orthodox Church today, and even their refusal to acknowledge the historical fact of the female diaconate in the Eastern churches, arises from an ulterior fear, one which Fr. Lawrence Farley articulated in his interview with Fr. Hatfield: “If the Orthodox Church wants to ordain women deaconesses, and call them deacons and vest them and put them in the altar, this will, within a generation, overcome the sole remaining barrier to women’s ordination to the presbyterate and the episcopate [emphasis added].” This is an astounding statement. As I noted near the beginning of my paper, the diaconate and the presbyterate (or priesthood) are two very distinct orders. Furthermore, the church already has a thousand-year history of calling women ordained to the diaconate “deacons,” not simply “deaconesses,” as though this were a separate order that was not really an ordained order. Finally, if a millennium-long history of an ordained female diaconate was not enough to cause the Church to ordain women to the priesthood in the early and Byzantine periods, why is Fr. Farley so fearful that this would now occur within a generation? I suspect that Lawrence Farley and others like him recognize, perhaps unconsciously, that the reason the ordination of women to the diaconate did not lead to the ordination of women to the priesthood had more to do with culture than theology. And so, I would like to briefly raise what I believe to be the two most problematic theological and liturgical consequences of some of the most common arguments against the ordination of women to the priesthood within the Orthodox Church. This is a very different topic than the ordination of women to the diaconate, both because of the lack of an historical female presbyterate and because of the unique nature of the priesthood itself. I am happy to say that I am not alone in my concern on these issues, finding them shared by the participants in the Orthodox-Old Catholic Consultation on the Role of Women in the Church and the

Theological Presuppositions and Logical Fallacies

95

Ordination of Women as an Ecumenical Issue, held in Konstancin, Poland, in 1996.18 Both of these issues derive from a line of argumentation which some Orthodox have borrowed from Roman Catholic thought and which is enunciated in the 1976 papal encyclical, Inter insignores. The priest, according to this argumentation, stands in persona Christi in the Eucharistic liturgy and, reflecting Christ’s maleness is requisite to fulfilling this role and symbolism. One problem connected to this line of reasoning is that it overlooks the primary symbolic role of the presbyter in the Eucharistic liturgy: that is, the priest primarily represents the Church, not Christ. It is true that he certainly images Christ when he turns to the faithful and raises his hand to trace the sign of the cross. However, in the Orthodox Church, unlike the Roman Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Council, the presbyter almost always faces in the same direction – east í as the rest of the faithful, precisely because, primarily, the presbyter functions as an icon in the Eucharistic liturgy, as an image of the Church. Almost all of the presbyter’s prayers are recited in the first person plural (the ȅ੝įİ੿Ȣ ਙȟȚȠȢ – “No one is worthy” í being a notable exception). In addition, the so-called “words of institution” (“This is my body […]/This is my blood”) occur within the context of the entire prayer of the anaphora, where the priest summarizes the history of salvation; he is not playing the role of Christ specifically. Moreover, such an argument reifies a gendered symbolism, but reifies it inconsistently, since Christ’s physical maleness is essentialized in the priest’s symbolic imaging of him, but the Church’s “femaleness” as the bride of Christ apparently does not need to be imaged physically in the priest for him to function symbolically as her. The second issue with this line of argumentation is the most problematic because of its unconsidered and unintended soteriological significance. By asserting that only men can truly image Christ and, more importantly, that Christ’s masculinity is ontologically significant, the proponents of this argument have enunciated a Christology and theological anthropology at odds with the patristic tradition. Because of constraints of space, I will not discuss this aspect here, but I have written of it elsewhere, and I refer people especially to the work of Constantinos Yokarinis on this topic, since he has looked at the issue of gender in theological anthropology with particular application to the question of the ordination of women.19 18 See the Anglican Theological Review 84:3 (2002), edited by Hans von Arx and Anastasios Kallis, for a published version of the papers presented at the consultation and the text of the “Common Considerations” agreed to by the participants on December 13, 1996. 19 Constantinos N. Yokarinis, “The Priesthood of Women: A Look at Patristic

96

Chapter Six

Beyond the problematic theological anthropology on which such an argument is based, however, this line of reasoning calls into question the very salvation of women, according to the incarnational soteriology most succinctly enunciated by Gregory the Theologian, that “what is not assumed is not healed.”20 If Christ’s maleness is somehow not simply a particular characteristic of his hypostasization of human nature but an ontologically essential element of his person, then, since he has not assumed female humanity, female humanity is not saved. Of course, this is ludicrous and, in fact, not one of the Church Fathers has ascribed any particular significance to Christ’s maleness per se, beyond his fulfilling the Levitical symbolism of the male sacrificial lamb, or that his maleness was in itself physical proof of the fullness of his hypostasization of human nature.21 Obviously, much more could and should be said on these issues, as well as others, which require more space than is available here. Nevertheless, I hope that the issues I have briefly raised here demonstrate how important it is that, in our discussion of these vital and controversial issues of the reinstitution of the ordained female diaconate and of the possibility of the ordination of women to the priesthood, we do not allow sloppy argumentation and theological reasoning based on fear of change to undermine our theology of holy orders, our liturgical theology, our theological anthropology, and our soteriology. That people feel the need to resort to such distorting and unsound arguments is itself, I believe, proof Teaching,” in Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, ed., Orthodox Women Speak: Discerning the “Signs of the Times” (Geneva; Brookline, MA: WCC Publications/Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1999): 167–176, at 170. For a much deeper and more systematic discussion, see Yokarinis’ H ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȒȢ țȓȞȘıȘȢ (Athens: Epektase, 1995). 20 Ep. 101. 21 Gregory of Nazianzus, in Or. 45 (the Second Paschal Oration) (PG 36:641A), interpreted Christ’s maleness typologically in terms of the Paschal lamb and allegorically in terms of power over the sin of Adam. See Verna E. F. Harrison, “Male and Female in Cappadocian Theology,” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 41:2 (October 1990): 441-71 at 457-58. Theodore of Stoudios, in Antirrhetic III, 45 (PG 99:409D), argues that Christ’s maleness proves his incarnation since, if he had no body, neither would he be male. As to the significance of Christ’s maleness per se, Theodore simply points out that it fulfills the Messianic proof-text at Isaiah 8:3, “I went to the prophetess, and she conceived and bore a son.” See Valerie A. Karras, “The Incarnational and Hypostatic Significance of the Maleness of Jesus Christ According to Theodore of Stoudios,” Studia Patristica: Papers Presented at the Twelfth International Conference on Patristic Studies held in Oxford, 1995, vol. 32, ed. Elizabeth A. Livingstone (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 320-324 at 322.

Theological Presuppositions and Logical Fallacies

97

of the theological weakness of the opposition to the restoration of the ordained female diaconate and even the ordination of women to the priesthood.

CHAPTER SEVEN LEX ORANDI EST LEX CREDENDI: WOMEN DEACONS AS EMISSARIES OF THEION ELEOS (DIVINE COMPASSION AND THE WITNESS OF THE ORDINATION RITE OF DEACONESSES) KYRIAKI KARYIDOYANES-FITZGERALD

Abstract: This paper focuses on the ordained deaconess and theion eleos, or divine compassion revealed through the word of God, who became human “for the life of the world” (John 6:51) “as one who serves” (Luke 22:27). Typically understood by the Orthodox as “divine love applied,” theion eleos is at the heart of the “good news” (euangellion) and sustains all koinonia. This paper also stresses that “hardness of heart” (cf. Eph. 4:18) interferes with reception of theion eleos, including discerning vocations within the life of the Church. The research of Prof. Evangelos Theodorou affirms that Orthodox deacons (male and female) are ordained to “irea diakonia” (“sacred” or “priestly ministry”). The results of my four decades of research, publications and books addressing this topic, further develop Prof. Theodorou’s conclusions. Similarly, through this presentation, I examine selected passages from the Byzantine ordination rite of the female deacon, while promoting a deeper appreciation of divine compassion in light of the ordination of women.

Introduction: A Spiritual and Theological Foundation During the past few years, rich and deep conversations among our friends in St. Catherine’s Vision1 have prompted us to more profoundly 1

St. Catherine's Vision or SCV (www.saintcatherinesvision.org.) is an international Pan-Orthodox, non-profit organization of women theologians and other lay servant-leaders, addressing contemporary concerns from an Orthodox Christian perspective. Founded through hierarchical blessing in 2001, SCV is an

100

Chapter Seven

appreciate how all ministry and service offered within the life of the Church, whether ordained or lay, is an expression of three things simultaneously: 1) all ministry rests in, 2) all ministry is an expression of, and 3) all ministry is a vehicle for, the divine compassion, theion eleos, the “eleos” of God. In this brief paper, I wish to offer a few considerations based on the liturgical witness of the Church, identifying vital elements of the “phronema” directly associated with the charism of women deacons or deaconesses, as viewed through the lens of divine compassion/theion eleos. These observations are based on my ongoing studies of Orthodox theology and spiritual tradition, that began at Hellenic College, Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Brookline, Massachusetts, U.S.A., over forty years ago. As a new student, it was during my first visit to the School’s library that a newly-graduated young priest thrust Prof. Theodorou’s first two books in my hand and said, “you will be the one translating and offering his work to the Church in English. You will be teaching this.” I laughed and said, “This is my professors’ job, not mine!” The young priest shook his head and said, with a sad tone, “you do not understand…yet.” Since then, Prof. Theodorou’s work has been thrust into my hands many, many times. Looking back now, I see this was an undeserved invitation and blessing.

Divine Compassion and Discernment The Orthodox Church enjoys a rich understanding of divine compassion or theion eleos. The offering and reception of theion eleos is at the foundation of all koinonia. This is because Jesus Christ is at the center of the Church, which is his body. He is “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14:4). The life of each believer and the entire life of the community of believers is founded in His Gospel and sustained by the presence of the risen Lord through the power of the Holy Spirit. Through this means, the Lord unites faithful men and women to Himself and to all others in His Church who confess Him as Lord. His words of reconciliation and love reveal to us how we are God’s daughters and sons. At the same time, His words and actions all point to the Heavenly Father who desires that “all be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim. 2:4). Indeed, the

endorsed organization of the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America and is dedicated to cultivating awareness of the centrality of divine compassion/Theion Eleos in Orthodox theology and orthopraxia in ways that enable and facilitate the ministries of women and men in the life of the Church.

Women Deacons as Emissaries of Theion Eleos

101

very heart of “the good news” of the Gospel is established in divine compassions, theion eleos, of the thrice-holy God. In recent years, I have become more aware how theion eleos serves as a vital prerequisite in the reception of the gift of discernment, especially regarding important matters that involve Christians and the Church. For those who vehemently oppose even entertaining the idea of ordained deaconesses for today, I now wonder if one of the main reasons is because human hearts and hence, intellectual openness, may not be so sensitive, open or, therefore, very receptive to divine eleos as understood within the life of the Orthodox Church. From the perspective of Orthodox spiritual tradition, especially, we are forced to ponder if this may be happening due to an imperceptible hardening of the heart. With this in mind, there is much more than can be said regarding divine compassion, from an Orthodox perspective. A brief description here would be to offer highlights of our discussions on this topic among the sisters (and brothers!) of St. Catherine’s Vision. Theologically, we have come to understand this as a reference to an ongoing love story. This is a love story that begins in eternity, outside of time, space and all of creation, and it is reaching out to us, even “today,” through the course of time and creation. The psalmist proclaims, “this is the day the Lord has made, let us rejoice and be glad in it” (Psalm 118:24). Divine compassion refers to the eternal and absolute outpouring of God’s love. This is a love that originates from out of time and creation, reaching out to every one of us and sustaining all of creation to and through every moment. In the Septuagint Greek, this eleos is rooted in the very “guts” (splachna) of God. The students of Hebrew among us enjoy making the point that this same word in Hebrew and the original Aramaic, refer to the inner “womb” of God. From the days of the early Church, this has been a vital affirmation in the faith of Eastern Christians. Divine compassion, or eleos, is love applied. Theologically, Eastern Christians tend to readily reflect their Semitic roots with this understanding, as divine eleos refers to a love whose source is a God touched “viscerally” by our fallen condition. God is moved to the point of personally reaching out to us both lavishly and concretely (cf. John 3:16, 2: 1-11). We cannot help but ponder deeply with wonder and awe on the Lord’s kenosis (Phil. 2:7) as a superlative example of His divine compassion, rejoicing in God Emanuel, God with us (Mat. 1:23). From the perspective, especially, of the liturgical witness of the Orthodox Church, eleos essentially relates to the application of God’s love, a love that sees us from our most secret depths, from the inside out, by the God who, from outside eternity, loves us first. A frequent metaphor

102

Chapter Seven

for the chrism of the Holy Spirit, the eleos of God floods us with divine adoptive love, an inundation of love that pours over us, healing, restoring, joining, re-membering (the utterly disjointed and broken), blessing, anointing, ordaining, even transfiguring (sanctifying). This concept related to the inundation of “theion eleos” may come to mind frequently for the Orthodox Christian when hearing, at liturgical services, the deacon or priest proclaiming, “again and again, let us pray to the Lord.” The worshipper would be struck with wonder about how each “again” points to the reverberation throughout creation of the life-giving “heartbeat” of God’s infinite love. In other words, His energies reaching out to all of us, throughout creation, through the course of time, originating from outside of time and creation. It is important not to forget how the liturgical life of the Orthodox Church, in particular, bears a powerful witness to the divine compassion as a central vehicle for the unfailing and active presence of the loving God in the created world. In a special manner, this is made manifest through the celebration of the divine liturgy. The contemporary, popular Orthodox understanding of the “liturgy after the liturgy” is one vital aspect of our response to divine compassion where, from eternity, the Lord loves us first, offering Himself up for us, “for the life of the world” (John 6:51). In loving, obedient response, we are obliged to share this with others to the best of our ability. Eleos is also made present through our concrete and sincere daily personal responses to the Lord, for example, in identification with our suffering neighbor; and eleos is of course, certainly present through sublime and the not-so-common reception of the ineffable God, Himself, through theosis. Through divine compassion, or eleos, our repentance is received. Also by means of His eleos, we offer pure-hearted glory and praise. By merely praying the Kyrie eleyson, we are turning towards our loving Heavenly Father with open hands, raised in prayer; by merely praying the Kyrie eleyson, we give voice to an audacious series of implied affirmations about God’s abundant love, ourselves, one another and creation. Because of theion eleos, with wonder, we too may cry out with the psalmist: “Not to us, O Lord, not to us, But to Your name be glory, because of your mercy, because of your truth” (Ps. 115:1).

Sin, Brokenness and Sexism vs. the Cultivation of “Hearts of Flesh” As true as the above assertions may be for the Orthodox, we also have to fully admit human fallen-ness and brokenness. Today we observe, sadly, how easy it appears for some Christians to drift away or, perhaps,

Women Deacons as Emissaries of Theion Eleos

103

rather, become entranced to follow lesser gods. Because of these choices, they progressively close themselves off from the eleos of God. The more this takes place, the easier they, and we, fall into fragmentation and polarization amongst ourselves, within general society, and the world. Ever so easily, we close ourselves off from one another as we simultaneously begin to build our “ivory towers” in which to reside (or rather, hide). We do not realize how we increasingly are becoming hardened to the “O/other”. Worse yet, we may also be distancing ourselves from God. In ancient Christian spiritual tradition, this phenomenon is often called the “sin of familiarity.” Much like many other Christian groups, this painful development, too, is challenging Orthodox Christians.2 From this perspective, we could say that “sexism” is an advanced (and hence, hardened) expression of the sin of familiarity.3 Orthodox appreciation of theion eleos may be envisioned as a meetingpoint where the contemporary understanding of spirituality and theology embrace, or “marry”, so to speak and, hence, must also bear “fruit.” Rather than succumbing to a “hardness of heart,” human persons are called to seek and cultivate a “heart of flesh” (Ezek. 36:22-28), a living, warm, pliable and most of all, vulnerable, heart to ponder, perceive and ultimately receive transfiguring, life-giving, divine compassion. Yes, as is proclaimed during the divine liturgy, “Christ is in our midst!” We Orthodox may greatly benefit from meditating upon all ministry and service, whether ordained or from the laity, through the lens of “hearts of flesh,” eager to receive divine compassion. To study the ministry of the Church outside this living context sets us up for a poor trajectory leading, in all likelihood, to further hardening of hearts, division and (frequently self-righteous) polarization.

The Witness of the Female Deacon Ordination Prayers: Hiding in Plain Sight Ordinations to “higher orders” take place during the celebration of the Eucharist, the very heart of the worshipping church. In a special manner, 2

Sections of this discussion regarding divine compassion (theion eleos) were coauthored in collaboration with St. Catherine’s Vision (SCV) and can be found on the SCV website (www.saintcatherinesvision.org.), together with more information regarding the implications of divine compassion for SCV’s ongoing work. 3 This topic is discussed more fully in the chapter on “Sexism as Sin,” in Orthodox Women Speak: Discerning the ‘Signs of the Time’, edited by Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, Geneva, Switzerland: WCC Publications, and Brookline, Mass. U.S.A.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1999, 190-199.

104

Chapter Seven

the ministry of the deacon, (much like the ordinations of the presbyter and bishop) is established deliberately from within the very midst of the gathered apostolic Church before the very throne of God. Perhaps we could say the celebration of the liturgy serves as a “heartbeat” of God, from where His divine compassion commences in a special manner. A responsible interpretation of the ordination rite and related prayers for the deaconess virtually beg to be thoughtfully deliberated from this perspective. Perhaps because of our personal self-selected priorities (i.e. distractions) which would be God, the eyes of our spiritual hearts cloud the lens of our ability to take notice of the miracle hiding in plain sight within our liturgical tradition. Prof. Evangelos Theodorou truly deserves our tribute throughout this conference, as he has not neglected this treasure throughout his years of research and study, throughout his teaching and his faithfully bearing witness to the importance of this ministry for almost seventy years. Nevertheless, for too many of us even today, the significance of the ordination service of the female deacon has been hiding in plain sight! With the above in mind, a very brief sketch describing the charism and ministry of the diaconate would be this: The ministry of deacons is, first of all, established within the very heart of the worshipping apostolic Church. From the earliest days of the Church, there has been only one order of deacons to which both men and women have been called. This is an order of ministry rooted in the biblical understanding of “diakonia”, reflecting the patterns established in the New Testament and early Church. On the one hand, it is important to stress that the deacon does not preside at the Eucharist as does the presbyter and bishop. On the other hand, it is incorrect to assume that the diaconate is merely “a steppingstone” to higher orders, per se, nor is the deacon simply a liturgical luxury, a decoration or super-acolyte as some may still assume today. Rather, the essential Orthodox understanding of the deacon is that of an ordained minister or officer of the Church who serves as a representative or spokesperson of the bishop. The deacon is one who even “kicks up the dust” in order to help make this representation or presence possible. The diaconate is a distinct, full and priestly order within the life of the Church, where deacons are ordained to “irea diakonia” (“sacred” or “priestly ministry”), at the pleasure of their bishop and serving as his emissary or ambassador, deacons humbly make present through the power of the Holy Spirit, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, “He who serves” (cf. Luke 22:27). The history of men and women serving within the diaconate is diverse and rich. A cursory review of the lives of the saints depicts an amazing

Women Deacons as Emissaries of Theion Eleos

105

tapestry of how deacons, male and female, served through the ages, many times under oppressive circumstances.4

Witness from the Prayers of Epiclesis: Ordination Rite of the Female Deacon Every expression of ministry within the life of the Church is a service offered in the name of Christ. He is the One who has come into our midst “as one who serves” (Luke. 22:27). All expressions of ministry therefore, are meant to build up the body of Christ so that the Church, following its Lord, serves the salvation of the world (cf. Eph. 3:11-12). From the earliest times in Christian history, women have been actively involved in various ministries to God’s people. Based on the ancient teaching, Lex orandi est lex credendi, “the word of prayer is the word of faith” the ordination rite of the female deacon bears a vital witness to numerous significant suppositions that pertain to the ministry and, especially, the ordination of women. Over the last several decades, scholars have begun to make known the significance of the structure of the ordination rite. I anticipate that others will offer an overview of this regarding how this pertains to the deaconess. As space is limited, I will now spend the rest of this paper calling attention to a limited number of texts from the prayers of epiclesis for the ordination of the female deacon. The subsequent analysis offers a modest demonstration of the rich foundation in theion eleos, in which the prayers and whole rite are founded.5 Because of the ancient principle of lex orandi est lex credendi, (“the word of prayer is the word of belief”), even a cursory examination of the two ordination prayers offers rich insights into divine compassion and the ordination of the woman deacon. The first prayer of epiclesis for ordination reads as follows: 4

Sections of this discussion regarding the diaconate were presented by this author as part of the “Report to Orthodox Hierarchs on the Ordination of Women Deacons,” SCOBA Bishops Conference, Chicago, Ill. Oct. 2006, and the “Report to the SCOBA Study and Planning Committee on the Rejuvenation of the Diaconate: Male and Female,” SCOBA Study and Planning Committee Meeting, Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, New York, NY. Feb. 2006. 5 For a more comprehensive analysis regarding the significance of the structure of the ordination rite and the prayers contained therein, as well as a related appraisal by Prof. Evangelos Theodorou, see my Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness and Ministry, Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1999, 59- 133, especially, pp. xxii-xxiii, 78-110, 115-133.

106

Chapter Seven O God, the Holy and Almighty, who has sanctified woman through the birth in the flesh of your only -begotten Son and our God from the Virgin; and has bestowed the grace and advent of Your Holy Spirit not to men alone, but also to women; look now, Lord, upon this Your servant and call her to the work of Your diaconate send down upon her the abundant gift of Your Holy Spirit. Preserve her in Your Orthodox faith, in blameless conduct, always fulfilling her ministry according to your pleasure; because to you (is due all honor, glory and worship, to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.) Amen.

Lex Orandi est Lex Credendi: Affirming the Presence of Women in Ministry. The Significance of the Theotokos The content of the first prayer of epiclesis for the woman deacon makes reference to several important themes which express the importance of her ordination. The very first is a strong emphasis on the significance of the Theotokos in the history of salvation, by proclaiming that God has “sanctified woman through the birth in the flesh of your only-begotten Son and our God from the Virgin.” The emphasis on the relationship between Mary and the Incarnation is of great importance in this prayer. Moreover, there is an additional positive emphasis here. God not only forgave female (and male) human beings, but also “sanctified woman” (lit. “sanctified the female” or “sanctified all that is female”) as a result of Mary's active participation in the Incarnation. Here, we are reminded that the incarnation took place with the free consent of a woman. Yet, there is also an indication here that the very understanding of woman is different because of the incarnation. This obviously changes the manner in which women may worship and serve God under the new dispensation. Therefore, the manner by which this ordination begins, by clearly affirming the sanctity of woman as a result of the incarnation, is of significance. The prayer seems to urge us to appreciate the significance of this through the healing and sanctifying “lens” of divine compassion. What does this have to say for the Church, today?

Call to Ordination Begins with God The prayer affirms it is God the Father who has bestowed “the grace and advent of the Holy Spirit not to men alone, but also to women.” This section of the prayer again makes it clear that the source of all ministry within the community is God the Father who chooses to bestow His Holy Spirit, “not to men alone, but also to women.” It is certainly a bold

Women Deacons as Emissaries of Theion Eleos

107

affirmation which cannot be underestimated in all discussions about the ministry of women in the Church. Here, the choice of words is especially important. The reference to “the grace and advent of the Holy Spirit” refers to the woman receiving the rich bestowal of the Holy Spirit in terms of ordination. The Greek word referring to the “grace” of the Holy Spirit typically occurs in the Byzantine ordination prayers for “major” orders. It occurs once in this prayer and three times in the second prayer of ordination for the woman deacon. The term “advent” is a little more unusual and is noteworthy. In early Christian literature, it is used to refer to the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles at Pentecost and the personal “Pentecost” of every baptized believer at the sacrament of Chrismation. It is also a term used in conjunction with the consecration of the elements at the Eucharist. Finally, the same expression is also utilized in the ordination of the male deacon and of the bishop. Clearly, this term is associated with various forms of theophany of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, we should not minimize the significance of its presence in this ancient prayer.

The Call to the Diaconate The prayer then beseeches God the Father to “look now, Lord, upon this your servant and call her to the work of your diaconate.” By referring to this ministry as “Your diaconate,” the prayer again succinctly indicates that this order of ministry belongs to God. Since all ministry originates with God, these words remind us that the rite of ordination is also a response to the divine “call” or “invitation.” Furthermore, this section refers directly to the “work of your diaconate.” This same Greek phrase also occurs in the first ordination prayer for the male deacon. This text in the Byzantine male deacon's ordination prayer reads: “Give him the grace which you gave to Stephen Your protomartyr, whom you also called first to the work of your diaconate.”6 These phrases may find their origin in the epistle to the book of Ephesians. There, St. Paul says: And it is He (Christ) who has given some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip God's people for work in His service (eis ergon diakonias), for the building up (or edification) of the body of Christ. (Eph.4:11-12).

6

Paul Bradshaw, The Ordination Rites of the Ancient Churches of the East and West, New York: Pueblo Publ., Co. 1990, 136.

108

Chapter Seven

It is important to indicate here that the phrase “to equip God’s people for work in His service” appears to be at the heart of the male and female deacon’s call to eis ergon diakonias. Both of the ordination rites for the male and female deacon bear witness to the fact that they are being called by God “for work in His service” (eis ergon diakonias) focused on “the building up (or edification) of the body of Christ.”

The Epiclesis The fourth theme of this prayer is the epiclesis, the invocation of the Holy Spirit. Here, the prayer beseeches God to “send down upon her the abundant gift of your Holy Spirit.” So significant is the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the women that it is found in both ordination prayers. The second ordination prayer also petitions God to “bestow the grace of your Holy Spirit” upon the woman being ordained. This type of invocation for the “bestowal of the Holy Spirit” found in the Byzantine ordination prayers is identified with the “major orders” of ministries. The text of the ordination rite for the male deacon, for example, refers to him receiving the “advent of your life giving Spirit.” The presbyter receives “this great gift of your Holy Spirit” and for the bishop, the “advent, power, and grace of your Holy Spirit” is invoked. Here again, we are obliged to ponder the ineffable gifts invoked through the epiclesis of the Holy Spirit by the “lens” of theion eleos. What does this have to say for the Church, today?

Ministry is a Privilege The first prayer ends by entreating God to “fulfill her ministry in blameless conduct according to what is pleasing to you.” Much like an even more ancient ordination prayer for the deaconess found in the early 4th century, Apostolic Constitutions, this section affirms that the ministry (leitourgian) the woman deacon renders is ultimately a privilege. The manner in which she lives her life and conducts her ministry are intimately related and are rooted in her relationship with God.

Women Deacons as Emissaries of Theion Eleos

109

Many Applications of Lex Orandi est Lex Credendi! With deepest apologies to the reader, for reasons of brevity the second ordination prayer will be discussed even more briefly than the first.7 It reads as follows: Sovereign Lord, who do not reject women offering themselves and desiring (boulytheisas) to minister (leitougein) in Your holy houses, in accordance with what is fitting, but rather receive them into an order of ministers (en taxei leitourgon), bestow the grace of Your Holy Spirit also upon this Your servant who desires to offer herself to You, and fill her with the grace of the diaconate just as You gave the grace of Your diaconate to Phoebe, whom You called to the work of ministry (leitourgias). O God, grant that she may persevere blamelessly in Your holy temples, to cultivate appropriate conduct, especially, prudence; and make Your servant perfect so that she, standing at the judgment seat of Your Christ, may receive the worthy reward of her good conduct. Through the mercy and love for humanity of your only-begotten Son, with whom you are blessed, (together with your all-holy, good and life giving Spirit, now and ever and unto the ages of ages. Amen).

This second prayer begins by quite bluntly affirming the presence of women. With absolutely no hesitation, it declares: “Sovereign Lord, who do not reject women offering themselves and desiring to minister (leitougian ) in Your holy houses, in accordance with what is fitting, but rather receive them into an order of ministers (en taxei leitourgon).” It is not God who rejects women! Through this succinct and powerful beginning, this prayer, much like the first ordination prayer, validates the ordination of the woman in a very positive manner. This affirmation can only indicate that any rejection of women presenting themselves for ministry for reasons ultimately based upon their sex, per se, has nothing to do with God.

God does not reject women We could even say that this prayer begins by implicitly calling attention to the sin of misogyny which is often perpetrated against women 7 There are several particularly important theological assumptions conveyed through these Byzantine Greek (and even earlier) liturgical rites and prayers that are rich, deep, and nuanced, yet consistent and clear, regarding the ordination and women in the Church. Please refer to these discussions in my book on Women Deacons, pp.78-110; 59-77; 50-58, et passim, for more information.

110

Chapter Seven

by both men and women. We recall here that misogyny, a variation of misanthropy, is a sin against God. In the garden just after the Fall, Adam blamed God for the woman He gave him. Furthermore, there indeed have been many occasions when the sin of misogyny has been committed against women under the pretense of religion. This prayer implicitly rejects such perspectives. The prayer affirms that the call to ordination begins with God, it also clearly asserts: God does not reject women! Just as with the previous ordination prayer, this prayer makes absolutely no effort to conceal the fact that the candidate presented for ordination is a woman. Rather, the prayer affirms the fact that the person being ordained is a woman. She is called as a woman. She enters the clergy as a woman. Instead of rejecting women, the text of the ordination prayer emphasizes here rather, that God the Father receives women “in an order of ministers (en taxei leitourgon).” A second and perhaps even more important theme in this part of the prayer refers to: “women offering themselves and desiring (boulytheisas) to minister (leitourgein) in Your holy houses, in accordance with what is fitting, but rather (You) receive them into an ‘order of ministers (en taxei leitourgon).’” For us, it is important to note that this section of the prayer affirms that women candidates for the diaconate freely "offer themselves” to God for ministry. Here, the prayer also acknowledges and values their expressed holy desire (boulytheisas) to serve. As the patristic understanding of this word implies, both in the Greek and in its Latin counterpart, it is indeed a worthy desire which is a genuine response to the will of God (a desire that was given to them from the moment of their creation). This section of the second prayer also makes another bold, perhaps even corrective, leap. By referring to “women offering themselves and desiring (boulytheisas) to minister (leitourgein) in Your holy houses, in accordance with what is fitting,” the phrase “in accordance to what is fitting” reminds us how we fallen human beings must strive, to the best of our abilities, to respond faithfully and obediently to the will of God in the present context, as best as finite human limitations allow. This is what is “fitting,” so to speak. On deeper reflection, our best, yet finite, human works concern our obedient minute-to-minute self-offering to God. God is waiting to receive our human best in the context in which we find ourselves.8 This is an important point. Immediately after “in accordance to what is fitting,” are 8

This important theme is alluded to even more strongly later in this same prayer, and is discussed in my book, Women Deacons, pp. 92-95.

Women Deacons as Emissaries of Theion Eleos

111

the next two words which introduce perhaps an even more important assertion. It is introduced in such a manner that this point unexpectedly promotes the meaning of the prayer to another level. The prayer in English correctly translates the powerful Greek conjunction “alla” as: “but, rather,” and so it reads: “but rather, [You] receive them into an order of ministers (en taxei leitourgon).” A very powerful concept is implied here that is easily overlooked by most theologians. Perhaps, the liturgical setting of the prayer is not too unlike the example set before us by the holy myrrh-bearing women on the day of the Lord’s resurrection. These faithful disciples freely desired (boulytheisas) to offer themselves in service to Him. Despite the numerous grave dangers that are still present for followers of Jesus, and motivated by a profound love that summoned their courage to face these dangers, the faithful-yet-traumatized grieving female disciples began their journey to the place of their Lord’s entombment. They walked together through the pitch darkness, during the first moments of dawn on Pascha morning, ready with spices in hand to anoint His body “in accordance with what is fitting,” as was customary for the dead (cf. Luke 24: 1-12). On their arrival at the tomb, and beyond all limits of their finite strength and expectations, an amazing phenomenon encountered them. They were confronted with the revelation of the first paschal, “but rather”: “Why do you seek the living among the dead?” (Luke 24:5), the angel inquires. And they went back to bear witness to this to the other disciples (cf. Luke 24:10-11). The “but rather” in this part of the prayer is not too different: “But rather (You) receive them into an order of ministers (en taxei leitourgon).” There is a definitive revelation of “promotion” taking place here of the woman being ordained; she is to be received into an order of minsters (en taxei leitourgon). This is one of the most powerful liturgical terms and it is deliberately used several times during the ordination rite. This term is closely associated with priestly ministry, especially Christian worship. What this entails for the deaconess is not elaborated in the prayer, as much as it is for male deacons, presbyters and bishops. Nevertheless, the prayer appears to purposely and powerfully make the case for the “leitourgia” of the woman deacon within the worshipping life of the Church and, at the same time, the prayer remains open-ended as to how this would take shape. As was true when these prayers were employed within the Eucharistic setting of the Byzantine Church, by the power of the Holy Spirit, the final discernment today will come through our hierarchs, who serve as our fathers in the Lord regarding how the “leitourgia” of the deaconess would be expressed. Nevertheless, in whichever ways the deaconess may have

112

Chapter Seven

served liturgically in the Church during the Byzantine era, the frequency of the use of the word “leitourgias” is highly significant. In a manner that bears powerful witness to the principle of “lex orandi est lex credendi,” the words of the prayer provide a strong indication to us that, even from within the limitations of her historical and cultural context, the woman deacon was visible and very much an active part of the worship of the local Church during the Byzantine period. Again, we are obliged to appreciate the revelation conveyed through the epiclesis prayers for the female deacon’s reception into “en taxei leitourgon” through the “lens” of the divine compassion. What does this say for the Church today? There is much more that begs to be shared with you from these prayers but I must end here. As a conclusion to this paper, I wish to offer a small paragraph that may help us remember our conversations throughout this conference. This passage is from His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew, to the delegates of the 1997 International Orthodox Women’s Conference in his city. In his remarks he stated the following: The order of ordained deaconesses is an undeniable part of tradition coming from the early Church. Now, in many of our Churches, there is a growing desire to restore this order so that the spiritual needs of the People of God may be better served. There are already a number of women who appear to be called to this ministry.9

Bearing these words in mind, together with the liturgical witness of the Church as seen through the lens of divine compassion (theion eleos), we are obliged to ponder: What does this say for the Church today?

9

Address of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to the InterOrthodox Conference for Women, (Phanar, Istanbul: May 12, 1997).

CHAPTER EIGHT THE ORDINATION OF DEACONESSES AND THE GENDER OR GENDERLESSNESS OF INCARNATED CHRIST CONSTANTINE YOKARINIS

Abstract: The ordination of women to the priesthood is no longer a question for academic theology, but a real problem which could possibly become a chasm of horrifying dimensions. All the arguments for and against the ordination of women, as expressed in official documents, are taken in consideration in this paper. The claim that there has been an “exclusion” of women from the ordained ministry of all degrees of priesthood for 2000 years lacks historical foundation, if one takes into consideration the existence of ordained deaconesses up until the 11th century. Supporters of the exclusion of women from the priesthood mainly base their arguments on the male character of Christ. But this argument reduces the archetype of all human beings to the level of a natural resemblance, which is understandable in terms of our sexuality, connected to polarity, conflict and passion. The paper starts from the fact of God’s incarnation. Biblical anthropology, Adam’s first human nature and, most importantly, the dogma of Chalcedon are used as the theological basis of its approach. Some of the paper’s points include the following affirmations: the male character of Christ’s incarnation has nothing to do with any conception of human sexuality; mankind as a whole, both male and female, has been assumed by the incarnated Logos; man is to become the recipient of the salvific results of His sacrifice as members of Church’s body, because He is the only High Priest, and the priesthood belongs exclusively to Him; the sacrifice on the holy cross is a sacrifice of the God-man and not of His maleness and, therefore, the male character of His humanity cannot be used as a criterion for the exclusion of women from the priesthood, because it comes in full contradiction of the dogma of Chalcedon. With the help of the wisdom of the patristic theology, and particularly the Cappadocian Fathers, John Chrysostomos, Maximos the Confessor, and John of Damaskos, as well as the rest of the dogmatic and liturgical tradition of the Church, it concludes that it is possible for a convergence of views and positions of the Church to occur within the framework of the ecumenical movement.

114

Chapter Eight

One of the most controversial issues during the past two decades in the Christian Church is the priesthood of women. The Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are strongly opposed to the idea of ordaining women. However, both are now facing this modern challenge under the pressures of a changing world which is against their tradition. Although neither are not backing off from their long held views, which contribute to the rejection of women from the ordained ministries, they are approaching the issue from different theological perspectives for several reasons. The Church’s allowance of female ordination has become, over time, a significant issue within the Orthodoxy itself. This is due to the indirect influence of other churches, but also the combined effects of the profoundly changing place of women in modern society. The priesthood of women was examined extensively in my special theological research 15 years ago.1 The present research, “The genderless or sex of the Incarnated Christ,” is a theological contribution to the effort of the Church to overcome convictions, even prejudices, which can cause misunderstandings about the basic principles of its tradition. The Church is constantly being confronted with challenges from the world and, if it is to show itself in its eternal youthfulness it must respond to signs of the times. Of course, this does not mean bending under pressure from the world but rather, with the help of the Holy Spirit (and thus in the tradition of the church), having serious profound and creative answers corresponding to the new realities of the human race on its way towards the kingdom of God, present since the incarnation of the son of God. In examining the matter over the time, I have had access to both ecclesiastical and external testimony, in order to establish the manner in which the consciousness of the Church congregation is shaped on the question of the necessity or importance of a priest’s gender. I also attempt to determine the reasons for associating the biological form of a person’s existence with the work of a priest. In the framework of the above approach, I have attempted to present a woman’s position, as determined by social and historical factors, but also at the level of religious life, based on the principle of interaction and the mutual fulfillment of social institutions. I have focused on the woman’s position as it was created or transformed in the Christian Church under the “new creation,” according to the New Testament, in an effort to find positive or negative elements to whether or not women should be allowed 1 ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȞȠȢ īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘȢ, ‫ݨ ݠ‬İȡȦıȪȞȘ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ ıIJȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJ߱Ȣ ȅ‫ݧ‬țȠȣȝİȞȚț߱Ȣ ȀȓȞȘıȘȢ, ǼʌȑțIJĮıȘ, ȀĮIJİȡȓȞȘ, 1995.

The Ordination of Deaconesses and the Gender or Genderlessness

115

to receive the sacrament of ordination, the only one from which they are excluded. Among the arguments of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church, the gender of the incarnated God word appears as a fundamental one that makes the female human being unsuitable to represent Christ. This is despite the aim of His incarnation; the sacrifice was exactly the restoration of the unity of divided human nature. It is evident that very serious theological questions can be raised as a result, such as: a) What is the nature of the gender? b) How is gender connected with human nature? c) What is the reason and the function of gender? d) In what manner can gender be a negative element in the selection of the bearer of priesthood? e) What is the meaning of the recapitulation of human beings and the entire world? f) How do we understand the eschatological character and course of the Church in history, etc.? Within this framework, I try to shed some light on the nature of the sacramental priesthood, so as to show first, that it is based on the principle of the simple representation of Christ. Secondly, that it has been derived sacramentally from the priesthood of Christ, from the unique high priest and from the unique source of priesthood, since He is the sacrificial offering and function of the savior. Consequently, it is clear that the problem of priesthood is directly and substantially connected with Christology, a fact that necessitated the study of the whole subject in the Chalkedonian doctrine. The question of the priesthood is not connected only to its particular sacramental nature, but is quite complex and as such requires a multifaceted dynamic because it extends into the entire spectrum of theology (Trinitarianism, Christology, salvationism, ecclesiology, and anthropology). It is complex because, from the ways that various churches approach the matter, it appears to be founded on different traditions. Consequently, the priesthood has no common basis for its perception. This is something which not only makes the whole subject difficult to approach, due to the differentiation of the principle of the matter on the part of the interested members, but also less easy to solve due to the resulting disorientation. The fact that in His incarnation the divine word took on a male form, an argument advanced by supporters of “male” priesthood for excluding women from it, has made it necessary to research Christian anthropology to find the significance of distinguishing humans into sexes. Within the framework of the Christological approach, the Lord’s human nature is examined in terms of the significance of his male gender. This is done to evaluate the importance of the maleness in the Lord’s human nature to salvation, so that we can provide the salvationist

116

Chapter Eight

perspective on the subject. A result of the above approach is the distinction between just how much the human nature of the divine word can be a definite clue and proof of the worthiness or appropriateness of the undertaking of the sacred bonds of the priesthood, and whether it is a condition for one’s exclusion because one is of a particular gender. The anthropological view on the matter based on the “image” is of great importance because it clarifies the issue of equality between the sexes and coincides with the teachings of the Church about the person on a human and divine level. It thus investigates the doctrine of the Trinity to gain perspective on viewing the nature of people’s interpersonal relationships based on gender. In addition, it points out any possible hierarchy between man and woman as persons, or any relationship of dominance and submission depicted in humankind, analogous to the relationship between the persons of the Holy Trinity. It is a fact that the Christian faith to One God is the cornerstone of the Church’s teaching. The principle of oneness is fundamental and dominant for the Orthodox theology. In biblical anthropology, the aforementioned principle is based on God’s revelation that Man (ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ) has been created in His image and likeness. If God is one, then man is one as well. Therefore, any attempt to find out how and by what meaning the principle of oneness can be applied or seen has to be referred to triune dogma. Because inter-gender relationships among the faithful are formed, determined and experienced in the “new testament”, which the Church expresses as the beginning of the Kingdom of God, the subject of gender is also examined from an ecclesiological point of view, based on the eschatological nature of the Church. This also proves to be the measure and criteria for overcoming every form of division and, therefore, the division of humankind into male and female dealing with and living within the Eucharist communion. Those who are supporters of the view that male and female are “equal but different” do not clarify the content of the difference between man and woman. If the biological characteristics and the different roles between them in the reproduction of human beings make them different, of course, this is obvious and common knowledge. But, if this is so, then gender itself must be considered not as an external element of human nature, as the Fathers of the Church believe, but a structural component of human nature. Such a view is against the biblical witness and the Church’s tradition. Some theologians observe that “the difference between men and women is a difference of being which is rooted in the very essence of creation and manifested in the particular expression of personhood. This

The Ordination of Deaconesses and the Gender or Genderlessness

117

view invokes not only physical differences between the sexes but also psychological and spiritual ones.” Of course, nobody can deny the existence of differences, but they serve biological needs. Living in Christ, as the apostle Paul explains,2 means another perspective of existence in the context of history, which is seen through the prism of viewing the subject of differences and not the genetic or biological ones. If Christ lives in the faithful, male or female, there is no division. At this point, it is necessary to remember that speaking about Christ’s body — the Ecclesia which exists to serve the Kingdom of God — no form of division of human beings or the world can justify its existence because the unity of them is given, according to the Orthodox tradition, in the person of the incarnated God. In particular, when we are speaking about the Eucharistic communion it is impossible to reference biological differences. In the Orthodox doctrine, the person is the theological basis of any reference to Christian anthropology and Christology, because “there cannot be […] man and woman, for all you are one in Christ” (Gal.3: 2728).

The views of the Orthodox Church Among a number of arguments listed in the final conclusions3 at the Orthodox Conference in Rhodes (1998), is the argument that states that the incarnation of the Logos of God into a male is an ontological necessity, just as Christ has to be incarnated as male, and so only the male can represent Christ. This kind of male dominant Christology has emerged in recent years as the central argument for the exemption of women from the sacramental priesthood. On this basis, some Orthodox theologians came to the conclusion that priesthood is a masculine ministry!4 At this point, I must say that in the Orthodox Church, decisions with Catholic validity and implementation can be taken only in ecumenical synods and never in theological conferences or symposia. Supporters of women’s exclusion appeal to an idea of Church practice that has remained unchanged for 2000 2

Gal.2:19-20. “I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ lived in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” 3 Gennadios Limouris (ed.), The Place of the Woman in the Orthodox Church and the Question of the Ordination of the Women in: Woman in the Orthodox Church and the Question of the Ordination of Women: Inter-Orthodox Symposium Rhodes, Greece 30 October-November 7, 1998, Katerini: Tertios, 1992, pp. 21-34. 4 Thomas Hopko, “Presbyter/Bishop, a Masculine Ministry,” in Women and the Priesthood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1999, pp. 139-164.

118

Chapter Eight

years, on the basis that Christ chose only males to be apostles. However, they forget that He also chose only circumcised Jews. Later, circumcision as a requirement under Jewish law was abolished as being a universally binding necessity (Acts 15: 23-29) and the ordination was open to gentiles, but not to women. In addition, another example highlighting a progressive change within Christianity was the issue and morality of slavery. For almost 1900 years, most Christians were quite content to accept the institution of slavery as a fact of life. If it took the Church centuries to recognize the wickedness of slavery, why should it not have taken the Church one or two centuries more to end its unjustifiable discrimination against women? If the Christian community was right to “innovate” in the one instance, why not on the other?5 It is obvious that a conclusion such as the one above, that priesthood is by nature “male,” must be examined in the context of the dogma of Chalcedon and under the light of Orthodox tradition. Of course, it is not an easy, taking into consideration that we are confronted with a mystery, the incarnation of God’s word. The human weakness to conceive certain dimensions of the revealed truth states that our created intelligence could not manage to reach into the depths of divine infinity. For this reason, our Lord is promising to send the Paraclet to His Church. None of the issues in Orthodox theology can be examined in isolation from the totality of the Church’s tradition. The gender of the incarnated God has to be approached in relation to a multidimensional theological perspective as the Christian anthropology, Christology, soteriology, ecclesiology and eschatology. The complexity of the issue is obvious and demands an exhaustive and detailed examination of the given resources of the Orthodox tradition. Approaching our issue in the context of: a) biblical anthropology, b) Chalkedonian dogma, and c) the fundamental principle of Oneness, we are listing the following findings from: a) Biblical anthropology The reader of Genesis 1:26 — “Let us make man (anthropos) in our image, after our likeness and created them (humankind) male and female” — can notice that the conjunction “and” connecting the two main sentences declares an additional action of the creator which, according to the patristic understanding, has a certain character and perspective. The 5 Bishop Kallistos of Diokleia, “Man, Woman and the Priesthood in the Church,” in: Women and the Priesthood, St. Vladimir’s Press, New York, 1999, pp. 29-30.

The Ordination of Deaconesses and the Gender or Genderlessness

119

first sentence refers to the archetype of man’s creation, which means the imprinted qualities of his divine origin–image-(țĮIJ’İੁțȩȞĮ-șİȠİȓįİȚĮ) existing in the human creature in a dynamic perspective (țĮș’੒ȝȠȓȦıȚȞ). But first of all we have to specify the meaning of the term “human nature” and make clear whether gender is a component element of human nature. According to patristic understanding, human nature is genderless (ਙijȣȜȠȢ)6 consisting of two elements: the soul (ȥȣȤȒ) and body (ıࠛȝĮ). This follows the creation stories of Genesis that God created man (ܿȞșȡȦʌȠȢ) according to His image and likeness.7 God’s decision, expressed grammatically in plural — “Let us create” — is an expression which presents the triune archetype of man’s creation, and manifests the principle of communion (țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ) of the three holy persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The communion of the holy persons finds its expression in the second narration (Gen. 2: 26), when God extracts from the side of Adam a rib and builds a human being, the so-called woman. A result of God’s action is Adam’s aloneness.8 Adam was not able to obtain his self-consciousness as a human entity, as a person. Adam’s surprise, when God presents Eve to him, is that this reaffirms the necessity of the presence of somebody else. When Adam sees Eve, he recognizes himself, saying in the mirror: “Then the man said; this at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman, for out of Man this one was taken” (Gen.2:23). The person as an ontological reality presupposes and declares the existence of another person, otherwise it remains simply an individual entity. It is clear that the writer of Genesis is aiming to make the mystery of man’s creation approachable in understandable terms using anthropomorphic expressions for God, as the extraction from Adam’s side (a rib). The target of this kind of narration is to show that the two forms of the human being, man and woman, came into existence first by one creator and second from one and the same substance (Ƞ੝ıȓĮ). Therefore, human nature is one and, in my view, it is theologically wrong to distinguish it as male or female. It is a very serious inconsistency within the context of basic principles of scriptural anthropology. In regard to the cause of Eve’s creation: 6

Gregory of Nyssa, Ȇİȡȓ țĮIJĮıțİȣ߱Ȣ IJȠࠎ ܻȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, 16 PG 44, 188. «‫ ݾ‬ʌȡࠛIJȠȢ ݃įȐȝ Ƞ‫ރ‬ȡȐȞȚȠȢ, ܼȖȞȩȢ țĮȓ ܿijȣȜȠȢ, ‫ݏ‬ȜĮȕİ ıࠛȝĮ įȚȐ IJ߱Ȣ ܼȝĮȡIJȓĮȢ…». Note: Some Fathers believe the opposite considering Adam, the first human being as male. But, they forget that the genders male and female appear at the same time as division. 7 Gen 1:26. 8 Gen. 2: “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner.’”

120

Chapter Eight

a) “make him (Adam = ȤȠȧțȩȢ) a helper,” in correlation with Paul’s views about the place and role of women, became a controversial theological issue. As far as female subordination in “the order of creation” is concerned, let us remember that Gen.3:16 represents the wife’s subjection to her husband as a consequence of the Fall, not of the creation itself. b) Gender is an invention9 of the creator’s providence in order for humankind to meet the consequences of the Fall.10 c) Gender is a kind of division11 which is a specific characterization of the Fall and makes sin, present. For this reason, it is impossible for gender to be a point of reference for a human nature of an incarnated God because God’s word did not assume fallen human nature, but a perfect one without sin, according to Chalcedonian dogma. d) Gender is a sign of creatures known to be devoid of reason.12 e) Gender, male or female, does not belong to categories of the image of God, whose bearer is the human person. Gender is an external sign (įİȡȝȐIJȚȞȠȢ ȤȚIJȫȞĮȢ, ıȤોȝĮ, ਥʌİȞįȪIJȘȢ).13 b) Chalcedonian dogma Gender itself cannot, therefore, be used as a theological basis to establish and reinforce theological arguments in reference to the divine incarnation and, particularly with the sacramental priesthood for the following reasons, according to the content to the Chalcedonian dogma: “We confess the Incarnated Word, Jesus Christ as perfect in his deity and perfect in His humanity, true God and man truly, the same from rational soul and body of the same essence of Father in His deity and of 9

Gregory of Nazianzos, ȁȩȖȠȢ 37, PG 36, 289Ǻ. «ǻȚȐ IJȠࠎIJȠ ‫ ݸ‬İ‫ݧ‬įȫȢ IJȐ ʌȐȞIJĮ...ʌȡȠțĮIJĮȞȠȒıĮȢ IJ߲ ʌȡȠȖȞȦıIJȚț߲ IJȠȣ įȣȞȐȝİȚ ‫ݼ‬IJȚ ȡȑʌİȚ țĮIJȐ IJȩ Į‫ރ‬IJȠțȡĮIJȑȢ IJȠȣ țĮȓ Į‫ރ‬IJİȟȠȪıȚȠȞ IJ߱Ȣ ܻȞșȡȦʌȓȞȘȢ ʌȡȠĮȚȡȑıİȦȢ ‫ ݘ‬țȓȞȘıȚȢ, ‫݋‬ʌİȚįȒ IJȩ ‫݌‬ıȩȝİȞȠȞ İ‫ݭ‬įİȞ ‫݋‬ʌȚIJİȤȞߢIJĮȚ IJ߲ İ‫ݧ‬țȩȞȚ IJȒȞ ʌİȡȓ IJȩ ܿȡȡİȞ țĮȓ ș߱Ȝȣ įȚĮijȠȡȐȞ, ‫ݚ‬IJȚȢ Ƞ‫ރ‬țȑIJȚ ʌȡȩȢ IJȩ șİ߿ȠȞ ܻȡȤȑIJȣʌȠȞ ȕȜȑʌİȚ, ܻȜȜȐ țĮșȫȢ İ‫ݫ‬ȡȘIJĮȚ, IJ߱ ܻȜȠȖȦIJȑȡ࠙ ʌȡȠıȦțİȓȦIJĮȚ ijȪıİȚ». 10 John of Damaskos, ‫ݕ‬țįȠıȚȢ ܻțȡȚȕȒȢ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݷ‬ȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ʌȓıIJİȦȢ, Ȇİȡȓ ʌĮȡșİȞȓĮȢ, 4,24, PG 94, 1208ǹ. «‫ޚ‬ıIJİ įȚȐ IJȩ ȝȒ ‫݋‬țIJȡȚȕ߱ȞĮȚ țĮȓ ܻȞĮȜȦș߱ȞĮȚ IJȩ ȖȑȞȠȢ ‫ބ‬ʌȩ IJȠࠎ șĮȞȐIJȠȣ ‫ ݸ‬ȖȐȝȠȢ ‫݋‬ʌȚȞİȞȩȘIJĮȚ, ‫ސ‬Ȣ įȚȐ IJ߱Ȣ ʌĮȚįȠʌȠȚ߽ĮȢ IJȩ ȖȑȞȠȢ IJࠛȞ ܻȞșȡȫʌȦȞ įȚĮıȫȗİIJĮȚ». 11 John Chrysostome, 84, PG 48, 595. «ȉȩIJİ ȖȐȡ ‫ܻ ݘ‬ȞșȡȦʌȓȞȘ țĮș’ ‫݌‬ĮȣIJ߱Ȣ ‫ݏ‬ıȤȚıIJȠ ijȪıȚȢ țĮȓ ʌȩȜİȝȠȢ ‫ݞ‬Ȟ ܿıʌȠȞįȠȢ». 12 Gregory of Nazianzos, ȁȩȖȠȢ 37, PG 36, 289Ǻ. «… ʌİȡȓ IJȩ ܿȡȡİȞ țĮȓ ș߱Ȝȣ įȚĮijȠȡȐȞ, … Ƞ‫ރ‬țȑIJȚ ʌȡȩȢ IJȩ șİ߿ȠȞ ܻȡȤȑIJȣʌȠȞ ȕȜȑʌİȚ, ܻȜȜȐ țĮșȫȢ İ‫ݫ‬ȡȘIJĮȚ, IJ߲ ܻȜȠȖȦIJȑȡ࠙ ʌȡȠȢ ࠙țİȓȦIJĮȚ ijȪıİȚ». 13 Gen.3:21. ǻǿǹȉǹīǹǿ ǹȆȅȈȉȅȁȍȃ, Ȉȉǯȋǿ PG 1,937A.

The Ordination of Deaconesses and the Gender or Genderlessness

121

the same essence with us in His humanity and the same with us in all without sin.”14 The Fathers unanimously accept that the assumed human nature by God’s word is the common species (substance=Ƞ੝ıȓĮ) of the most and different existence (hypostasis), namely, whatever Adam15 had (being the first one and without sin), are body and soul, rational and sane.16 This is the reason why, when the Fathers make reference to the human nature of the incarnated Logos, they mainly the terms “ıĮȡȟ-flesh», «ı૵ȝĮbody»17, «ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ-man»18, «ਕȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ-humanity». b) The human nature of the incarnated Logos of God is the beginning of new things and new nature for the following reasons: 1) the son of God assumes the nature of the first, Adam, which He transforms from the state of “in image” to “image,” in the context of the hypostatic union of divine and human nature in His personhood. In Orthodox theological terminology, this is called “ȜȩȖȦıȚȢ»19 or «ਕȞĮțİijĮȜĮȓȦıȚȢ» = recapitulation of the entire creation; 2) He assumes human nature from a virgin woman in order to create the new man because, if He would be borne through the postlapsarian procedure of reproduction, He would be a bearer of the Fall’s results. So, He would not be the Leader and be the offerer of new life.20 c) The divine incarnation abolished the meaning and role of gender in the context of that conceived (ıȪȜȜȘȥȚȢ) of God-man from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. d) The distinction and difference of man into male and female is secretly abstracted through the divine incarnation in the context of hypostatic union in Christ’s personhood of the two essences (Ƞ੝ıȓĮȚ), divine and human, because human nature has been deified.

14

MANSI VIII, ACO II, 1, 2, 129 (325) ਦȟ John of Damaskos, ‫ݕ‬țįȠıȚȢ ܻțȡȚȕȒȢ ‫ݷ‬ȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ʌȓıIJİȦȢ, 3, 12, PG 94, 1029ǹ. 16 John of Damaskos, ‫ݕ‬țįȠıȚȢ ܻțȡȚȕȒȢ ‫ݷ‬ȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ʌȓıIJİȦȢ, Ȇİȡȓ ੁįȚȦȝȐIJȦȞ IJ૵Ȟ įȪȠ ijȪıİȦȞ 3,13 PG 94, 10,33ǹ. 17 Athanasius of Alexandria, Ȇİȡȓ ‫݋‬ȞĮȞșȡȦʌȒıİȦȢ, ȁȩȖȠȢ Ǻ’ «(‫ ݾ‬ĬİȩȢ ȁȩȖȠȢ) ȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ‫݌‬ĮȣIJࠜ ıࠛȝĮ țĮȓ IJȠࠎIJȠ Ƞ‫ރ‬ț ܻȜȜȩIJȡȚȠȞ IJȠࠎ ‫ݘ‬ȝİIJȑȡȠȣ…». 18 Ireneus, ‫ݕ‬ȜİȖȤȠȢ ȥİȣįȦȞȪȝȠȣ ȖȞȫıİȦȢ, ǺȚȕȜȓȠȞ ī’ ȋǿǿȋ ǺǼȆǼȈ 5,150. «Ǽ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȠࠎIJȠ ȖȐȡ ‫ ݸ‬ȁȩȖȠȢ ܿȞșȡȦʌȠȢ … ‫ݬ‬ȞĮ ‫ܿ ݸ‬ȞșȡȦʌȠȢ IJȩȞ ȁȩȖȠȞ ȤȦȡȒıĮȢ țĮȓ IJȒȞ ȣ‫ݨ‬ȠșİıȓĮȞ ȜĮȕȫȞ, ȣ‫ݨ‬ȩȢ ȖȑȞȘIJĮȚ ĬİȠࠎ…». 19 Athanasius of Alexandria, ȀĮIJȐ ݃ȡİȚĮȞࠛȞ 3,33 PG 26, 152. 20 Gregory Palamas, ‫ݾ‬ȝȚȜȓĮ ȚıIJ’, ǼȆǼ 9,430. «ʌİȡȚȕĮȜȜȩȝİȞȠȢ ܻijȡȐıIJȦȢ țĮȓ ıȣȞĮijșİȓȢ ܻįȚĮȚȡȑIJȦȢ IJ߲ ܻȞșȡȦʌȓȞ߯ ijȪıİȚ țĮȓ IJİȤșİȓȢ ĬİȩȢ ‫ݸ‬ȝȠࠎ țĮȓ ܿȞșȡȦʌȠȢ, ‫݋‬ț ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ ȝȑȞ, ‫ݬ‬ȞĮ IJȒȞ ʌĮȡ’Į‫ރ‬IJȠࠎ ʌȜĮıșİ߿ıĮȞ ijȪıȚȞ, ‫݋‬ț ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȣ įȑ IJĮȪIJȘȢ, ‫ݬ‬ȞĮ țĮȚȞȩȞ ʌȠȚȒı߯ IJȩȞ ܿȞșȡȦʌȠȞ…». 15

122

Chapter Eight

e) Without the restoration of the unity of male and female in the personhood of God-man, the woman would be left out of salvation because “IJȩ ܻʌȡȩıȜȘʌIJȠȞ țĮȓ ܻșİȡȐʌİȣIJȠȞ». The incarnated Logos unifies in His person the double form of human nature, male and female, because the divine archetype is offered as impassive personal unity. This unity of man was challenged to conquer, in the context of “in his likeness,” the division between male and female within the limits of nature, but he failed. That’s why any form of division declares the presence of sin. c) The fundamental principle of Oneness. The arguments have been presented thus far in the most comprehensive and simple way. In the words of Gregory the Theologian: “One is the creator of man and woman, one soil, both of them one image, one law, one resurrection.”21 The reference of Gregory of Nazianzus to one God — the beginning and the end of creation — is the final answer to anyone who wants to produce an ontology of gender in Orthodox theology. The effort to present the male form of the incarnated Logos as obligatory criterion and inevitable term of eligibility for the future bearer of the priesthood abolishes the fundamental principle of Christology, the recapitulation. The persistence of opponents to women’s ordination rests on the maleness of Christ as an identical component of the divine incarnation, in the name of natural resemblance, which: a) reintroduces the dichotomy of human nature; b) nullifies the soteriological results of the divine incarnation; c) rejects the Church’s keystone principle of oneness — one God, one Lord, one man, one Church, one baptism, one death, one resurrection; c) undervalues the fact of one image of male and female; d) gives priority to biological instead of personal characteristics which, in Orthodox theology, come first, and; e) refuses any initiative of the members of the Church to overcome divisions in the context of history as an ontological transformation. A male-dominant Christology attempting to interrelate maleness, Christology and priesthood, in fact makes a reference to an anthropomorphic deity. Consequently, a vital question arises: is the restoration of the unity of man and woman possible in real terms in the context of history? If yes, then in what way and within what kind of activities? Of course, we do not refer to a form of desexualisation of human beings. We have to recall the second element of the triune archetype, which is presented in Genesis: “God said, Let us create man….in our likeness.” The existential unity as it 21

Gregory of Nazianzos, ‫ݾ‬ȝȚȜȓĮ 37, 6, PG 36, 289B.

The Ordination of Deaconesses and the Gender or Genderlessness

123

is imprinted on our humanity, according to the triune and Christological archetypes, is the basis of understanding the oneness of God. Humans, male and female, have lost their unity, first of all on an ontological level, which means that in the context of their liberty, their revolutionary energies have pushed against the absolute love and destroyed the inner ties. So in the same way and, on an ontological level, it could be possible to enjoy the restoration of the unity of the human being. The Church, as an eschatological human society, has to be inspired by those values and principles which can make the Kingdom of God present. The transfiguration of a person is possible as a result of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection in the context of history. Salvation is a dynamic existential course towards the eschaton of history. By changing attitudes towards the present time and place, as well as intentions and actions towards each other across all levels of life, it could be possible to establish a path of unity which, at the end, offered the possibility to meet and unite ourselves with our creator. In Orthodox theology, the principle of Oneness has a dominant presence. It is a structural element of the Church and can be experienced in the Eucharistic function of the Christian community. It is more than clear that “‫ ݾ‬IJȡȫȖȦȞ ȝȠȣ IJȒȞ ıȐȡțĮ țĮȓ ʌȓȞȦȞ ȝȠȣ IJȩ Į‫ݮ‬ȝĮ ‫݋‬Ȟ ‫݋‬ȝȠȓ ȝȑȞİȚ țܻȖȫ ‫݋‬Ȟ Į‫ރ‬IJࠜ». The question which can be raised is, in what terms is God Logos or male God-man? Furthermore, the faithful have to remember the oneness in every chapter of our faith: in Holy Trinity, in baptism, in Christology, in salvation. Finally, the male form of the human nature of Logos is an unsuitable theological foundation for the place and role of women in the Church, particularly in terms of female exclusion from sacramental ordination. According to the findings of the present theological research, there are no sufficient reasons or concrete theological grounds to exclude women from the sacramental priesthood. Of course, the issue needs a long and exhaustive theological study, which is why it has to be left open, and the final word belongs to an ecumenical synod. The only reasons to justify the opposing views for the ordination of women, presented on behalf of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church in their historic course, are: a) the imperative need to defend the true faith against the actions of heretics, such as Montanists, who were in favour of allowing women to be ordained, something which contributed to the rebirth of idolatry;

124

Chapter Eight

b) the appeal to tradition: the praxis of the Church for two millennia, which has been dictated by social, political, and religious reasons and conditions. It has contributed to the institutionalization of what has been kept as ecclesiological custom; c) the weakness of faithful people to see the incarnated God as God’s word and not as flesh, explained by Maximos the Confessor; d) The androcentric structure of the communities although, so far, certain steps have been made towards reducing the inequalities that exist between the two sexes, even today, at the beginning of the third millennium; e) the human weakness to see the incarnated God-man as Logos and to understand His crucifixion as a sacrifice of human nature and not the male form. Maximos the Confessor has the final word on the issue in the most convincing way: For those who are searching as flesh the God Word, the Lord does not go up to his Father. But, He goes up to his Father for those who are looking spiritually with high visions. Let us do not keep him forever down here, who came to us as philanthropist. But, let us go up with Him to His Father, leaving on earth and the earthy things if we want not to say us what He said to Judaic people, I go where you cannot come.

In conclusion, I believe that nothing can be stronger than the tradition and praxis of the Church. Therefore, the Church, as the body and fulfilment of the truth, if convinced so far that the tradition of “male priesthood” has to remain unchanged, must have the comfort and domain to keep the long-standing practice without any attempt to seek theologically unbiased arguments which destroy the charismatic life and communion. The members of Christ’s body differ only on the level of their existential particularity and in their receptivity of the Holy Spirit gifts, but in no way on the level of equality, either in terms of nature or in God’s image creation. On the other hand, the exemption of women from the mystery of the priesthood has, in no way, reduced the charismatic life of the Church. The issue is a challenge for the Church, to overcome the imperfection of human beings in order to be in line with its eschatological goal of the deification of the human entity, created in the image and likeness of God. Unfortunately, the outcome from createdness and “the Fall” led to a sustained confrontational division between the two sexes throughout history, resulting in persistent rivalry based on the inferiority of the female

The Ordination of Deaconesses and the Gender or Genderlessness

125

person. However, it is important to note that, a) the human was created in the image and likeness of God, and b) the incarnated son of God22 restored the unity of the human being as male and female, according to the dogma of Chalkedon, which is the cornerstone of the Orthodox soteriology. We understand the Church's tradition to be a living expression and existential experience of the dogmatic teaching in the Orthodox ecclesia. So the question remains whether the so-called “tradition” of 2000 years, in terms of the prohibition of women from the priesthood, is based on the Christology, the source of priesthood, or on the contextual views and practices regarding the social status of women in various historical periods of the Church’s life. I believe that the stated validity of the “tradition” with regard to the “male priesthood” is directly opposed to the dogma of Chalkedon.23 The question remains: on what basis can one declare a tradition of the ordination of deaconesses which only came into existence in the 11th century? Which synodical or canonical decision determined the abolition of the Orthodox Church tradition to ordain deaconesses? The members of the Orthodox Church expect a response to a growing demand for restoration, in real terms, of the oneness of the human being. The Holy Pan-Orthodox Synod in Constantinople in 2016 will face the challenge of the growing demand for a restoration of the apostolic order of deaconesses.

22

ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȞȠȢ īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘȢ, To ȑȝijȣȜȠ Ȓ ȐijȣȜȠ IJȠȣ ıĮȡțȦșȑȞIJȠȢ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, ǹȡȝȩȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2013. 23 ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȞȠȢ īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘȢ, ‫ݨ ݠ‬İȡȦıȪȞȘ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ ıIJȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJ߱Ȣ ȅ‫ݧ‬țȠȣȝİȞȚț߱Ȣ ȀȓȞȘıȘȢ, ǼʌȑțIJĮıȘ, ȀĮIJİȡȓȞȘ 1995.

CHAPTER NINE JUNIA AS AN “APOSTLE” (ROM 16:7) AND THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE ORDINATION OF DEACONESSES JOHN KARAVIDOPOULOS

Abstract: Regarding the question of Paul’s greetings at Rom. 16:7 being addressed to a man named “Junias” or to a woman by the name of Junia, this study takes the view that the latter is correct. It bases its position on the following observations: 1. In the manuscript tradition of the New Testament, especially the accentuated miniscule manuscripts, we find the reading ੉ȠȣȞȓĮ (Junia). The particular contribution of this study consists of the examination of a large number of lectionaries, given that the excerpt from Rom. 16:1-16 is a liturgical reading in the Orthodox Church. The lectionaries are unanimous in presenting the reading ੉ȠȣȞȓĮ. Besides, from as early as the first printed editions of the New Testament (1516), by Erasmus, through to the critical editions of the 19th century (and even the first editions by Eberhard Nestle in the first quarter of the 20th century), the reading of Junia is dominant. 2. In their interpretations, the Greek and Latin fathers of the Church adopted the feminine form of the name and lauded Junia as the first female apostle, understanding the term “apostle” as this is actually used in the New Testament in the broader sense, not in terms of being restricted to Jesus’ twelve disciples. 3. There is no evidence for the masculine name, “Junias”, in any contemporary source of the New Testament. This is in contrast to the feminine, “Junia”, which is to be found in numerous Greek and Latin literary sources. 4. The masculine reading of the name at Rom. 16:7 is first encountered in the 13th century, in Aegidius (Giles) of Rome and later in Luther’s translation of the New Testament (16th century). It may be that these two sources influenced many later European translations. 5. The ancient Latin, Syriac and Coptic translations all testify to the feminine form of the name, as do many of the more recent ones, from 1970 onwards. The preference for the masculine name by certain exegetes and editors of

128

Chapter Nine

the New Testament had to do with the interpretation of Paul’s phrase at Rom. verse 16:7: “ਥʌȓıȘȝȠȚ ਥȞ IJȠ૙Ȣ ਕʌȠıIJȩȜȠȚȢ”. The prevailing interpretation is “outstanding among the apostles”, hence it was thought that “apostle” was inappropriate for a woman. They therefore either took “Iounias” as masculine or, if they accepted that the name was feminine, translated the controversial phrase as “well known to the apostles”. Finally, detailed study of the sources indicates that we should accept the feminine form of the name, “Junia”, as being correct. This preference is clear in the most recent reprints of the two most widely recognized critical editions today. In the 3rd reprint of the 4th edition (1998) of The Greek New Testament, as well as in the 1998, 5th, corrected Jubilee edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece, by Nestle-Aland (on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of E. Nestle’s first edition), the reading ੉ȠȣȞȓĮ is adopted, while the masculine ੉ȠȣȞȚ઼Ȣ is not even mentioned in the critical apparatus.

ȂʌȠȡİȓ țĮȞİȓȢ ȞĮ įȚĮȞȠȘșİȓ ȩIJȚ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, ȩȤȚ IJȦȞ ǻȫįİțĮ ĮȜȜȐ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ ȝİ IJȘȞ İȣȡȪIJİȡȘ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ țĮȚ ȤȡȒıȘ IJȠȣ ȩȡȠȣ ıIJȘȞ Ȁ.ǻ., ĮʌĮȡȚșȝİȓIJĮȚ țĮȚ ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ; ȀĮȚ ȩȝȦȢ ıİ ȝȚĮ IJȑIJȠȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȑȜȞİȚ Ƞ ǹʌ. ȆĮȪȜȠȢ ȤĮȚȡİIJȓıȝĮIJĮ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıİ ʌȠȜȜȠȪȢ țĮȚ ıİ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ȐȜȜİȢ ıIJȠ IJȑȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ʌȡȠȢ ȇȦȝĮȓȠȣȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒȢ IJȠȣ: īȡȐijİȚ: «ǹıʌȐıĮıșİ ǹȞįȡȩȞȚțȠȞ țĮȚ ǿȠȣȞȓĮȞ, IJȠȣȢ ıȣȖȖİȞİȓȢ ȝȠȣ țĮȚ ıȣȞĮȚȤȝĮȜȫIJȠȣȢ ȝȠȣ, ȠȓIJȚȞȑȢ İȚıȚȞ İʌȓıȘȝȠȚ İȞ IJȠȚȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȚȢ, Ƞȓ țĮȚ ʌȡȠ İȝȠȪ ȖȑȖȠȞĮȞ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ» (ȇȦȝ 16,7). ǻȚĮȕȐȗȠȞIJĮȢ țĮȞİȓȢ IJȚȢ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȑȢ IJȠȣ ǹʌ. ȆĮȪȜȠȣ įȚĮʌȚıIJȫȞİȚ ȩIJȚ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓİȢ ȝȠȡijȑȢ ʌȜĮȚıȚȫȞȠȣȞ IJȠ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ ȦȢ ıȣȞİȡȖȐIJȚįİȢ ıIJȚȢ ȠʌȠȓİȢ Ƞ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ ĮȞĮșȑIJİȚ ȣʌİȪșȣȞİȢ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȑȢ Ȓ ĮʌİȣșȪȞİȚ ʌȡȠIJȡȠʌȑȢ Ȓ ĮʌȠıIJȑȜȜİȚ ȤĮȚȡİIJȚıȝȠȪȢ. ȉȠ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓȠ ĮȣIJȩ ıȣȝȕĮȓȞİȚ ıIJȠ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓȠ țİijȐȜĮȚȠ (16Ƞ) IJȘȢ ʌȡȠȢ ȇȦȝĮȓȠȣȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒȢ, Įʌȩ ȩʌȠȣ įȚȐȕĮıĮ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȣȝȑȞȦȢ ȑȞĮ ıIJȓȤȠ. ȈIJȠ İȞ ȜȩȖȦ țİij. ȝȞȘȝȠȞİȪȠȞIJĮȚ 28 ʌĮȡĮȜȒʌIJİȢ ȤĮȚȡİIJȚıȝȫȞ, İț IJȦȞ ȠʌȠȓȦȞ ȠȚ 8 İȓȞĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ. ǹʌȩ ĮȣIJȑȢ ȠȚ 7 ıȣȞįȑȠȞIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȠ țȒȡȣȖȝĮ IJȠȣ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ, ȩʌȦȢ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȡ. «țȠʌȚ૵» ȝ੻ IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ Ƞ ǹʌ. ȆĮȪȜȠȢ IJȚȢ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗİȚ (ʌ.Ȥ. «ĮıʌȐıĮıșİ ȂĮȡȓĮȞ, ȒIJȚȢ ʌȠȜȜȐ İțȠʌȓĮıİȞ İȚȢ ȣȝȐȢ», «ȉȡȪijĮȚȞĮȞ țĮȚ ȉȡȣijȫıĮȞ IJĮȢ țȠʌȚȫıĮȢ İȞ ȀȣȡȓȦ», «ȆİȡıȓįĮ, ਸ਼IJȚȢ ʌȠȜȜȐ İțȠʌȓĮıİȞ İȞ ȀȣȡȓȦ» ), ȑȞĮ ȡȒȝĮ ʌȠȣ ıȤİIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ȖİȞȚțȐ ıIJȚȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȑȢ IJȠȣ ȝİ IJȠȣȢ țȩʌȠȣȢ țĮȚ IJȚȢ IJĮȜĮȚʌȦȡȓİȢ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ.1 ǼȞIJȣʌȦıȚȐȗİȚ ĮțȩȝȘ ıIJȠ țİijȐȜĮȚȠ ĮȣIJȩ Ș ʌȡȩIJĮȟȘ IJȘȢ ȆȡȓıțĮȢ ıIJȠ ȗİȪȖȠȢ ǹțȪȜĮ țĮȚ ȆȡȓıțĮȢ țĮȚ Ș ȑȞĮȡȟȘ IJȘȢ İȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ ȝİ IJȘ ȝȞİȓĮ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ ĭȠȓȕȘȢ, ʌȡȠijĮȞȫȢ țȠȝȓıIJȡȚĮȢ IJȘȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒȢ ıIJȘ ȇȫȝȘ.

1

ǹ' ȀȠȡ. 4,12. 15,10. 16,16. īĮȜ. 4,11. ĭȚȜ. 2,16. ȀȠȜ. 1,29. ǹ' Ĭİı. 5,12. ǹ' ȉȚȝ.4,10 ț.Ȑ.

Junia as an “Apostle”

129

ǹıȤȑIJȦȢ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠȕȜȒȝĮIJȠȢ İȞȩȢ IJȩıȠ ȝİȖȐȜȠȣ ĮȡȚșȝȠȪ ʌȡȠıȫʌȦȞ ıIJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ Ƞ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ ıIJȑȜȞİȚ ȤĮȚȡİIJȚıȝȠȪȢ, ıİ ȝȓĮ ʌȩȜȘ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ʌȠȣ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ ĮțȩȝȘ İʌȚıțİijșİȓ țĮȚ ıİ ȝȓĮ İțțȜȘıȓĮ ʌȠȣ įİȞ ȓįȡȣıİ Ƞ ȓįȚȠȢ Ȓ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ ıȣȞİȡȖȐIJȘȢ IJȠȣ, țȐȞȠȣȞ İȞIJȪʌȦıȘ ȠȚ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıȝȠȓ ȝİ IJȠȣȢ ȠʌȠȓȠȣȢ ıȣȞȠįİȪİȚ Ƞ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ IJĮ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ ĮȣIJȐ. Ǿ İȚıȒȖȘıȘ ĮȣIJȒ șĮ İʌȚțİȞIJȡȦșİȓ ı' ȑȞĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ, IJȘȞ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ, IJȠȣ ıIJȚȤ. 16,7. ȉȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠıȫʌȠȣ ĮȣIJȠȪ ȖȞȫȡȚıİ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ʌİȡȚʌȑIJİȚİȢ ıIJĮ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ., ıIJȚȢ ȝİIJĮijȡȐıİȚȢ țĮȚ ıIJĮ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȐ ȑȡȖĮ. ȉȠ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ ʌȠȣ șĮ İȟİIJȐıȠȣȝİ ĮijȠȡȐ (1) ıIJȠ ȖȑȞȠȢ IJȠȣ ȠȞȩȝĮIJȠȢ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ, ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ ȠȚ țȡȚIJȚțȑȢ İțįȩıİȚȢ IJȠȣ țİȚȝȑȞȠȣ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ. țĮȚ țĮIJ' ĮțȠȜȠȣșȓĮȞ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ȝİIJĮijȡȐıİȚȢ ıIJȚȢ ȞİȩIJİȡİȢ ȖȜȫııİȢ țĮȚ ȣʌȠȝȞȘȝĮIJȚıIJȑȢ įȚȤȐȗȠȞIJĮȚ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȘ ȖȡĮijȒ ੉ȠȣȞȚ઼Ȣ (ȦȢ ĮȡıİȞȚțȩ ȩȞȠȝĮ) țĮȚ ੉ȠȣȞȓĮ (ȦȢ șȘȜȣțȩ) țĮȚ (2) ıIJȘȞ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ IJȠȣ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıȝȠȪ "İʌȓıȘȝȠȚ İȞ IJȠȚȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȚȢ": ȈȘȝĮȓȞİȚ Ƞ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıȝȩȢ ĮȣIJȩȢ: (Į) įȚĮțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠȚ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȠȣȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ (įȘȜ. ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ), Ȓ (ȕ) ȤĮȓȡȠȣȞ İțIJȚȝȒıİȦȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ;

ǿ. ǹȢ ʌȐȡȠȣȝİ IJĮ İȡȦIJȒȝĮIJĮ ĮȣIJȐ ȝİ IJȘ ıİȚȡȐ: ȈIJȚȢ İțįȩıİȚȢ IJȠȣ țİȚȝȑȞȠȣ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ. Įʌȩ IJȘȢ ʌȡȫIJȘȢ IJȠȣ ǼȡȐıȝȠȣ (1516) ȝȑȤȡȚ țĮȚ IJȚȢ țȡȚIJȚțȑȢ İțįȩıİȚȢ IJȠȣ IJȑȜȠȣȢ IJȠȣ 19Ƞȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ, ĮțȩȝȘ țĮȚ ıIJȚȢ ʌȡȫIJİȢ İțįȩıİȚȢ IJȠȣ Eberhard Nestle ıIJȠ ʌȡȫIJȠ IJȑIJĮȡIJȠ IJȠȣ 20Ƞȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ, įȘȜ. İʌȓ 4 ĮȚȫȞİȢ, țȣȡȚĮȡȤİȓ Ș ȖȡĮijȒ "੉ȠȣȞȓĮ". ǹʌȩ IJȚȢ İțįȩıİȚȢ ĮȣIJȑȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȣȝİ IJȚȢ ȖȞȦıIJȩIJİȡİȢ: IJȠȣ ǼȡȐıȝȠȣ (1516-35), IJȠȣ Stephanus (1546-51), IJȦȞ Elzevir (1624-33), Bengel (1734), Wettstein (1751), Griesbach (1774-1805), Tischendorf (1841-68), Westcott- Hort (1881), E. Nestle (1898-1904), Souter (1910), von Soden (1913) ț.Ȑ. ǹʌȩ IJȘȢ 13ȘȢ (1927) İțįȩıİȦȢ IJȠȣ Erwin Nestle (ȣȚȠȪ IJȠȣ Eberhard) ĮȞIJȚțĮșȓıIJĮIJĮȚ Ș ǿȠȣȞȓĮ ਕʌઁ IJȠ ĮȡıİȞȚțȩ ȩȞȠȝĮ ੉ȠȣȞȚ઼Ȟ, ȖȡĮijȒ IJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ ȣȚȠșİIJȠȪȞ țĮIJȩʌȚȞ ȩȜİȢ ȠȚ ȝİIJĮȖİȞȑıIJİȡİȢ İțįȩıİȚȢ Nestle (1927İȟ), Nestle-Aland (1952İȟ.), Bover (1943), The Greek New Testament IJȦȞ ǼȞȦȝȑȞȦȞ ǺȚȕȜȚțȫȞ ǼIJĮȚȡȚȫȞ (Įǯȑțį.1966, ȕǯȑțį.1968, Ȗǯȑțį.1975, įǯȑțį.1993). ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ, Ș ȖȡĮijȒ ੉ȠȣȞȓĮ ਥʌȚțȡĮIJİ૙ ıIJȘȞ ȆĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțȒ ȑțįȠıȘ IJȠȣ 1904 (țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮȞĮIJȪʌȦıȒ IJȘȢ IJȠȣ 1912), ıIJȘȞ ȑțįȠıȘ IJȦȞ ǹȝİȡȚțĮȞȫȞ Z. Hodges - A. Farstad, The Greek New Testament according to the Majority text (1982), İʌȓıȘȢ IJȦȞ M. Robinson - W. Pierpoint, The New Testament in the original Greek. Byzantine Textform (2005), țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ ıİ ȩȜİȢ IJȚȢ İȜȜȘȞȚțȑȢ İțįȩıİȚȢ (ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒȢ ǻȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ, ǽȦȒȢ, ȈȦIJȒȡȠȢ, ǼȜȜȘȞȚțȒȢ ǺȚȕȜȚțȒȢ ǼIJĮȚȡȓĮȢ ț.Ȑ.) ʌȠȣ ĮȞĮʌĮȡȐȖȠȣȞ IJȠ ȆĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțȩ țİȓȝİȞȠ. ȉȠ ʌĮȡȐįȠȟȠ IJȦȞ țȡȚIJȚțȫȞ İțįȩıİȦȞ ıȣȞȓıIJĮIJĮȚ

130

Chapter Nine

ıIJȠ ȩIJȚ ıIJȘȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȖȡĮijȒ ʌȠȣ İʌȚȜȑȖȠȣȞ, țĮșȫȢ ıȘȝİȚȫȞȠȣȞ ıIJȠ țȡȚIJȚțȩ ȝȘȤĮȞȚıȝȩ IJȠȣȢ, ıIJĮ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ȝİȖĮȜȠȖȡȐȝȝĮIJĮ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ ȈȚȞ, ǹ, Ǻ*, C, D*, F, G, P, IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ ȩȝȦȢ įİȞ ȑȤȠȣȞ IJȩȞȠȣȢ țĮȚ ıȣȞİʌȫȢ IJȠ țİijĮȜĮȚȠȖȡȐȝȝĮIJȠ ǿȅȊȃǿǹȃ IJȦȞ İȞ ȜȩȖȦ ȤİȚȡȠȖȡȐijȦȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȖȞȦıșİȓ ȦȢ ĮȡıİȞȚțȩ (੉ȠȣȞȚ઼Ȟ) ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȦȢ șȘȜȣțȩ (੉ȠȣȞȓĮȞ). ǹʌȠijİȪȖȠȣȝİ İįȫ IJȘȞ ȜİʌIJȠȝİȡȒ ʌĮȡȐșİıȘ ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ İțįȩıİȦȞ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ. ȝİ ʌȜȒȡȘ ıIJȠȚȤİȓĮ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ȝȘ țĮIJĮʌȠȞȒıȠȣȝİ IJȠȣȢ ıȣȞȑįȡȠȣȢ țĮȚ İʌȚȕĮȡȪȞȠȣȝİ IJȘȞ İȚıȒȖȘıȘ. ȉȠȪIJȠ ȝȩȞȠ ıȘȝİȚȫȞȠȣȝİ, ȩIJȚ ıIJȘȞ 3Ș ĮȞĮIJȪʌȦıȘ IJȘȢ 4ȘȢ İțį. (1998) IJȘȢ The Greek New Testament IJȦȞ ǼȞȦȝȑȞȦȞ ǺȚȕȜȚțȫȞ ǼIJĮȚȡİȚȫȞ, țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ 5Ș įȚȠȡșȦȝȑȞȘ İʌİIJİȚĮțȒ ȑțįȠıȘ IJȘȢ Novum Testamentum Graece IJȦȞ Nestle - Aland, IJȠȣ 1998 (ȖȚĮ IJĮ 100 ȤȡȩȞȚĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ 1Ș ȑțį. IJȠȣ E. Nestle) ȣȚȠșİIJİȓIJĮȚ Ș ȖȡĮijȒ «੉ȠȣȞȓĮȞ", İȞȫ Ș ȖȡĮijȒ IJȠȣ ĮȡıİȞȚțȠȪ "ǿȠȣȞȚ઼Ȣ" įİȞ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ȠȪIJİ țĮȞ ıIJȠȞ țȡȚIJȚțȩ ȝȘȤĮȞȚıȝȩ. īȚĮ IJȘȞ ȣȚȠșİIJȠȪȝİȞȘ IJİȜȚțȐ ȖȡĮijȒ ʌȡȠıȐȖȠȞIJĮȚ ȦȢ ȝȐȡIJȣȡİȢ IJĮ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ ǺĮIJȚțĮȞȩȢ (Ƞ 2ȠȢ įȚȠȡșȦIJȒȢ IJȠȣ), Ƞ țȫį. ǺȑȗĮ (D, Ƞ 2ȠȢ įȚȠȡșȦIJȒȢ IJȠȣ İʌȓıȘȢ), Ƞ Ȍ IJȘȢ ȂİȖȓıIJȘȢ ȁĮȪȡĮȢ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȜȐ ȐȜȜĮ ȝȚțȡȠȖȡȐȝȝĮIJĮ țĮȚ ʌĮIJȑȡİȢ ʌȠȣ įİȞ ʌĮȡĮșȑIJȦ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ IJȠȣ ȤȡȩȞȠȣ. Ǿ ʌĮȡȠȪıĮ İȚıȒȖȘıȘ ıIJȘȡȓȗİȚ IJȘ ȖȡĮijȒ IJȠȣ șȘȜȣțȠȪ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ «੉ȠȣȞȓĮ» ȖȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ʌĮȡĮțȐIJȦ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ: 1. ȅȚ țȡȚIJȚțȑȢ İțįȩıİȚȢ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ. Įʌȩ IJȘȢ 13ȘȢ (1927) IJȠȣ E. Nestle țĮȚ İȟȒȢ ȣȚȠșİIJȠȪȞ IJȘȞ ȖȡĮijȒ «੉ȠȣȞȚ઼Ȟ», ʌĮȡĮșȑIJȠȞIJĮȢ ıIJȠȞ țȡȚIJȚțȩ IJȠȣȢ ȝȘȤĮȞȚıȝȩ ȦȢ ȝȐȡIJȣȡİȢ IJȘȢ ȖȡĮijȒȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJĮ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ ʌȠȣ ĮȞĮijȑȡĮȝİ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ. ȆȡȑʌİȚ ȩȝȦȢ ȞĮ ıȘȝİȚȦșİȓ ĮȝȑıȦȢ ȩIJȚ, ȩʌȦȢ ıȘȝİȚȫıĮȝİ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȣȝȑȞȦȢ, IJĮ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ ĮȣIJȐ İȓȞĮȚ ȝİȖĮȜȠȖȡȐȝȝĮIJĮ țĮȚ įİȞ ȑȤȠȣȞ IJȩȞȠȣȢ (ǿȅȊȃǿǹȃ) ʌĮȡȑȤȠȞIJĮȢ IJȘ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ įȚʌȜȒȢ ĮȞĮȖȞȫıİȦȢ İȓIJİ ȦȢ «੉ȠȣȞȓĮȞ» İȓIJİ ȦȢ «੉ȠȣȞȚ઼Ȟ». ǹʌȩ IJȠȞ 9ȠȞ ȩȝȦȢ ĮȚȫȞĮ ʌȠȣ İʌȚțȡĮIJȠȪȞ IJĮ ȝȚțȡȠȖȡȐȝȝĮIJĮ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ ȝİ IJȩȞȠȣȢ ȠȝȩijȦȞĮ ȝĮȡIJȣȡİȓIJĮȚ IJȠ șȘȜȣțȩ ȖȑȞȠȢ IJȠȣ ȠȞȩȝĮIJȠȢ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȝİIJĮȖİȞȑıIJİȡȠȚ įȚȠȡșȦIJȑȢ IJȦȞ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ȝȞȘȝȠȞİȣșȑȞIJȦȞ țİijĮȜĮȚȠȖȡĮȝȝȐIJȦȞ ȤİȚȡȠȖȡȐijȦȞ, ıİ ȩıĮ ȕİȕĮȓȦȢ ȑȤȠȣȞ İʌȚıȘȝĮȞșİȓ ȝİIJĮȖİȞȑıIJİȡȠȚ įȚȠȡșȦIJȑȢ țĮȚ IJȠȞȚıȝȩȢ, Ƞ IJȩȞȠȢ IJȓșİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ țİijĮȜĮȓȠ ǿ, İʌȚIJȡȑʌȠȞIJĮȢ ȑIJıȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞȐȖȞȦıȘ IJȠȣ șȘȜȣțȠȪ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ. ǹȜȜȐ țĮȚ Ș ʌĮȡĮȜȜĮȖȒ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȦȞ ȤİȚȡȠȖȡȐijȦȞ «੉ȠȣȜȓĮȞ» (ȇ46, 6, 606, 1718, 2685, ȠȡȚıȝȑȞĮ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ IJȘȢ Vulgata, ǿİȡȫȞȣȝȠȢ, ȕȠȤĮȧȡȚțȒ, ĮȚșȚȠʌȚțȒ ȝİIJȐijȡĮıȘ), ʌȡȠijĮȞȫȢ ʌȡȠİȡȤȩȝİȞȘ Įʌȩ IJȠ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ ıIJȠ ȇȦȝ. 16,15 («ĮʌȐıĮıșİ ĭȚȜȩȜȠȖȠȞ țĮȚ ǿȠȣȜȓĮȞ»), įİȓȤȞİȚ ȩIJȚ ʌȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ ĮȞIJȚțĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠȣ ȠȞȩȝĮIJȠȢ ȝİ ȐȜȜȠ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ. ȅȣįİȓȢ İț IJȦȞ İȡİȣȞȘIJȫȞ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ Ȓ IJȦȞ ȣʌȠȝȞȘȝĮIJȚıIJȫȞ IJȠȣ ıIJȓȤȠȣ ȇȦȝ. 16,7 ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ĮȞĮȜȣIJȚțȐ ıIJĮ ȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞȐ ǼțȜȠȖȐįȚĮ ʌĮȡȐ ȝȩȞȠ ȝİ IJȘ ȖİȞȚțȒ ȑȞįİȚȟȘ Lect Ȓ Byz IJȦȞ țȡȚIJȚțȫȞ İțįȩıİȦȞ. ȍıIJȩıȠ, Ș

Junia as an “Apostle”

131

ʌİȡȚțȠʌȒ ȇȦȝ. 16, 1-16 ĮȞĮȖȚȞȫıțİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȆĮȡĮıțİȣȒ IJȘȢ İǯ ਦȕįȠȝȐįĮȢ IJȘȢ ǹ' ȆİȡȚȩįȠȣ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȫȞ IJȠȣ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ țĮȚ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȝȞȒȝȘ IJȦȞ ǹȖȓȦȞ ǹȞįȡȠȞȓțȠȣ țĮȚ ǿȠȣȞȓĮȢ IJȘȞ 17Ș ȂĮǸȠȣ. īȚ’ĮȣIJȩ țĮȚ ĮȣIJȠȞȠȒIJȦȢ ıIJĮ ǼțȜȠȖȐįȚĮ (Ȓ ȐȜȜȦȢ ȜİȖȩȝİȞĮ ȁİȟȚȠȞȐȡȚĮ), ıIJĮ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ įȘȜ. ʌȠȣ ʌİȡȚȑȤȠȣȞ IJȚȢ ʌİȡȚțȠʌȑȢ ʌȠȣ įȚĮȕȐȗȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘ șİȓĮ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ, ȠȝȩijȦȞĮ İʌȚțȡĮIJİȓ Ș ȖȡĮijȒ «੉ȠȣȞȓĮ». 2. Ǿ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȩʌȦȢ ĮʌȘȤİȓIJĮȚ Ș ȐʌȠȥȒ IJȘȢ ıIJȚȢ İȡȝȘȞİȓİȢ IJȦȞ ȆĮIJȑȡȦȞ țĮȚ ıIJȠ ǼȠȡIJȠȜȩȖȚȠ, įȑȤİIJĮȚ IJȘȞ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ ȦȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ ȝȠȡijȒ ıȣȞİȡȖȐIJȚįĮȢ IJȠȣ ǹʌ. ȆĮȪȜȠȣ, ıİ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞİȢ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ IJȘ șİȦȡİȓ ıȪȗȣȖȠ IJȠȣ ǹȞįȡȠȞȓțȠȣ (ȕȜ. IJȠ ȈȣȞĮȟȐȡȚ IJȘȢ 17ȘȢ ȂĮǸȠȣ). ȀȪȡȚȠȢ İțʌȡȩıȦʌȠȢ IJȘȢ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ ǿ. ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȢ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ıIJȘȞ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ IJȠȣ IJȘȢ ʌȡȠȢ ȇȦȝĮȓȠȣȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒȢ ıȘȝİȚȫȞİȚ IJĮ İȟȒȢ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ: «ȀĮȓIJȠȚ țĮȚ IJȠ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȑȖĮ, IJȠ įİ țĮȚ İȞ IJȠȪIJȠȚȢ İʌȚıȒȝȠȣȢ İȓȞĮȚ, İȞȞȩȘıȠȞ ȘȜȓțȠȞ İȖțȫȝȚȠȞ. ǼʌȓıȘȝȠȚ įİ ȒıĮȞ Įʌȩ IJȦȞ ȑȡȖȦȞ, Įʌȩ IJȦȞ țĮIJȠȡșȦȝȐIJȦȞ. ǺĮȕĮȓ, ʌȩıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ IJĮȪIJȘȢ Ș ijȚȜȠıȠijȓĮ, ȦȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ ĮȟȚȦșȒȞĮȚ ʌȡȠıȘȖȠȡȓĮȢ».2 ȈIJȘȞ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ IJȠȣȢ IJȘȢ ʌȡȠȢ ȇȦȝĮȓȠȣȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒȢ IJȘȞ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ ȦȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȣȞ İʌȓıȘȢ ȠȚ ĬİȠįȫȡȘIJȠȢ ȀȪȡȠȣ, ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ǻĮȝĮıțȘȞȩȢ, ȅȚțȠȣȝȑȞȚȠȢ țĮȚ ĬİȠijȪȜĮțIJȠȢ.3 ȅ ȍȡȚȖȑȞȘȢ ıIJȘ ȜĮIJȚȞȚțȒ ȝİIJȐijȡĮıȘ IJȠȣ ȊʌȠȝȞȒȝĮIJȩȢ IJȠȣ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȢ ȇȦȝĮȓȠȣȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȇȠȣijȓȞȠ (10.21) įȣȩ ijȠȡȑȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ IJȘȞ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ (Salutate Andronicum et Juniam țĮȚ Andronicum et Juniam concaptivos esse testatur)4 țĮȚ ȝȓĮ ijȠȡȐ ȦȢ ĮȡıİȞȚțȩ.5 ȀĮIJĮIJȐııİȚ įİ ĮȝijȠIJȑȡȠȣȢ, IJȠȞ ǹȞįȡȩȞȚțȠ țĮȚ IJȠȞ (Ȓ IJȘȞ) ǿȠȣȞȓĮ, ıIJȠȣȢ 72 ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ.6 Ǿ įȚĮțȪȝĮȞıȘ ıIJȠ ȖȑȞȠȢ IJȠȣ ȠȞȩȝĮIJȠȢ ȠijİȓȜİIJĮȚ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ ıIJȘ ȜĮIJȚȞȚțȒ ĮʌȩįȠıȘ IJȠȣ ȇȠȣijȓȞȠȣ. ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȡȩıijĮIJȘ țȡȚIJȚțȒ ȑțįȠıȘ IJȠȣ ȊʌȠȝȞȒȝĮIJȠȢ IJȠȣ ȍȡȚȖȑȞȘ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȢ ȇȦȝĮȓȠȣȢ ıȣȞȐȖİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ IJȠ Junias ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ʌĮȡĮȜȜĮȖȒ ıİ 2 Įʌȩ 3 ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ IJȠȣ 12Ƞȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ ʌȠȣ ĮȞȒțȠȣȞ ıIJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮ, İȞȫ IJĮ ĮȡȤĮȚȩIJİȡĮ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȠȪȞ IJȘ ȖȡĮijȒ Junia.7 ȅȚ ȁĮIJȓȞȠȚ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȠȓ ıȣȖȖȡĮijİȓȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ǹȝȕȡȩıȚȠ IJȠȣ 4Ƞȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ, ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȠȞ ȆȑIJȡȠ ȁȠȝȕĮȡįȩ IJȠȣ 12Ƞȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ ʌĮȡĮșȑIJȠȣȞ IJȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ 2

PG 60,669. ĬİȠįȫȡȘIJȠȢ PG 82,219-220. ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ǻĮȝĮıțȘȞȩȢ PG 95,565. ȅȚțȠȣȝȑȞȚȠȢ PG 118,629-32. ĬİȠijȪȜĮțIJȠȢ PG 124,551-2. 4 PG 14,1280. 5 “….et non solum isti, sed et Andronicus, et Junias, et Herodion”, PG 14,1289. 6 PG 14,1280. 7 H. Bammel, Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes: Ȁritische Ausgabe der Щbersetzung Rufins, 1990, 1997, 1998. țĮȚ L. Belleville, “ǿȠȣȞȓĮȞ….İʌȓıȘȝȠȚ İȞ IJȠȚȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȚȢ. A Re-examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials”, New Testament Studies 51 (2005), ı. 236, ıȘȝ. 20. 3

132

Chapter Nine

ȦȢ șȘȜȣțȩ, ȐȜȜȠȚ ȝİȞ ĮțȠȜȠȣșȫȞIJĮȢ IJȘ ȖȡĮijȒ Junia țĮȚ ȐȜȜȠȚ Julia, İț IJȦȞ ȠʌȠȓȦȞ Ș įİȪIJİȡȘ, ȩʌȦȢ İȓįĮȝİ, ȝĮȡIJȣȡİȓIJĮȚ ıİ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞĮ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ. 3. Ǿ ʌȡȠIJȓȝȘıȘ Įʌȩ İțįȩIJİȢ IJȠȣ țİȚȝȑȞȠȣ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ. Ȓ Įʌȩ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȑȢ IJȠȣ ĮȡıİȞȚțȠȪ ǿȠȣȞȚȐȢ ıȤİIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ IJȠȣ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıȝȠȪ "İʌȓıȘȝȠȚ İȞ IJȠȚȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȚȢ", ȩʌȦȢ șĮ įȠȪȝİ ĮȞĮȜȣIJȚțȩIJİȡĮ ıIJȠ Ǻ' ȝȑȡȠȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ İȚıȒȖȘıȘȢ. Ǿ ĮʌȠįȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ǿȠȣȞȓĮȢ ȦȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣ (ıIJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ʌȠȣ ȖȓȞİȚ ĮʌȠįİțIJȒ Ș İțįȠȤȒ IJȠȣ "İȞ IJȠȚȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȚȢ" ȝİ IJȘȞ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ: ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ) įİȞ ıȣȝʌȠȡİȣȩIJĮȞ ȝİ IJȚȢ ĮȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȦȞ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȫȞ, ʌȠȣ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȞ ȞĮ įȚĮȞȠȘșȠȪȞ IJȘȞ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ ȝȠȡijȒȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ. ȍıIJȩıȠ, ʌȡȑʌİȚ İįȫ ȞĮ ıȘȝİȚȫıȠȣȝİ ʌĮȡİȞșİIJȚțȐ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ȩȡȠȢ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ İȓȞĮȚ İȣȡȪIJİȡȠȢ IJȩıȠ ıIJȚȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȑȢ IJȠȣ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ ȩıȠ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȫIJȘ İțțȜȘıȓĮ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡĮ țĮȚ įİȞ ʌİȡȚȠȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȠȝȐįĮ IJȦȞ "įȫįİțĮ". DzIJıȚ, ȦȢ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ İțIJȩȢ IJȦȞ įȫįİțĮ ȠȚ ǺĮȡȞȐȕĮȢ, ǹʌȠȜȜȫȢ, ȈȚȜȠȣĮȞȩȢ, ȉȚȝȩșİȠȢ, ǼʌĮijȡȩįȚIJȠȢ țĮȚ ijȣıȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȩȡȠ ĮȣIJȩȞ ĮȣIJȠȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗİIJĮȚ Ƞ ȓįȚȠȢ Ƞ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ8. ǼʌȓıȘȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȠȪȤȦȞ Ƞ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ ʌȡȫIJȠȣȢ IJȠȣȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ, ĮıijĮȜȫȢ ȝİ IJȘȞ İȣȡȪIJİȡȘ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıIJȚțȒ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ IJȦȞ ǻȫįİțĮ (ȕȜ. ʌ.Ȥ. ȇȦȝ. 12,28. Ǽijİı. 4,11). DZȜȜȦıIJİ ıIJȠ ǹ' ȀȠȡ. 15, 3-7 ȠȚ įȫįİțĮ įȚĮțȡȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ ıĮijȫȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ İȣȡȪIJİȡȠ țȪțȜȠ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ: "ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ... ȫijșȘ IJȠȚȢ įȫįİțĮ.... İȓIJĮ IJȠȚȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȚȢ ʌȐıȚȞ"). ǹȡȖȩIJİȡĮ, țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ 2Ƞ ĮȚȫȞĮ, ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȠȡȠȜȠȖȓĮ İʌȚțȡȐIJȘıİ Ƞ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȩȢ IJȠȣ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ ıIJȠȣȢ įȫįİțĮ. 4. ǴıȦȢ ĮȞĮȡȡȦIJȘșİȓ țĮȞİȓȢ: ȆȠȪ ȠijİȓȜİIJĮȚ Ș ʌȡȠIJȓȝȘıȘ IJȠȣ ĮȡıİȞȚțȠȪ ǿȠȣȞȚȐȢ ıİ İțįȩıİȚȢ țİȚȝȑȞȦȞ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ țĮȚ ıIJȚȢ ȟİȞȩȖȜȦııİȢ ȝİIJĮijȡȐıİȚȢ; ȆȠȜȜȠȓ İțIJȚȝȠȪȞ ȩIJȚ Ș ȖİȡȝĮȞȚțȒ ȝİIJȐijȡĮıȘ IJȠȣ ȁȠȣșȒȡȠȣ (1522) ȝİ IJȘ ıĮijȒ ʌȡȠIJȓȝȘıȘ IJȠȣ ĮȡıİȞȚțȠȪ ȠȞȩȝĮIJȠȢ (İȞȐȡșȦȢ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ «grüsset... den Junias») İʌȘȡȑĮıİ IJȚȢ İȣȡȦʌĮȧțȑȢ ȝİIJĮijȡȐıİȚȢ, ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȩȝȦȢ Įʌȩ IJȩIJİ ȝȑȤȡȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȠȝȩijȦȞİȢ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ȖȑȞȠȢ IJȠȣ ȠȞȩȝĮIJȠȢ, ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȡȩıșİIJȘ ʌĮȡĮIJȒȡȘıȘ ȩIJȚ ıİ țȐʌȠȚİȢ ĮȞĮșİȦȡȒıİȚȢ IJȠȣȢ ĮȞĮȚȡİȓIJĮȚ Ș ʌȡȠȘȖȠȪȝİȞȘ ȖȡĮijȒ, İȓIJİ Įʌȩ IJȠ ĮȡıİȞȚțȩ ıIJȠ șȘȜȣțȩ ȖȑȞȠȢ, İȓIJİ ĮȞIJȚıIJȡȩijȦȢ. ǼȓȞĮȚ ʌĮȡȐįȠȟȘ Ș ʌȡȠIJȓȝȘıȘ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȁȠȪșȘȡȠ IJȘȢ ȖȡĮijȒȢ IJȠȣ ĮȡıİȞȚțȠȪ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ, įİįȠȝȑȞȠȣ ȩIJȚ Ș ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȩIJİ (įȘȜ. ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȠ 1522 ʌȠȣ ȑȖȚȞİ Ș ȝİIJȐijȡĮıȘ IJȠȣ ȁȠȣșȒȡȠȣ) ȝȠȞĮįȚțȒ ȑțįȠıȘ IJȠȣ İȜȜȘȞȚțȠȪ țİȚȝȑȞȠȣ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ., İȓȞĮȚ ĮȣIJȒ IJȠȣ ǼȡȐıȝȠȣ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ıIJȘȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ıİ ȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞȐ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ, IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ ȑȤȠȣȞ IJȘ ȖȡĮijȒ IJȠȣ șȘȜȣțȠȪ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ. ǴıȦȢ Ƞ ȁȠȪșȘȡȠȢ İʌȘȡİȐıIJȘțİ ıIJȠ ıȘȝİȓȠ ĮȣIJȩ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȜĮIJȚȞȚțȒ 8

ȇȦȝ 1,1. 11,13. ǹǯȀȠȡ 1,1.ǺǯȀȠȡ 1,1. īĮȜ 1,1. Ǽij 1,1. ȀȠȜ 1,1

Junia as an “Apostle”

133

ǺȠȣȜȖȐIJĮ. ȅȡȚıȝȑȞȠȚ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȑȢ ʌȚıIJİȪȠȣȞ ȩIJȚ Ș İʌȚțȡȐIJȘıȘ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ 13ȠȞ ĮȚȫȞĮ țĮȚ İȟȒȢ IJȠȣ ĮȡıİȞȚțȠȪ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ - țĮȚ ʌȐȜȚ ȩȤȚ ȖİȞȚțȫȢ ĮȜȜȐ ıİ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠȣȢ țȪțȜȠȣȢ - ȠijİȓȜİIJĮȚ ıİ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠȪȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ, ıIJȘȞ ĮįȣȞĮȝȓĮ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȦȞ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȫȞ ȞĮ įİȤIJȠȪȞ IJȠ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıȝȩ ȝȚĮȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȦȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣ. ǼȓȞĮȚ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȒ Ș ʌĮȡĮIJȒȡȘıȘ IJȠȣ B. Metzger ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ ǼțįȠIJȚțȒ ǼʌȚIJȡȠʌȒ IJȘȢ 4ȘȢ İțį. IJȘȢ The Greek New Testament: "ȂİȡȚțȐ ȝȑȜȘ IJȘȢ İʌȚIJȡȠʌȒȢ șİȦȡȫȞIJĮȢ ĮʌȓșĮȞȠ IJȠ ȩIJȚ ȝȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İȓȞĮȚ įȣȞĮIJȩ ȞĮ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJİȓ ȦȢ 'ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ' țĮIJİȞȩȘıĮȞ IJȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ ȦȢ ĮȡıİȞȚțȩ."9 ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠȚ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȚ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȑȢ țĮȚ ȚįȓȦȢ İȡȝȘȞİȪIJȡȚİȢ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ. ʌȡȠȕȐȜȜȠȣȞ ȝİ țȐșİ IJȡȩʌȠ IJȠ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ ȖȑȞȠȢ IJȠȣ ȠȞȩȝĮIJȠȢ, șȑȜȠȞIJĮȢ ȞĮ ıIJȘȡȓȟȠȣȞ IJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıİ ȣȥȘȜȐ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ǼȝİȓȢ İįȫ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚȗȩȝĮıIJİ ıIJȘȞ İʌȚıȒȝĮȞıȘ IJȦȞ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȦȞ İțİȓȞȦȞ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJĮ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ. ʌȠȣ įȚțĮȚȫȞȠȣȞ IJȘ ȖȡĮijȒ "ǿȠȣȞȓĮ". 5. ȅȚ ĮȡȤĮȓİȢ ȝİIJĮijȡȐıİȚȢ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ. (ȜĮIJȚȞȚțȑȢ, ıȣȡȚĮțȑȢ, țȠʌIJȚțȑȢ, ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠȑȡȤȠȞIJĮȚ ĮʌİȣșİȓĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȠ İȜȜȘȞȚțȩ ʌȡȦIJȩIJȣʌȠ) ʌĮȡȑȤȠȣȞ IJȘ ȖȡĮijȒ IJȠȣ ȠȞȩȝĮIJȠȢ ıİ șȘȜȣțȩ ȖȑȞȠȢ, İȓIJİ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ İȓIJİ (ȠȚ ĮȡȤĮȓİȢ ȜĮIJȚȞȚțȑȢ) ǿȠȣȜȓĮ. ȈIJĮ ȞİȩIJİȡĮ ȩȝȦȢ ȤȡȩȞȚĮ Ș İȚțȩȞĮ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚİȓIJĮȚ ĮȞ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ȠȝȠȚȩȝȠȡijĮ. ĭĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ Ș ȖİȡȝĮȞȚțȒ ȝİIJȐijȡĮıȘ IJȠȣ ȁȠȣșȒȡȠȣ İʌȘȡȑĮıİ IJȚȢ ȞİȩIJİȡİȢ İȣȡȦʌĮȧțȑȢ ʌȠȣ ȑȤȠȣȞ ȦȢ İʌȓ IJȠ ʌȜİȓıIJȠȞ IJȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ ıİ ĮȡıİȞȚțȩ ȖȑȞȠȢ. ǹȞĮijȑȡȠȣȝİ țĮIJ’ İʌȚȜȠȖȒ IJȚȢ ȖȞȦıIJȩIJİȡİȢ: Revised Version (1881), Amercan Standard Version (1901), Revised Standard Version (1946), New English Bible (1961), Good News Bible (1966), New International Version (1973), Contemporary English Version (1995), Bonnes ȃouvelles aujourd’hui (1971), Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible (1975), Die Gute Nachricht (1976), Zürcher Bibel (1964), U.Wilkens-Das Neue Testament (1972) ț.Ȑ. ȍıIJȩıȠ Įʌȩ IJȠ 1970 țĮȚ İȟȒȢ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡİȓIJĮȚ ıİ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ȝİIJĮijȡȐıİȚȢ ȝȓĮ ʌȡȠIJȓȝȘıȘ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘ ȖȡĮijȒ IJȠȣ șȘȜȣțȠȪ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ. ǹȞĮijȑȡȠȣȝİ ȖȚĮ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ ȝİȡȚțȑȢ: New American Bible (1970), New King James Version (1979), New Century Version (1987), Revised English Bible (1989), New Revised Standard Version (1989), Oxford Inclusive Version (1995), New Living Translation (1996), țĮȚ ijȣıȚțȐ İȟĮȡȤȒȢ ȠȚ İȜȜȘȞȚțȑȢ ȝİIJĮijȡȐıİȚȢ ʌȠȣ ĮțȠȜȠȣșȠȪȞ IJȠ ȆĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțȩ țİȓȝİȞȠ: ǺȐȝȕĮ, ǺȑȜȜĮ, ȉȡİȝʌȑȜĮ, ȀȠȜȚIJıȐȡĮ, țĮȚ Ș ȝİIJȐijȡĮıȘ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȘȞȚțȒȢ ǺȚȕȜȚțȒȢ ǼIJĮȚȡȓĮȢ (ȕǯȑțį.1989).

9

A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, ȕ' ȑțį., 1994, ı. 475.

134

Chapter Nine

II. ȆİȡȞȐȝİ IJȫȡĮ ıIJȠ įİȪIJİȡȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ: Ȃİ ʌȠȚȐ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ IJȠ ȗİȪȖȠȢ ǹȞįȡȩȞȚțȠȢ țĮȚ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ șİȦȡȠȪȞIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ǹʌ. ȆĮȪȜȠ "İʌȓıȘȝȠȚ İȞ IJȠȚȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȚȢ"; dzIJĮȞ įȚĮțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠȚ (ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȠȓ) ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, ȒIJĮȞ įȘȜ. ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ, Ȓ IJȠȣȢ șİȦȡȠȪıĮȞ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȠȪȢ ȠȚ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ; ȀĮȚ ʌȡȚȞ įȠșİȓ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ ıIJȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȚıIJİȓ Ș ȑȞȞȠȚĮ IJȠȣ İȞ ȝİ įȠIJȚțȒ. ȉȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ İȓȞĮȚ: IJȠ İȞ ȝİ įȠIJȚțȒ İțijȡȐȗİȚ ıȣȝʌİȡȓȜȘȥȘ IJȠȣ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚȗȠȝȑȞȠȣ ʌȡȠıȫʌȠȣ ıIJȠ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȩ ʌȠȣ ĮțȠȜȠȣșİȓ (ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȚȢ) Ȓ įȘȜȫȞİȚ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ, įȘȜ. ȖȞȫȝȘ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ ȖȚĮ IJĮ İȞ ȜȩȖȦ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ; ȈIJȘȞ ʌȡȫIJȘ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ Ș ȑȞȞȠȚĮ IJȘȢ ijȡȐıİȦȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ǹȞįȡȩȞȚțȠȢ țĮȚ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ ȒIJĮȞ įȚĮțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠȚ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, įȘȜ. ȒIJĮȞ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ ʌȠȣ įȚĮțȡȓșȘțĮȞ ȖȚĮ IJȠȣȢ țȩʌȠȣȢ țĮȚ IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣȢ, ıIJȘ įİȪIJİȡȘ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ Ș ȑȞȞȠȚĮ IJȘȢ ijȡȐıİȦȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ ȑȤĮȚȡĮȞ İțIJȚȝȒıİȦȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ, ȤȦȡȓȢ ĮȣIJȩ ȞĮ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȩIJȚ ȒIJĮȞ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȓįȚȠȚ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ. ȆĮȡȩȝȠȚİȢ İțijȡȐıİȚȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ İȜȜȘȞȚțȒ ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJİȓĮ țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJĮ İȜȜȘȞȚıIJȚțȐ țİȓȝİȞĮ ʌȡȠıȐȖȠȞIJĮȚ IJȩıȠ ȣʌȑȡ IJȘȢ ʌȡȫIJȘȢ ĮʌȩȥİȦȢ ȩıȠ țĮȚ ȣʌȑȡ IJȘȢ įİȪIJİȡȘȢ. ǹijșȠȞȠȪȞ ȩȝȦȢ țĮȚ İȓȞĮȚ ʌİȚıIJȚțȩIJİȡĮ IJĮ ʌĮȡĮįİȓȖȝĮIJĮ ȣʌȑȡ IJȘȢ ʌȡȫIJȘȢ, ȩȤȚ ȕȑȕĮȚĮ ȜȩȖȦ IJȠȣ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȠȣ ĮȡȚșȝȠȪ IJȠȣȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ȜȩȖȦ IJȘȢ İȖȖȪIJȘIJȐȢ IJȠȣȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ȇȦȝ. 16,7. ǹȞĮijȑȡȦ ȝİȡȚțȐ: ȁȠȣțȚĮȞȠȪ ȃİțȡȫȞ ǻȚȐȜȠȖȠȚ 438: "ȀĮȚ ȐȜȜȠȚ ȝİȞ ʌȠȜȜȠȓ ıȣȖțĮIJȑȕĮȚȞȠȞ ȘȝȓȞ, İȞ ĮȣIJȠȓȢ įİ İʌȓıȘȝȠȚ ǿıȝȘȞȩįȦȡȩȢ IJİ Ƞ ʌȜȠȪıȚȠȢ Ƞ ȘȝȑIJİȡȠȢ țĮȚ ǹȡıȐțȘȢ Ƞ ȂȘįȓĮȢ ȪʌĮȡȤȠȢ...", ǿȦıȒʌȠȣ, ǿȠȣįĮȧțȩȢ ȆȩȜİȝȠȢ 2,418 "țĮȚ ʌȡȑıȕİȚȢ ȠȣȢ ȝİȞ ʌȡȠȢ ĭȜȫȡȠȞ ȑʌİȝʌȠȞ... ȠȣȢ įİ ʌȡȠȢ ǹȖȡȓʌʌĮȞ, İȞ ȠȚȢ ȒıĮȞ İʌȓıȘȝȠȚ ȈĮȪȜȩȢ IJİ țĮȚ ǹȞIJȓʌĮȢ țĮȚ ȀȠıIJȩȕĮȡȠȢ...". ǹȜȜȐ țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ǹȖȓĮ īȡĮijȒ, Ȃș 2,6 "țĮȚ ıȣ ǺȘșȜİȑȝ …ȠȣįĮȝȫȢ İȜĮȤȓıIJȘ İȚ İȞ IJȠȚȢ ȘȖİȝȩıȚȞ ǿȠȪįĮ" ț.Ȑ. ǹȞIJȚșȑIJȦȢ, ȜȚȖȠıIJȐ İȓȞĮȚ IJĮ ʌĮȡȐȜȜȘȜĮ IJȠȣ ĮȡȤĮȓȠȣ țĮȚ İȜȜȘȞȚıIJȚțȠȪ țȩıȝȠȣ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȕ' ȐʌȠȥȘ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȦȞ ȚįȓȦȞ IJȦȞ ȣʌȠıIJȘȡȚțIJȫȞ IJȘȢ ĮʌȩȥİȦȢ, ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓȠȚ įȑȤȠȞIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ, İȐȞ Ƞ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ ȒșİȜİ ȞĮ ʌİȚ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ǹȞįȡȩȞȚțȠȢ țĮȚ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ ȒIJĮȞ İȟȑȤȠȞIJİȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, șĮ ȑʌȡİʌİ ȞĮ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚȒıİȚ IJȠ İʌȓșİIJȠ ȝİ ȖİȞȚțȒ ʌȜȘșȣȞIJȚțȠȪ, țĮIJȐ IJȠ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ IJȠȣ: ī' ȂĮț. 6,1 "ǼȜİȐȗĮȡȠȢ įİ IJȚȢ ĮȞȒȡ İʌȓıȘȝȠȢ IJȦȞ Įʌȩ IJȘȢ ȤȫȡĮȢ ȚİȡȑȦȞ". ǼȟȓıȠȣ ȝȠȚȡĮıȝȑȞİȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ įȣȠ įȣȞĮIJȫȞ İȡȝȘȞİȚȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȞİȩIJİȡİȢ ȝİIJĮijȡȐıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ȇȦȝ. 16,7 İȓIJİ ȠȚ İȜȜȘȞȚțȑȢ İȓIJİ ȠȚ ȟİȞȩȖȜȦııİȢ. ȉȘȞ ʌȡȫIJȘȞ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ (įȚĮțİțİȡȚȝȑȞȠȚ, İȟȑȤȠȞIJİȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ) ȣȚȠșİIJȠȪȞ ȠȚ ȝİIJĮijȡȐıİȚȢ: La Bible de Jérusalem, La Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible, King James Version, New International Version, New Revised Standart Version, New Century Version, Zürcher Bibel, - ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ȝİȓȞȠȣȝİ ıİ ȝİȡȚțȑȢ ȝȩȞȠ, IJȚȢ ʌȚȠ

Junia as an “Apostle”

135

ȖȞȦıIJȑȢ – țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ İȜȜȘȞȚțȑȢ ȠȚ IJȠȣ ǺȐȝȕĮ, ǺȑȜȜĮ, ȉȡİȝʌȑȜĮ, țĮȚ ȀȠȜȚIJıȐȡĮ. ȉȘ įİȪIJİȡȘ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ ʌȡȠIJȚȝȠȪȞ ȠȚ ȝİIJĮijȡȐıİȚȢ Contemporary English Version (highly respected by the apostles), New English Translation (well known to the apostles), Bonnes Nouvelles Aujourd’hui (“Ils sont très estimés parmis les apôtres”), țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ İȜȜȘȞȚțȑȢ ʌĮȡĮįȩȟȦȢ Ș IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȘȞȚțȒȢ ǺȚȕȜȚțȒȢ ǼIJĮȚȡȓĮȢ («ȅ țȪțȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ IJȠȣȢ ȑȤİȚ ıİ ȝİȖȐȜȘ İțIJȓȝȘıȘ»).

III. īȚĮ ȞĮ țĮIJĮȜȒȟȠȣȝİ ıIJȘȞ ʌȚȠ ȚțĮȞȠʌȠȚȘIJȚțȒ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȐʌȠȥȒ ȝĮȢ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ IJȘȢ ijȡȐıİȦȢ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ȜȐȕȠȣȝİ ȣʌ' ȩȥȚȞ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ȩȡȠȢ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ, ȩʌȦȢ ȒįȘ ıȘȝİȚȫıĮȝİ, İȓȞĮȚ İȣȡȪIJİȡȠȢ ıIJȚȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȑȢ IJȠȣ ǹʌ. ȆĮȪȜȠȣ țĮȚ įİȞ ʌİȡȚȠȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJȠȣȢ įȫįİțĮ. ȋĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȩ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ȐȜȜȦȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ İȓįĮȞ IJȠȞ ĮȞĮıIJȘȝȑȞȠ ȀȪȡȚȠ (ǹ' ȀȠȡ. 9,1. īĮȜ. 1,1. 15-17) țĮȚ ȩIJȚ «İțȠʌȓĮıĮȞ» ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ȋȡȚıIJȩ - ȑȞĮ ȡȒȝĮ ʌȠȣ IJȠ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚİȓ Ƞ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ țĮțȠʌȐșİȚİȢ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ țĮȚ țȘȡȪțȦȞ IJȠȣ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȠȪ İȣĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ. īȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ǹȞįȡȩȞȚțȠ țĮȚ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ įİȞ ȑȤȠȣȝİ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡİȢ ʌȜȘȡȠijȠȡȓİȢ ıIJȘȞ Ȁ.ǻ., ıIJȠȞ ıIJȓȤȠ ȩȝȦȢ ȇȦȝ. 16,7 ʌȠȣ İȟİIJȐȗȠȣȝİ Ƞ ȓįȚȠȢ Ƞ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ IJȠȣȢ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗİȚ ȦȢ «ıȣȖȖİȞİ૙Ȣ» IJȠȣ, țĮIJȐ ʌȐıĮȞ ʌȚșĮȞȩIJȘIJĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ IJȦȞ ıȣȝʌĮIJȡȚȦIJȫȞ IJȠȣ (ʌȡȕȜ. ȇȦȝ. 9,3 16,21), țĮȚ ȜȑȖİȚ ȩIJȚ ȣʌȒȡȟĮȞ ıȣȞĮȚȤȝȐȜȦIJȠȓ IJȠȣ, ȤȦȡȓȢ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȓȗİȚ ĮțȡȚȕȑıIJİȡĮ ĮȞ ȕȡȓıțȠȞIJĮȞ ıIJȠȞ ȓįȚȠ IJȩʌȠ țĮȚ ȤȡȩȞȠ ijȣȜĮțȓıİȦȢ ȝĮȗȓ IJȠȣ Ȓ ȑIJȣȤĮȞ ʌĮȡȩȝȠȚȦȞ IJĮȜĮȚʌȦȡȚȫȞ țȐʌȠȚĮȢ ȐȜȜȘȢ ijȣȜĮțȓıİȦȢ, țĮȚ İʌȓıȘȢ ȩIJȚ įȑȤIJȘțĮȞ IJȘȞ ʌȓıIJȘ ıIJȠȞ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ʌȡȚȞ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȓįȚȠ, ʌȡȐȖȝĮ ʌȠȣ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞĮ IJȠ İțIJȚȝȐ ȩȜȦȢ ȚįȚĮȚIJȑȡȦȢ. ǵȜĮ ĮȣIJȐ ȝĮȢ ȠįȘȖȠȪȞ ıIJȘȞ ȐʌȠȥȘ ȩIJȚ IJȠ "İȞ IJȠȚȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȚȢ" İȓȞĮȚ "ʌİȡȚİțIJȚțȩ" (inclusive), įȘȜ. Ƞ ǹȞįȡȩȞȚțȠȢ țĮȚ Ș ǿȠȣȞȓĮ ĮȞȒțĮȞ ıIJȠȣȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ, țĮȚ ȩȤȚ "ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȩ" (exclusive), įȘȜ. įİȞ ȒIJĮȞ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ ĮȜȜ’ ȑȤĮȚȡĮȞ İțIJȚȝȒıİȦȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ.

IV. ȈȣȝʌȑȡĮıȝĮ: ǼȐȞ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ İȓȤİ ıIJȘȞ ıȣȞȠįİȓĮ IJȠȣ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȩʌȦȢ «Ș ȂĮȡȓĮ Ș țĮȜȠȣȝȑȞȘ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ țĮȚ ǿȦȐȞȞĮ ȖȣȞȒ ȋȠȣȗȐ İʌȚIJȡȩʌȠȣ ǾȡȫįȠȣ țĮȚ ȈȠȣıȐȞȞĮ țĮȚ ȑIJİȡĮȚ ʌȠȜȜĮȓ» (ȕȜ. ȁȠȣț. 8,2-3), İȐȞ İȝijĮȞȓıIJȘțİ ȝİIJȐ IJȘȞ ǹȞȐıIJĮıȒ IJȠȣ ʌȡȫIJĮ ıIJȘȞ ȂĮȡȓĮ IJȘ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ (ǿȦ 20,16.18), İȐȞ Ƞ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ ĮȞȑșİIJİ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȑȢ ıİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȚȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ ʌȠȣ ȓįȡȣİ, įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ țĮșȩȜȠȣ ĮʌȓșĮȞȠ ȞĮ șİȦȡİȓ IJȘȞ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ ȝĮȗȓ ȝİ IJȠȞ ǹȞįȡȩȞȚțȠ "İʌȚıȒȝȠȣȢ İȞ IJȠȚȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȚȢ" ȝİ IJȘȞ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ ʌȠȣ ĮȞĮʌIJȪȟĮȝİ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ.

136

Chapter Nine

ǵȜȘ ĮȣIJȒ Ș İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȠȣ ıIJȚȤ. ȇȦȝ. 16,7 ȠįȘȖİȓ ıIJȘ ıțȑȥȘ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, ȩʌȦȢ țĮIJȐ IJĮ ʌȡȫIJĮ ȕȒȝĮIJĮ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȑIJıȚ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȞ țĮȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ ȞĮ įȚĮįȡĮȝĮIJȓıȠȣȞ ıȘȝĮȓȞȠȞIJĮ ȡȩȜȠ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ǹȜȜ' ĮȣIJȩ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ șȑȝĮ ĮıijĮȜȫȢ ȐȜȜȦȞ İȚıȘȖȒıİȦȞ, Ș įȚțȒ ȝĮȢ ȑįȦıİ ĮʌȜȫȢ IJȘ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ ȕȐıȘ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ ȝİ IJȘȞ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ țĮȚ țȡȚIJȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ İȞȩȢ ȝȩȞȠ ıIJȓȤȠȣ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ȩȝȦȢ ĮʌȘȤİȓ ȩȜȘ IJȘ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ, ȖȚĮ ȝȓĮ șİIJȚțȒ ĮȟȚȠȜȩȖȘıȘ IJȘȢ șȑıİȦȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ.10

10

ǼțIJİȞȑıIJİȡȘ ĮȞȐʌIJȣȟȘ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ ȕȜ. ıIJȚȢ ĮțȩȜȠȣșİȢ ȝİȜȑIJİȢ: E. J. Epp, Junia. The First Woman Apostle, 2005. P. Arzt, “Iunia oder Iunias? Zum textkritischen Hintergrund von Röm 16,7,” ıIJȠ Liebe zum Wort.Festschrift für P. Ludger Bernard OSB, 1994. L. Belleville, “ǿȠȣȞȓĮȞ….İʌȓıȘȝȠȚ İȞ IJȠȚȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȚȢ. A Re-examination of Romans 16:7 in Light of Primary Source Materials,” New Testament Studies 51(2005), ı. 236 İȟ. J. Thorley, “Junia, A Woman Apostle,” Novun Testamentum 38(1996), ı. 18-29. R. S. Cerving, “A Note Regarding the Name ‘Junia(s)’ in Romans 16:7,” New Testament Studies 40 (1994), ı. 464-70. B. Brooten, “Junia… Outstanding among the Apostles (Romans 16:7),” ıIJȠ Women Priests: A Catholic Commentary on the Vatican Declaration (ed. by L.S – A. Swidler), 1977. R. Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, 2002. M. Burer - D. Wallace, “Was Junia really an Apostle? A Reexamination of Rom 16:7,” New Testament Studies 47 (2001), ı. 76-91. ǿ. ȀĮȡĮȕȚįȩʌȠȣȜȠȣ, «ǿȠȣȞȚ઼Ȣ Ȓ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ; ȀȡȚIJȚțȒ țĮȚ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȠȣ ȇȦȝ. 16,7», ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ ȚįȓȠȣ ǺȚȕȜȚțȑȢ ȂİȜȑIJİȢ ǻǯ, ıIJȘ ıİȚȡȐ ǺȚȕȜȚțȒ ȕȚȕȜȚȠșȒțȘ, Įȡ. 40, 2007, ı. 229-246.

CHAPTER TEN MARY MAGDALENE AND THE DEACONESSES KATERINA DROSIA

Abstract: Mary Magdalene is undoubtedly a living example legitimizing the leading role played by women in spreading the message of the Gospel and operating in early Christian communities. Noteworthy is the special place of Mary Magdalene in the circle of myrrh-bearers and women who minister to Jesus. Mary Magdalene followed Jesus from the beginning of his mission and up to his death on the cross. Throughout the course of the groundwork, she was very close to him. The central role of Mary Magdalene in the inner circle of Jesus' disciples is emphasized by all the evangelists. In this short paper we shall mainly focus on the other early Christian witnesses, where the controversy over a “feminine apostleship,” her competition with Peter, as well as the issue of women in general, have been associated with her name. The way Magdalene and other female followers of Jesus are presented in the Gospels, leads to the conclusion that the traditional role of women in early Christianity was overturned. Within the pages of Gnostic texts, we find Mary Magdalene teaching, while she is presented as an example of female discipleship. The image that these texts give us about influential women, mostly through the personality of Mary Magdalene, provides a strong argument for the right and authority of women to teach, as enjoyed in early Christianity. Simply the mention of the person of Magdalene in the New Testament documents is of particular importance and, the same canon includes the name of a woman who denies and negates the prohibition of the ancient Church concerning ministry by women. In the case of Mary Magdalene, we have a model of a disciple who teaches, interprets, preaches, and comforts the other male disciples; she is an apostle, a model and an example of faith.

The burning issue of the ordination of women and, more particularly, of deaconesses, cannot be properly dealt with without special reference to St. Mary Magdalene, the “apostle” of the apostles, who is rightly venerated by the Orthodox Church as isapostolos (equal to the apostles). Mary Magdalene is one of the most interesting figures of the New Testament and has a special place amongst the women who minister to Jesus. However, because of the special presence and the role she played in

138

Chapter Ten

the early Christian community, she was stigmatized by wrong interpretations, intentional or not, and was identified with other persons of the New Testament. The stories of the Gospels reveal her imposing presence as having a leading role in the women who surround Jesus, following him on his tours. She defies the outcry about being next to the disgraced, and remained when Jesus was sentenced to death on the cross and He was suffering, when His disciples had scattered and were hidden. And finally, she is the one with the incredible honor of being the first to see the resurrected Christ. Undoubtedly, the position of women in the biblical environment is fully integrated into the existing socio-cultural norms and standards of the time. Referring, for example, to the historical books of the New Testament, whose final writing is estimated in the second half of the 1st century A.D., we find that both the four gospels and the Acts of the Apostles contain many “words” and stories where women are not only involved in the flow of events but also play a decisive leading role.1 The most characteristic example of the new way of understanding and evaluating the female gender through Christ is the issue of women’s apprenticeship with him. Of course, the inner circle of the twelve students consisted exclusively of men, which was natural and obvious for the Jewish data. But Jesus, we could say, acted contrary to the social circumstances of the time and consciously provoked the morals of His time by accepting women into part of the wider circle of students, at a point women would have been traditionally assigned household roles. The term “student” is only found once in the New Testament, in Acts 9:36,2 alongside the well-known and widely-used term, “disciple,” to indicate the formation of auxiliary women’s circles collaborating with Jesus and the apostles. In recent years, the position of women in early Christianity has been completely revised. For example, only a few female names were widely known, such as Mary the mother of Jesus; Mary Magdalene, disciple of Jesus and first witness of the resurrection; and sisters Mary and Martha who offered hospitality to Jesus in Bethany. Now we learn about more women who contributed to the formation of Christianity in the early period. What is surprising is that the stories of women who we believed 1

For a more detailed examination of the role of Mary Magdalene in the New Testament documents, see our M.Th. dissertation Mary Magdalene and the Issue of Women in the New Testament, Thessaloniki 2010 (in Greek). In this short paper we shall mainly focus on the other early Christian witnesses. 2 Acts. 9:36.

Mary Magdalene and the Deaconesses

139

that we knew well, have changed dramatically. The most important of them is Mary Magdalene. A woman known in Western Christianity as sinful and a repentant sinner. Magdalene was named Mariam, not Mary, the same as Jesus’ mother. This means that her name derives from the prophetesses of the Old Testament and that she was obviously from Judea.3 It is known that in the Near East, the woman next to her name had her husband’s name as well. As Magdalene carries a determinative of her name, not the name of a man but the name of her place of origin, this indicates that Magdalene was unmarried. Generally, most of the female followers of Jesus must have been single (unmarried, widowed or divorced); only single women enjoyed some personal and financial independence. Those who were married (Joanna is the only one that applies in this case), defied public condemnation by abandoning their husbands and following Jesus. It is hard to imagine that even a man who shared the enthusiasm of his wife about Jesus would allow her to travel away from home with the group of Jesus’ disciples. Mothers or wives of the male apostles of Jesus should be an exception.4 Mary Magdalene was one among several women with the name Maria encountered in the four Gospels. She is not mentioned in any other book of the New Testament. In the Synoptic Gospels, whenever she is mentioned with other women, her name is mentioned first. Of course, this is not accidental, but indicates the special place of Mary Magdalene in the circle of myrrh-bearers and women who minister to Jesus. The fact that John mentioned her third in no way weakens the above finding, on the grounds that the first two women mentioned by John are Jesus’ mother and her sister, Mary of Klopa, something that justifies this position. The emphasis given to Mary Magdalene in relation to these women near the cross demonstrates the special position among the female disciples of Jesus, which is pointed to by all three Synoptic Gospels, in considering her as an important person. Since Mary’s Gospel became widely known, as well as the library of Nag Hammadi, our knowledge of Mary Magdalene has grown a lot. Based on these texts, as well as on some other texts, some interpreters came to the conclusion that Mary Magdalene was honored by some Christians as a disciple, apostle or even a leader. These positions are in sharp contrast to the traditional role assigned to her of the repentant sinner.

3

Ben Witherington, The Gospel Code, Intervarsity Press, 2004, p.70. Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women, Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels, U.K. 2002 p.17.

4

140

Chapter Ten

Throughout the pages of the cognitive texts of the 2nd and 3rd century, we have the opportunity to outline the portrait of Mary Magdalene: cognitive thinking puts special emphasis on the unfolding, unknown aspects of her character and complement the few written records that are provided by the canonical gospels. Before presenting the texts which positively present Mary Magdalene and rank her as one of the disciples of Jesus, we are going to refer to two texts from early Christian times, in which reference to Mary Magdalene is made but in a negative way, while stressing the inferiority of women compared to men.

The Didascalia Apostolorum (The Teaching of the Apostles) The Didaskalia of the Apostles, which is a manuscript written in the early 3rd century in Syria, poses a particular testimony on the role of Mary Magdalene in the discussion about the position of women in the ministry, teaching and worship of the Church.5 The main objective of Didaskalia is, on the one hand, to strengthen the position of the bishop and, on the other hand, to redefine the role of women in the community, especially the role of widows and deaconesses. The author uses the apostleship of the twelve apostles as the basis by which he justifies male-dominated Church leadership. In this juxtaposition about the authenticity of the teaching of women and the interpretation of the scripture, Magdalene has an important role. Magdalene is identified only as an example of the prohibition on teaching, justified by the fact that Jesus chose only the twelve apostles and no woman; Jesus sent the twelve apostles to teach. Nevertheless, there were also female disciples like Mary Magdalene, Mary (the daughter of Jacob) and the other Mary, but Jesus did not commission them with any teaching. Only when it was necessary did Jesus order them to preach along with the twelve apostles. The text justifies the prohibition on women teaching because of the different role of the female disciples of Jesus from that of the twelve disciples, and invokes the image of Mary Magdalene in the New Testament. He says that there were women disciples, but their role was different from the male disciples’ role and, moreover, they had not been sent by Jesus to do missionary work, as is clear from Matt. 28.16-20.6 5

Margaret Dunlop Gibson, The Didascalia Apostolorum in English, London 1903. Claudia Büllesbach, Maria Magdalena in der frühchristlichen Überlieferung, Hamburg, 2006, p.287, Math. 28, 16-20.

6

Mary Magdalene and the Deaconesses

141

The author of Didaskalia tries to safeguard the hierarchy of deaconesses in parallel with that of the bishops and deacons. The hierarchy is Trinitarian. The bishop is considered the Father, the deacon is compared with Jesus, and the deaconess with the Holy Spirit. The hierarchy of the elders results from the apostles. According to the text of Didaskalia, Mary Magdalene and the other disciples of Jesus are presented as biblical models of deaconesses, but are not considered as apostles. The text of Didaskalia, like other sources, reflects the controversy about the role of women in the early Christian communities. However, the Didaskalia also confirms the special role of Mary Magdalene as a model for women.

The Church Rules of the Holy Apostles The other project to mention is “The Church Rules of the Holy Apostles,” which consists of Church teachings on issues relating to ethics and ecclesiastical hierarchy. In this work a dialogue is presented between Andrew, Peter, John, Jacob, Martha and Mary Magdalene on whether women are permitted to occupy a position in the hierarchy, and what their position in the holy liturgy is. For example, in the question of whether the sacrament of Holy Communion may be celebrated by women, Peter refers to Jesus, who did not allow any woman to be with the apostles during the sacrament of Holy Communion. Moreover, John says, as an argument on the non-participation of women in the celebration of Holy Communion, that Jesus forbade women to attend with the apostles when he said the founding words. According to “Church Rules of the Holy Apostles,” the exclusion of women from priestly functions is based on the apostles’ rules and their duties are restricted only on women’s issues.7 At the peak of the argument that excludes women from priestly duties, the text presents Magdalene herself to justify the exclusion of women by saying that “the weak will be saved by the strong” (the origin of this is unknown). Further, 1 Clement 6, 28 refers to the inability of women, and A Tim. 2, 159 says that the salvation of women depends on teknogonia. Women can be saved by men, but not the opposite. The fact that, in the text, women themselves justify the exclusion of women shows what kinds of arguments have been used to reject the demands of women.10 It is worth 7

Claudia Büllesbach, Maria Magdalena in der frühchristlichen Überlieferung, Hamburg, 2006, ıİȜ 292. 8 ǹǯClem 6:2. 9 ǹǯTim 2:15. 10 Claudia Büllesbach, Maria Magdalena in der frühchristlichen Überlieferung,

142

Chapter Ten

mentioning the example of Thekla, which reveals the dispute in preaching and teaching on the part of women. Early Christian groups refer to Thekla to justify a woman’s right to baptize and preach, as Thekla (in Acts of Thekla and Paul) is marked on the side of Paul as a missionary and apostle. The tradition concerning Magdalene, as established in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, presents her as an example of female apprenticeship and not female subordination. While “teaching” and mission tends to be limited to being exclusively male competences, other sources present Magdalene not only as teaching disciples but also as an apostle. Modern teaching of apocryphal texts projects Magdalene as an example of female apprenticeship. Five of the texts of the library of Nag Hammadi attribute a surprisingly prominent role to Mary Magdalene, different from the one we know from legends and the New Testament. These texts are the Gospel of Thomas, the Dialogue of the Savior, the first revelation of Jacob, the Gospel of Philip and the Wisdom of Jesus Christ.11 Before Nag Hammadi, some other ancient texts that had already been discovered in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries referred to Mary Magdalene. These texts are Faith Wisdom, the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, Heracleides’ psalms, the letter of the apostles, the Order of the Apostolic Church and the Acts of Philip. Below is an examination of the texts, from which we can obtain essential information to help achieve a clearer picture of Magdalene.

The Gospel of Mary Mary’s Gospel, the only one that has a woman’s name, was written around the 2nd century A.D. The few pages of the Gospel provide us with the opportunity to meet a kind of Christianity that remained lost for nearly 1500 years; it presents the clearest and most convincing argument that can be found in early Christian texts to legalize the leadership of women.12 Mary’s Gospel presents the teachings of Jesus as given by Mary Magdalene and then spread within the circle of its author.13

Hamburg, 2006 p. 295. 11 J. Schaberg, Resurrection of Mary Magdalene, legends, apocrypha, and the Christian testament, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004. 12 Karen L. King, Jesus and the first woman apostle, the Gospel of Mary, ȝİIJȐijȡĮıȘ, 2008, p.18. 13 Esther De Boer, The Mary Magdalene, Cover-Up, The Sources Behind the Myth, T & T Clark 2006, p.65.

Mary Magdalene and the Deaconesses

143

The Gospel begins with a scene that describes a conversation between Jesus and His disciples, which takes place after the resurrection. All the disciples, except Mary, failed to understand the meaning of Jesus’ teaching. They were afraid to follow the order to preach the Gospel so as not to have the same horrible fate as Jesus. Mary intervened, reassured and, after Peter’s appeal, told them an unfamiliar teaching that she had received from Jesus through a vision. But at the end of Mary’s narration, two disciples doubt her words. Andrew says her teaching is strange and does not come from Jesus, and Peter refuses to accept that Jesus would offer this kind of superior teaching to a woman and that He preferred her instead of them. Levi intervenes and defends her, urging the disciples to preach the Gospel as Jesus had urged them to. The Gospel ends at this point, but the disagreement between the disciples seems not to have been resolved.14 At this point, it is worth discussing the controversy that existed between the disciples. This discussion is centered around the validity of the tradition claimed by Mary Magdalene. The way in which Mary Magdalene and Levi are shown, on the one hand, and Peter and Andrew, on the other hand, makes clear that the author of Mary’s Gospel supports the position of Mary Magdalene as a spiritual authority, and the legitimacy of the spiritual leadership of women. The validity of the teaching of Mary and the privileged position against Peter’s accusations that Jesus wouldn’t reveal a special revelation to a woman, confirms the validity of the spiritual power of women. For the author of Mary’s Gospel, Peter and Andrew’s attitude represents those Christians who restrict authentic teaching to that only communicated by men. In such a society, and especially among Christians, where women are restricted from any leadership task, Mary’s Gospel provides another perspective.15

The Gospel of Philip In the Gospel of Philip, Mary Magdalene has a key role and was the cause of one of the most controversial claims about herself but, in this text,

14

Karen L. King, Jesus and the first woman apostle, the Gospel of Mary, ȝİIJȐijȡĮıȘ, 2008, p.17-20. 15 Annti Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved, Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents, E.J. Brill, Leiden- New York- Kऺln 1996, p. 122.

144

Chapter Ten

some points are missing, which bothers the scholars. Jesus and Mary seem to have had a special relationship. She was His favorite companion.16 In the Gospel of Philip, there is no particular reason for Mary Magdalene to be characterized as the companion of the Lord. Apart from the Gospel of Philip, Mary Magdalene is not mentioned in any other text with this characterization. Moreover, this description is not assigned to any other disciple in the surviving early Christian writings. Interpretation of the word is complicated by the fact that the greek word “communicant” may have a wide range of meanings. In the Bible, for example, “communicant” can be used to denote the spouse in marriage, a partner in faith, and a partner in spreading the Gospel,17 or a partner in a job18 (Lk. 5, 10).19 The text of the Gospel of Philip is positioned at two different levels. In one, we see the symbolism of Christ’s love for the Church in the person of Mary Magdalene; in the other, the representation of a historical situation in which the female element of the Church is symbolized. As we have already seen, taking for granted the preferential treatment that Mary Magdalene receives from Christ in both gospels (Mary’s and Philip’s), this is the reason for the jealousy of the other apostles, especially Peter’s.20

The Gospel of Thomas In the Gospel of Thomas, Mary is one of the six disciples who is named and one of the five who speak. The other partners are Peter, Matthew, Thomas and Salome. In answer to Peter’s proposal that Magdalene not be allowed to follow the disciples and Jesus, because a woman is not worthy of life, Jesus says that he will guide her Himself to make her a man, because every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. So, while in the Gospel of Magdalene women and men are equal in trying to overcome the differences of their gender to become perfect humans, this perspective in the Gospel of Thomas is addressed only to women. In this way, Magdalene has a special place in the call of Jesus 16

Esther De Boer, The Mary Magdalene, Cover-Up, The Sources Behind the Myth, T & T Clark, 2006, p.20 17 Ǻ’ Cor. 8,23. 18 Annti Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved, Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents, E.J. Brill, Leiden- New York- Kऺln 1996, p. 151. 19 Lk. 5,10. 20 Susan Haskins, Myth and Metaphor, New York 1996, p. 39.

Mary Magdalene and the Deaconesses

145

Himself, to guide her Himself.21 In the Gospel of Thomas, the term “man” has a different meaning than it does in the early Church: a return to the primitive state, meaning androgyny rather than “male”; eliminating the flesh, the natural distinction between a man and a woman.22 So if the passage is authentic, then Jesus appears to encourage women to be released from any inferiority syndrome in relation to men and deal with their gender as being equal with them. In conclusion, it could be argued that this passage (114) gives equal opportunity to Mary Magdalene and the other women in respect of salvation, in contrast with the men.23

Pistis Sophia The text “Pistis Sofia” consists of a series of revelations that Jesus makes to His disciples. Mary Magdalene is distinguished among the other disciples of Jesus: she asks more questions than the other disciples and is the only one of Jesus’ seven female followers to be mentioned by name. These seven women are there alongside the twelve disciples and listen to the words of Jesus before His ascension. Jesus admires Mary because He realizes that she has become a perfect and pure spirit, and He praises her by calling her “pure and spiritual” (Pistis Sofia 87). Mary Magdalene is on the side of purity of spirit and light which is why, even though she belongs to the female sex, she is highly ranked in the class of Gnostics.24

The Sophia of Jesus Christ In the text “Sophia of Jesus Christ”, the presence of the twelve disciples and seven women is distinguished. Each of them, in turn, asks Jesus questions. Mary Magdalene, who is called Mariammi in this text, receives special treatment. She is the only woman who is mentioned by name.25 21

Ingrid Maisch, Mary Magdalene, The Image of a Woman through the Centuries, Collegeville, Minnesota 1998, p.28. 22 Francois Bovon, New Testament Traditions And Apocryphal Narratives, Translated by Jane Haapiseva- Hunter, U.S.A., 1995, p.151. 23 Antti Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved, Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents, E.J. Brill, Leiden- New York- Kऺln, 1996, p.48-55. 24 Ingrid Maisch, Mary Magdalene, The Image of a Woman through the Centuries, Collegeville, Minnesota 1998, p.23. 25 Francois Bovon, New Testament Traditions And Apocryphal Narratives, Translated by Jane Haapiseva- Hunter, U.S.A., 1995, p.152.

146

Chapter Ten

The First Apocalypse of Jacob The First Apocalypse of Jacob names Mary Magdalene, together with three other women, Salome, Martha and Arsinoe. These four women are probably part of the group of seven, about whom Jacob asks Jesus, “who are these women who became your disciples? I predict that all women will praise you.”26 All seven female disciples of the Lord are spiritually equipped in a special way, but Salome, Mary Magdalene, Martha and Arsinoe are introduced as excellent examples of the group: women by whom even Jacob can be taught.27

The Dialogue of the Saviour The Dialogue of the Saviour, another text from the library of Nag Hammadi, is a revealing dialogue between the Lord and His disciples, specifically named as Matthew, Judas and Mary. In this text, Mary is described as one of the three disciples selected to receive special teaching by Jesus. But Mary is the more important than the two other disciples because “she speaks like a woman who understands everything.”28 In this specific text, Mary Magdalene does not represent a group of women and there is no reference to any other woman in The Dialogue of the Saviour. Together with Judas and Matthew, Magdalene acts as representative of the apostles who are presented as a group.29 The Dialogue of the Saviour praises Magdalene not only as a visionary, but as the apostle ahead of all the others. She is the “woman who knows everything.”30 From the above, it follows that the image of Mary Magdalene, as illustrated in cognitive literature, is rooted in tradition, as demonstrated in the canonical gospels; Mary Magdalene and the women from Galilee were the first to see the risen.

26

J. Schaberg, Resurrection of Mary Magdalene, legends, apocrypha, and the Christian testament, Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004, p.137. 27 Antti Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved, Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents, E.J. Brill, Leiden- New York- Kऺln, 1996, p.135-136. 28 Raymond F. Collins, “Mary Magdalene”, The Anchor Bible Dictionary on CDROM, Logos Library System, Version 2.1a, 1997. 29 Antti Marjanen, The Woman Jesus Loved, Mary Magdalene in the Nag Hammadi Library and Related Documents, E.J. Brill, Leiden- New York- Kऺln, 1996, p.78. 30 The Dialogue of the Saviour, 139,12-13.

Mary Magdalene and the Deaconesses

147

By looking through the reports of cognitive texts about Magdalene, this power of her personality is further strengthened. As we have seen, her leadership is especially emphasized in the Gnostic scriptures, even though it is not mentioned in the normal texts of the New Testament. Summarizing all the data by examining the cognitive texts in which Magdalene has a leading part, we come to the following conclusions: The person of Mary Magdalene in the Gnostic is outlined as follows: 1) She is prefixed among the followers of Jesus; 2) She is distinguished as a character and described in the texts with masculine language and patriarchal ideology; 3) She talks with courage; 4) She is a leader among the male disciples; 5) She is a visionary; 6) She is praised for her superior understanding; 7) She is presented as the closest communicant of Jesus; 8) She is opposed to open conflict with one or more of the disciples; 9) Jesus defends her. It is worth mentioning that there is no reference in Gnostic texts to Mary Magdalene as being sinful or a prostitute, which proves that these ideas belong to subsequent traditions.31

Conclusions Mary Magdalene is undoubtedly a living example of the justification for the ministry of women, the role played by women in spreading the message of the Gospel, and the fine-tuning of early Christian communities. Magdalene followed Jesus from the beginning of His mission and reached up to the cross, to His suffering. Throughout His earthly work she was close to Him. All the evangelists point out that Magdalene has a central position in the inner circle of Jesus’ disciples. The argument about “feminine apostleship” and opposition with Peter, and the issue of the position of women in general, has been associated with her name. The way by which Magdalene is presented, along with the other female followers of Jesus, leads to the conclusion that the traditional role of women is reversed. The conflict between Peter, Andrew (and the male disciples in general) and Magdalene reflects the dispute over the authority of the female gender. Specifically, Mary’s Gospel and faith wisdom present Mary Magdalene as the female figure who holds the authority of teaching and therefore represents it for all women. In this dispute about the power and influence of women in early Christianity, Magdalene provides a strong argument about the right and authenticity of the teaching and ministry of women.

31

Susan Haskins, Myth and Metaphor, New York 1996, p.35.

148

Chapter Ten

Mary Magdalene works along the same lines as Thekla, who is as wellconsidered as an example of a woman’s right to baptize. Magdalene’s personality was of particular importance in the circle of Christian women but, unlike Thekla, who is not mentioned anywhere in the canonical texts of the New Testament, the mention of Magdalene’s name is particularly important; the mention of her name proves that the participation of women in teaching and ministering worked in the ancient church. In conclusion, the impact of the person of Mary Magdalene in early Christianity offers a wide range of interpretations, while the question of the female gender and the role of women in general is raised. In the case of Magdalene, we have a model of disciple who teaches, interprets, preaches, and comforts the disciples. She is an apostle and an example of faith and ministry, which cannot be overlooked, at least in regard to the issue of the sacramental priesthood of deaconesses.

CHAPTER ELEVEN ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL CRITERIA FROM 1 PETER FOR WOMEN’S ORDINATION IN THE CHURCH ARTHUR J. KEEFER

Abstract: The Orthodox Church’s discussion on the ordination of women involves not only theology, history, and tradition, but also society. Non-Christian societies offer complementary, alternative, and sometimes ambiguous views on the issues central to the ordination of women. Matters such as male and female identity, leadership structure, and human value enter ecclesial dialogue not only from inside Orthodox and non-Orthodox churches but also from outside. In the context of the Church’s relationship with non-Christian culture, therefore, what theological criteria should it use to examine the issue of women’s ordination? Orthodox theologians have overlooked a valuable source of evidence when answering this question, namely, the First Epistle of Peter. The apostle Peter wrote to Christians who were asking questions about their role in the Church in a secular society. While the epistle does not directly address women’s ordination, it contextually resembles the Church’s 21st century situation. In this paper, I will examine the theological criteria that Peter used to guide the Church. How did he employ canonical, liturgical, Trinitarian, Christological, ecclesiological, eschatological, and sociological theologies? I will then consider the significance of his criteria for the current question of women’s ordination in theology and, specifically, in the Orthodox Church.

Introduction The issue of women’s ordination in the Eastern Orthodox Church involves not only theology, church tradition and history but also society, particularly secular society. In 1976, at the Agapia consultation for Orthodox Christian women, Elisabeth Behr-Sigel commented that silence had been imposed upon Orthodox females “not by the genuine tradition of

150

Chapter Eleven

the Church, but by social customs and conventions.”1 Secular society holds and expresses views on matters pertinent to the issues involved in ordination, such as male and female identity, leadership structure, and human value. Most importantly, these views often influence the Church. Orthodox theologians bolster these claims regarding the significance of secular society for the Church. Kalliope Bourdara writes that, “in today’s society there is a tragic denial of the value of human life. I believe that we Orthodox have a duty to uphold the value of the human person, female as well as male […] the church must always test over and over again the realities, the opinions, and the effects that fail to correspond to unshakable theological and ecclesiological principles, but which have insidiously crept in from elsewhere.”2 Implicit in Bourdara's comments are the criteria required for testing the values offered by secular society. For the Orthodox Church, this task demands theological criteria. But what criteria should the Church employ to evaluate the competing voices of culture? Theologians have approached the issue from the perspectives of Christology and tradition,3 history, ecclesiology, and the Trinity.4 Darko Djogo argues for a liturgical and Trinitarian basis for what he calls “social/political theology,” a concept that explores the interaction between Eastern and Western churches, and the Orthodox Church’s relation to culture. He writes: “Liturgy is the most important act and fact of the Orthodox Church,” and concludes that authentic social/political theology arises from witnessing “its Trinitarian fundaments.”5 However, few Orthodox theologians have employed the Old and New Testaments as 1

Quoted in Philip Kariatlis, “The Role of Women in the Orthodox Church” Phronema 21 (2006) 33. 2 Kalliope Bourdara, “The Ordination of Women” ATR 84/3 (2002) 686; Stanley Harakas, “Orthodox Christianity in American Public Life” GOTR 56 (2011) 387– 388: Regarding the Church’s involvement with pluralism, Harakas states, “that is a challenge that Orthodox Christianity has not fully resolved.” Why? Because, he continues, “the truth is that there is little experience in Orthodox history, thought, or practice that helps the Orthodox Church deal with pluralism.” 3 Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, “The Ordination of Women” SVTQ 48 (2004) 56, 61; she claims the “patriarchal structure” is justified by Christ as the model priest in culture and by tradition. 4 Vigen Guroian, “The Problem of an Orthodox Social Ethic” JES 21/4 (1984) 718, 722, 723. 5 Darko Djogo, “Trinity, Society, and ‘Political Theology’” IJOT 3/2 (2012) 103, 112; cf. Harakas, who searches for theological resources to help the Church, selecting “core theological affirmations of Orthodox theology” and “theologically rooted sociology” (377). See also Daniela Kakandjieva, “A Comparative Analysis on Church-State Relations in Eastern Orthodoxy” JCS 53/4 (2011) 587–614.

Orthodox Theological Criteria from 1 Peter

151

theological lenses. They have overlooked a valuable source of evidence when answering the criteria question: scripture. I contend that the First Epistle of Peter features theological criteria for the Church that will guide the treatment of women's ordination. I will examine the First Epistle of Peter, because the context of the letter fits with our contemporary context; both contexts concern the Church’s relationship with society. The apostle Peter wrote to Christians who were asking questions regarding their role in the Church in a secular society. While the epistle does not directly address women’s ordination, it contextually resembles the Church’s 21st century situation. I will examine the theological criteria that Peter used to guide the Church. How did he employ canonical, liturgical, Trinitarian, Christological, ecclesiological, eschatological, and sociological theologies? I will then consider the significance of his criteria for the current question of women’s ordination for theology and the Orthodox Church.

The Context of 1 Peter Peter's title for his audience reveals the context of the letter. He addresses the churches scattered throughout Asia Minor as “elect exiles” (1:1) and “sojourners and exiles” (2:11). The term ʌĮȡİʌȓįȘȝȠȚ often translated as “exiles,” “foreigners,” or “resident aliens,” suggests that his readers lived within a cultural alternative to the Church, a contrast created due to their identity as Christians. Peter announces their new birth in Christ almost immediately (1:3), those “born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (ESV). Miroslav Volf states: “They are not outsiders who either seek to become insiders or maintain strenuously the status of outsiders. Christians are the insiders who have diverted from their culture by being born again. They are by definition those who are not what they used to be, those who do not live like they used to live.”6 If Peter’s audience became “exiles” because of their new identity in Christ, then their situation pertains to the current state of the Church. As Karen Jobes infers, “Peter would be transforming the personal situation of those to whom he writes into a powerful spiritual metaphor more broadly applicable to Christians living anywhere that society’s values clashed with those of the gospel.”7 Peter not only writes to an audience dealing with the tension between Church and culture, his letter also informs the Church’s 6 7

Miroslav Volf, “Soft Difference” Ex Auditu 10 (1994) 18–19. Karen Jobes, 1 Peter (BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005) 26–27.

152

Chapter Eleven

present struggle, as we continue to live as the Church (and in that sense as ʌĮȡİʌȓįȘȝȠȚ) in a secular society. Peter addresses seven problems resulting from social pressure, one of which includes, “a surrounding, seductive non-Christian worldview.”8 After underscoring the Church’s identity as a new people in Christ (1:1– 2:10), Peter counters secular temptation by instructing the church regarding the roles of slaves and masters (2:18–25), and the relationship between husbands and wives (3:1–7). He introduces and concludes these topics by addressing the Church’s relationship with the government and society as a whole (2:11–17; 3:8–12). The remainder of the letter focuses on the Church’s suffering (3:13–4:19), with closing comments on elders and encouragement (5:1–14). We will examine the four parts in the central section of the letter (2:11–3:12), because Peter most explicitly addresses the conflicting values of Church and society. He begins with general guidelines, then moves to servants and marriage, and closes with general instructions. In these four sections, Peter employs theological criteria to support his argument or make his point. I will ask what criteria he uses and how they relate to each other.

1 Peter 2:11–17 Peter begins with general ethical admonitions (2:11–12) and transitions to more defined instructions for the Church’s relationship with Roman society (2:13–17). In verses 11–12, he urges good and honorable conduct among Church members before Gentile society, so that the outsiders might see their “good deeds and glorify God on the day of visitation” (2:12b). The Church, he writes, living in a secular society, should act honorably when Gentiles speak against it, because when they see your good deeds, they may glorify God. His concluding phrase indicates the theological criteria for his statement: “the Gentiles will glorify God on the day of visitation” (2:12). Commentators do not entirely agree on the specifics of what the phrase refers to. Some argue that Peter has condemnation in view, while others see the verse referring to a salvific outcome. Thomas Schreiner convincingly argues that Gentiles will glorify God on the day of visitation, because they witnessed the good deeds of the Church and thus became believers.9 Yet, despite disagreement, all contend that it constitutes an eschatological 8

Jobes, 43. Thomas Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude (NAC; Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2003) 123–124; see for opposing views.

9

Orthodox Theological Criteria from 1 Peter

153

issue. In Peter's introductory admonitions for the Church’s relationship to society (2:11–12), therefore, he offers eschatological criteria. In 2:13–17, Peter continues the pattern set in verses 11–12, that the Church should practice good conduct and so influence the surrounding culture (2:16). Yet in this passage, he grounds the instruction in an alternative criterion: the person and will of God. The section begins with a key term in Peter’s discourse: “be subject” (ȣʌȠIJȐııȦ). This term introduces the two following sections regarding slaves (2:18) and marriage (3:1). In 2:13, Peter commands the Church to “be subject” to all human institutions, underscoring political powers, but in his concluding verse, expands the command to all aspects of life and society. He writes: “Honor everyone. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor” (2:17). In this passage we see a conflict of values between the Church and secular society. Karen Jobes writes: “The Greco-Roman worldview was concerned with the pragmatic benefits of social stability; the Christian view of submission is concerned with honoring transcendent theological values that ought to capture the heart of believers and transform them within all of their relationships.”10 The Roman world based its behavior on maintaining social norms; the Church, by contrast, appealed to theological values. So, while Peter does not override social stability or advocate revolution, he does not ground his commands in Roman values but rather, grounds them theologically. At 2:13, he writes: “be subject for the Lord’s sake […] For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people” (2:13a, 15) and thus, Peter commands honorable behavior for the Church in society based on God's honor and will. Through these theological criteria — as well as the phrase, “living as servants of God” (2:16) — Peter prepares his readers for the sections to follow, where he develops the identity of servanthood and grounds his instructions in more theological criteria.

1 Peter 2:18–25 In 2:18–25, Peter addresses the servant population of the Church. He commands that they “be subject” to their masters, whether serving the just or unjust. He focuses on the outcome of submissive servanthood: that is, suffering. Peter twice claims that “this is a gracious thing” (2:19, 20) and, more importantly, a gracious thing “in the sight of God” (2:20) or “when, mindful of God” (2:19). A “gracious” thing can refer to a reward (Luke 10

Jobes, 210.

154

Chapter Eleven

6:32–35); Peter’s reference to “credit” (2:20) suggests that the gracious thing corresponds to the believer’s eschatological inheritance, noted at 1:3–5.11 While maintaining the emphasis on God's judgment, Peter shifts from eschatology to other criteria. The remainder of the passage reveals that his appeal to God entails Trinitarian and Christological theology. Peter links the Christian servant’s suffering with the suffering of Christ, claiming that “to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps” (2:21). Elliott combines the previous references to God’s will with the appeal to Christ’s example when he claims that “it is the will of their God and judge, and the model of their Lord who subordinated himself to God’s will as an obedient suffering servant, that serve as the paramount and distinctive motivations for this behavior […] the subordination of Jesus Christ himself to God’s will as God’s servant provides the paramount model for Christian subordination.”12 Peter’s theological criteria for 2:18–25, therefore, clearly includes Christology but, he does not stop there. The explanation of Jesus’ suffering includes a collection of terms from Isaiah. While omitting a direct quotation, Peter's phrases in 2:20–25 echo the Septuagint of Isaiah 53 and the portrayal of the suffering servant.13 Why does Peter use Isaiah’s words to address the issue of unjust suffering? There is a hint at 2:23, as the suffering servant “continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly.” Peter attributes a Trinitarian model of suffering, whereby the servant entrusts himself to the Father. Jobes concludes that when the Church’s servants suffer because of faithfulness to Christ, it is actually “evidence that, like the Messiah, they have been chosen of God.”14 In short, while Peter employs societal terms and honors the order of society in general, he ultimately derives his model for submission from another source. In 2:18–25, he mentions eschatology but most prominently forwards Christological, Trinitarian, and scriptural theological criteria to command submission among servants in the Church. Did Christ’s model apply only to slaves, excluding all other members of the Church? No. For in the previous passage (and at a later reference), Peter addresses all believers as servants of God (2:16) who, like GrecoRoman servants, suffer unjustly and heed God’s will (cf. 2:15, 19; 3:14– 15). So, through an extended address to the social slave, Peter forwards “a 11

Schreiner, 138–140. John Elliott, 1 Peter (AB; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 488; Jobes notes that suffering did not appear in non-Christian household codes (191). 13 Jobes, 192–194; cf. particularly Isaiah 53:6–12. 14 Jobes, 200. 12

Orthodox Theological Criteria from 1 Peter

155

paradigm for the Christian believer who follows Jesus Christ.”15 The instructions, the model, and theological criteria apply for all members of the Church.

1 Peter 3:1–7 Peter opens his section on marriage by addressing wives and repeating the verb ȣʌȠIJȐııȦ (“be subject”; 3:1). We cannot explore the full meaning of this passage, either its controversial or uncontroversial portions, but must focus on the values that conflict between the Roman and Christian world, and the theological criteria that support Peter’s position. In the first place, Peter implicitly uses sociological criteria. Darko Djogo defines Christian sociology as “a living in the community of the existential values which are based in the Divine Community of Three Persons of the same essence.”16 It is a communal reflection of divine values and Peter thus affirms the authority of the husband, as appropriate in Roman society, and also encourages virtues recognized by Greek philosophy, such as the wives’ subordination, loyalty, and honor to maintain domestic harmony and a good reputation.17 However, he offers neither the wife or husband a value system as motivation but instead links marital posture with the model of a servant. So, he follows the passage about servants (2:18–25) with “likewise” and repeats the verb “be subject” (3:1). As we have found, this refers not simply to social servant-master relations but holds the example of Christ as a mirror for the entire Church. Marriage is therefore modelled on the divine community. In the midst of sociological theology, Peter forwards the “authority and example of the crucified and resurrected Christ”18 and does not, therefore, wreck the sociological order of his readers; he subverts secular society by exchanging the proper motivational model. Peter’s subversion also includes scripture. He appeals to Sarah as one who is obedient and submissive to her husband (3:6), and therefore not only subverts the culture’s criteria but adds one: The Old Testament. However, Peter does not quote or even allude to a specific passage.19 He may have Genesis 18 in mind but, more significantly, we know that Sarah recurs in Jewish texts as a symbol of virtue.20 So, as Peter does draw on 15

Jobes, 180. Djogo, 96. 17 Elliott, 554–555. 18 Jobes, 204. 19 Jobes, 206. 20 Elliott claims Peter alludes to Genesis 18, drawing parallels with 18:1–3. 16

156

Chapter Eleven

the narrative scriptures, he inclines more towards tradition in his appeal to an Old Testament figure. Finally, Peter instructs husbands to live with their wives “in an understanding way” because “they are heirs with you of the grace of life” (3:7). The term ıȣȖțȜȘȡȠȞȩȝȠȢ (heir or “co-heir”) refers to Christian kinship and a common share in the “inheritance” mentioned at 1:4.21 This inheritance most likely represents an eschatological inheritance; one realized at the consummation of the world, as revealed by the context of 1:4. Peter describes the inheritance in terms that match the eternal realm: “imperishable, undefiled, and unfading” (1:4). In short, in the context of competing marital values, Peter offers sociological, scriptural, traditional, and eschatological criteria for the Church, with undertones of the Christology established in Chapter 2.

1 Peter 3:8–12 Peter begins the final section by re-expanding his address to every member of the Church. “All of you,” (3:8) he writes, “have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind.” Most of these terms reflect virtues that appear in familial contexts in Hellenistic literature22 but, as mentioned in the martial context, Peter does not here attach Greek values to the divine community and, therefore, probably does not have sociological criteria in mind. However, with more clarity we read in verse 9: “Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless.” This probably reflects Jesus’ admonitions in Luke 6:27– 28, when he says: “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you.”23 So, rather than ancient Jewish tradition, as with Sarah in 3:6, Peter takes instruction for the Church as a whole from the transmitted teaching tradition of Jesus himself. Moreover, based on logical order, it seems that his blessing passage in verse 9 qualifies the virtues mentioned in verse 8. Peter's list of virtues in 3:8 does not entirely concur with non-Christian society. According to Elliott, “in the highly competitive and stratified world of Greco-Roman antiquity, only those of degraded social status were ‘humble,’ and humility was regarded as a sign of weakness and However, he also cites Philo and Josephus, who reference Sarah as a model of womanhood with less concern for a particular Old Testament account (571–572). 21 Elliott, 580. 22 Jobes, 214. 23 Similar phrases occur throughout the New Testament corpus, suggesting it does mark an oral tradition (Schreiner, 164).

Orthodox Theological Criteria from 1 Peter

157

shame.”24 Peter concludes his virtue list with a trait incongruent with secular society, transitioning to a total override in verse 9. Blessing, when put in the place of cursing, reverses rather than affirms the Hellenistic values mentioned at the outset. Again, Peter espouses culture but not wholeheartedly. He subverts secular sociological criteria with theological tradition. Finally, in 3:10–12, Peter quotes Psalm 34:12–16 at length with language that resembles the text of the Septuagint. Within this quote, we see the Lord’s favor and disfavor as the primary criteria (3:12), a perspective similar to those in preceding passages. Closing his section on particular topics of Church and society relations, Peter offers theological criteria from tradition and scripture.

Conclusions on Theological Criteria In 2:11–3:12, Peter instructs the church in its relationship with society, a scenario that resembles our modern context. Through four sub-sections, he employs criteria from God's will and honor: eschatological; Christological; traditional; scriptural, Trinitarian and sociological theologies. How are these significant for the Orthodox Church today? Based on his use of these categories, I will draw a few conclusions intended to aid the issue of women's ordination. First, the motif of Christ as servant permeates three of the four sections. Peter grounds the exiles’ identity in Christ, which produces their alternative relationship to secular society and thus produces the letter. This suggests that Christology stands as the fundamental theological criterion for Peter’s instructions. Second, a Trinitarian aspect arises in every section, as Peter references the Church’s relation to God the Father as reflected in Christ’s relation to him. This affirms why theological criteria are theological: they depend upon God. Since its foundation, God has ruled and protected His Church. We must thus depend upon the Lord in the midst of difficult questions, divisions, and theological controversy. Third, Peter does not appear to employ canonical, liturgical, or ecclesial criteria. This may sound anachronistic, but it lends significant insights. What the Orthodox Church now considers canonical theology, I might align with Peter's use of tradition. While his tradition stems from material affirmed by God's authoritative spokespersons, it constitutes scripture, or the words of Jesus himself. Today’s Church, therefore, when creating or revising canons, ought to adhere to biblical norms. Peter's 24

Elliott, 605.

158

Chapter Eleven

dearth of liturgical and ecclesial criteria may be due to the infancy of the 1st century church. However, it only illuminates those criteria he does feature, which leads to the fourth point. Peter does not readily forward sociological theology but, rather, emphasizes Christology, scripture, Trinitarian and eschatological criteria. I am not claiming that the Church should not use ecclesial or sociological theologies but, based on 1 Peter, I do argue that when considering theological matters influenced by secular society, the Church should not favor ecclesial and sociological perspectives. Peter incorporates society, typically in the form of Greco-Roman virtue terms, yet consistently subverts these with theological criteria, particularly Christ's teaching tradition and scripture (3:1–7, 8–12). This suggests that today's Church ought to be wary of cultural norms, especially on issues that pertain to women's ordination, such as male and female identity, leadership structure, and human value. Furthermore, the Church should evaluate these views with scripture. I do not have space here to elaborate further on how these findings inform women's ordination in the Orthodox Church, but I hope to have provided some firm and convincing conclusions regarding the theological criteria that the church should employ and avoid when deciding upon, conversing about, or evaluating such an important matter.

CHAPTER TWELVE MARTHA AND MARY AS MODELS OF CHRISTIAN WITNESS NIKI PAPAGEORGIOU

Abstract: The New Testament, as a primary source that depicts the experience of the early Christian communities, is always open to the search for an authentic way of living. In particular, the meeting of Christ with women, as narrated in the evangelical texts, delineates various diaconal models in the ecclesiastical and broader social field. In those passages, one can identify several models of women's activities and roles, which reflect the multifaceted aspects of what women can offer, as well as the possibilities for the development of women's dynamism and potential. In this paper, using the two evangelical images of Martha and Maria as a starting point, an effort is made to set up two distinct female models so as to better investigate the actual and desired roles that women are called to play in the Orthodox Church and, consequently, the nature and character of the diaconal work that corresponds to each one of them.

1. Introduction It should be made clear from the beginning that diaconal issues do not concern only women, but also men, clergy and laity, as it is a fundamental constituent element of the organization of Christian life.1 This evangelical term may be used for a wide range of humanitarian and social activities, from the simplest, such as the propriety and good function of churches, to the most organized forms of social care and social work in ecclesiastic communities.2 In the early Christian communities, the term was used to 1

See, Ȃt 23, 11, Ȃk 10, 45, Lk 22, 27, Acts 6, 1-3, Rom 12, 15. For diaconia in early Christian communities, see: Petros Vasiliadis, ǺȚȕȜȚțȑȢ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȑȢ ȝİȜȑIJİȢ, P. Pournaras, Thessaloniki 1992, p. 359; Ioannis Galanis, ǺȚȕȜȚțȑȢ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȑȢ țĮȚ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ȝİȜȑIJİȢ, P. Pournaras, Thessaloniki 2001, pp. 226-255. For diaconia in general, see: Christos Tsironis, ȆĮȖțȠıȝȚȠʌȠȓȘıȘ țĮȚ IJȠʌȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJİȢ. ȈȣȝȕȠȜȒ ıIJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ ȘșȚțȒ țĮȚ IJȠ țȠȚȞȠIJȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ, Vanias, 2

160

Chapter Twelve

express activities based on love and care for the other that resulted from the Eucharistic and eschatological ethos of the new reality inaugurated by Christ.3 Diaconia was shaped as a fundamental principle aimed at regulating not only early Christian life, but the subsequent historical course of the Church in general. Its implementation has been conducive to the organization of various institutionalized Christian foundations that offer multi-dimensional social care and specialized community services that affect ecclesiastical life, as well as broader social life, right up to and including the present time.4 In addition, it is used as a terminus technicus for institutional roles, such as deacon or deaconess, which were introduced in the early Church to cover the liturgical functional needs of community. Yet, later on, with the institutionalization of Church, it developed further to become the first rank of priesthood and was exclusively connected to men. By excluding women, it contributed to shaping a hierarchical and patriarchal ecclesiastical institution.5 The diaconal issue is interesting because it implicitly opens the debate on power, as there is an underlying “game” between the institutionalized form of diaconia and the demand for power. At this point, it is worth mentioning Christ’s well-known reversal between diaconia and power. The discussion becomes even more interesting when women are socially linked with diaconia. On the other side, there is usually male power, with the former being the legitimate holders of the latter.6 In the social sciences, Thessaloniki 2007, pp. 174-194, Kjetil Fretheim, “Dimensions of diaconia: the public, political and prophetic”, Diaconia 4/1 (2013) 67-80. 3 See, for example, «įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ IJȠȣ ȜȩȖȠȣ», Acts 6,4, «įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ IJȡĮʌİȗȫȞ», Acts 6,2, «įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ IJȘȢ įȚțĮȚȠıȪȞȘȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ țĮIJĮȜȜĮȖȒȢ» Ǻ’ ȀȠȡ. 3,9 țĮȚ Ǻ’ ȀȠȡ. 5,18, See, relatively, Petros Vasiliadis, ȋȐȡȚȢ – țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ- įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ. ȅ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩȢ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮȢ IJȠȣ ȆĮȪȜİȚȠȣ ʌȡȠȖȡȐȝȝĮIJȠȢ IJȘȢ ȁȠȖİȓĮȢ, Thessaloniki 1985. 4 See: Christos Tsironis, «ǻȚĮțȠȞȓĮ: Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ʌȡȫIJİȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJİȢ ȦȢ IJȠ ǺȣȗȐȞIJȚȠ», in Ioannis Petrou (ed.), ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮȢ, v. 2, Road, Athens 2009, pp. 566-601. 5 See: Moschos Goutzioudis, «Ǿ ȠȡȖȐȞȦıȘ țĮȚ Ș ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮIJȐ IJȠȣȢ IJȡİȚȢ ʌȡȫIJȠȣȢ ĮȚȫȞİȢ», in Ioannis Petrou (ed.), ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮȢ, v. 1, Road, Athens 2009, pp. 362-429. 6 See: Linda Carli, “Gender, Interpersonal Power and Social Influence,” Journal of Social Issues 55/1 (1999) 81-99; Paula Johnson “Women and Power: Toward a Theory of Effectiveness”, Journal of Social Issues 32/3 (1976) 99-110; Alice Eagly & Antonio Mladinic, “Gender Stereotypes and Attitudes Toward Women and Men”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15/4 (1989) 543-558; Alice Eagly, Antonio Mladinic, & Stacey Otto, “Are women evaluated more favourably than men?” Psychology of Women Quarterly 15/2 (1991) 2013-216.

Martha and Mary as Models of Christian Witness

161

the unequal distribution of power is inseparably connected with women’s issues as it is considered to be an integral part of gender discrimination.7 This does not necessarily mean that the diaconia with which women have identified should be considered demeaning for them, as care may indeed constitute a “feminine matter.”8 The emergence of this point of view is due to the creation of a tendency in the field of ethics, especially feminist ethics, directly related to the ethics of care. According to this, the ethical behavior of women is primarily determined by their interest in and care for others, rather than by abstract and rigid rules.9 Empirical research affirms that women are more likely than men to be involved in voluntary work.10 Women are more active in the filed of social and health services.11 In addition, other studies refer to the phenomenon of so-called “feminine philanthropy”, highlighting the fact that many charities are a privileged field of female activity.12 Moreover, common observation confirms the multifaceted social and philanthropic work of women in the Church, as many of them offer their services voluntarily in parishes. It is true that these activities are considered to be perfectly normal to feminine nature but, is this sufficient for the recognition of equal status of women within the Church? Can this cover the broad range of potential that women can offer or should women be given more leadership roles? It can only be expected that further questions regarding the nature and expression of feminine diaconia will arise. What is its nature and what form could it take? Does it simply have a philanthropic character or should 7

See, Linda Woodhead, “Gender Differences in religious practices and significance”, in James Beckford and N. J. Demerath III (eds.), The Sage Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, Sage Publications, London 2007, pp. 566586, Lorraine H. Radtke & Henderikus J. Stam, Power/Gender: Social Relations in Theory and Practice, Sage Publications Ltd, London 1994. 8 See, Joan Tronto, Moral Boundaries. A Political Argument for an Ethic of Care, Routledge, New York / London 1993. 9 See, Julia Driver, ǾșȚțȒ ijȚȜȠıȠijȓĮ. ȅȚ ȕĮıȚțȑȢ IJȘȢ ĮȡȤȑȢ, transl. & ed, ǿ.ȃ. ȂĮȡțȩʌȠȣȜȠȢ, University Studio Press, Thessaloniki 2010, pp.207-225, James Rachels / Stuart Rachels, ȈIJȠȚȤİȓĮ ȘșȚțȒȢ ijȚȜȠıȠijȓĮȢ, transl. ȄİȞȠijȫȞ ȂʌĮȝȚĮIJȗȩȖȜȠȣ, ed. ĭȚȜȒȝȦȞ ȆĮȚȠȞȓįȘȢ, Okto, Athens 2012, pp.201-214. 10 See, P. Polyzoidis, ǼșİȜȠȞIJȚıȝȩȢ ıIJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ ʌȡȠıIJĮıȓĮ, Ellinika Grammata, Athens 2006, Protopresb.Vasileios Kalliakmanis, ǼșİȜȠȞIJȚıȝȩȢ țĮȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ İȣșȪȞȘ, Mygdonia, Thessaloniki 2002. 11 See, K. Gaskin & J. D. Smith, A New Civic Europe? A Study of the Extend and Role of Volunteering, The National Volunteering Center, London, 1997, ı. 37. 12 See, W. C. Richardson, Women’s Philanthropy. Untapped Resources, Unlimited Potential: An Opportunity for Philanthropy and Communities, W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek 2000.

162

Chapter Twelve

it acquire a more functional one? Is it enough for it to be defined as an informal contribution to the social work of the Church or should it acquire a more formal character with official recognition? Is it simply a theological matter or should it acquire a social dimension? The New Testament, as the primary source of mapping the experience of the first Christian communities, is an ideal text in which to search for an authentic way of living. In the gospels, there are many models of feminine activities and roles that reflect the multifaceted aspects of feminine diaconia and put emphasis on feminine dynamism and potential.13 Wellknown women, such as the Myrofores, the Samaritan woman, the sisters of Lazarus, Martha and Mary, Mary Magdalene, Elisabeth, Joanna, and, par excellence, Maria the Theotokos, Mother of Jesus, as well as many anonymous women constitute ideal models of diaconal action for women in the ecclesiastical field. Particularly interesting are the references to Martha and Mary as, through their oppositional but complementary aspects, they may contribute to an understanding of the functional roles of women while also delineating feminine models of action in the Church. Jesus’ saying, “Martha, Martha, you are worried and distracted by many things; but there is only one thing needful. Mary has chosen the better part, which will not be taken away from her,” goes beyond the conventional attitudes of that time and paves the way for the creation of new diaconal roles for women. The two evangelical images of Martha and Mary describe two different perceptions of women which, in their turn, “prescribe” the different roles that women are called to play in the Church.14 They may be used as ideal types, as models, in our effort to better approach the position of women in the Church and the roles entailed. At this point, it is necessary to make clear that this approach is not a biblical hermeneutical reading but an attempt at sociological analysis using sociological tools, such as the ideal type. When typologically analyzing the two models of women, one can schematize the images of women and, consequently, the nature and character of diaconal work that derives from each one.15 13

For the role of women in the early Christian community, see Eleni KasselouriHatzivassiliadi, «ȅ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤȑȖȠȞȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ», in Ioannis Petrou (ed.), ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮȢ, v. ǿ, Road, Athens 2009, pp. 340361. 14 Lk 10, 38-42. 15 For a theological hermeneutics see, Basil the Great, ǵȡȠȚ țĮIJȐ ʌȜȐIJȠȢ 20, P.G. 31, 973Ǻ, and ǹıțȘIJȚțĮȓ įȚĮIJȐȟİȚȢ, P.G. 31,1325A-1328C; Ioannis Chrysostomos, ǼȚȢ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠįȠıȓĮȞ IJȠȣ ȈȦIJȒȡȠȢ țĮȚ İȟȒȢ (sp), P.G. 59, 717 and Ȇİȡȓ ȣʌȠȝȠȞȒȢ (sp), P.G. 63, 941; Cyril of Alexandria, ǼȟȒȖȘıȚȢ İȚȢ IJȠ țĮIJȐ ȁȠȣțȐȞ ǼȣĮȖȖȑȜȚȠȞ,

Martha and Mary as Models of Christian Witness

163

2. Martha or Mary? The two models, Martha and Mary, as depicted in the Gospel of Luke (10, 38-42), typologically represent two different worlds with different social structures and relations: the static, hierarchical and patriarchal traditional society; and the open, equal and participatory modern society. The traditional form of society is related to a specific distribution of positions, power and work between the two sexes, as well as distinct fields of action which, in their turn, correspond to the distinction of space between “private” and “public.” The domestic, private space, where the family is concentrated and functions, constitutes the “women’s sphere”, for which women are responsible. The public sphere is the wider political and social space that constitutes the space of responsibility and the activity of men. This distribution is not equal, as the distinction between the two spheres and, by extension, the two genders, creates an unequal distribution of power between men who are dominant, and women who are subjugated. Men are the leaders, responsible for all important decisions; women are dominated, passively accepting the decisions of men, remaining true to their roles as wives, mothers, and daughters. Men are given all superior work, such as administration, and powerful positions in the public sphere, whereas women are responsible for “menial” tasks, such as housekeeping and raising children.16 In modern societies, the public space is “enlarged” to accept women as equal members, with roles that correspond to those of men and can include positions of power. The key changes that defined modern society, such as industrialization, urbanization and political liberalization, resulted in a change of the position and role of women. Women’s entrance into the labor market, the expansion of education for both sexes, and the recognition of civil, political and social rights played an essential role in P.G. 72, 622Ǻ, ǼȟȒȖȘıȚȢ İȚȢ IJȠ țĮIJȐ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȞ ǼȣĮȖȖȑȜȚȠȞ, P.G. 74, 40 B-C and ȅȝȚȜȓĮȚ įȚȐijȠȡĮȚ 13, P.G. 77, 1052C; Abbas Neilos, ǻȚĮijȑȡȠȣıȚȞ IJȦȞ İȞ ʌȩȜİıȚȞ ȦțȚıȝȑȞȦȞ ȠȚ İȞ İȡȒȝȠȚȢ ȘıȣȤȐȗȠȞIJİȢ, P.G. 79, 1080 B-C. 16 For the traditional society, see Ioannis Petrou, ȀȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ, Vanias, Thessaloniki 2007, pp.164-182; St. Hall – B. Gieben, Ǿ įȚĮȝȩȡijȦıȘ IJȘȢ ȞİȦIJİȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ȅȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ, țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ, ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȒ, ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩȢ, transl. Ĭ. ȉıĮțȓȡȘȢ – Ǻ. ȉıĮțȓȡȘȢ, Savalas, Athens 2003; Jacques Le Goff, ȅ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩȢ IJȘȢ ȂİıĮȚȦȞȚțȒȢ ǻȪıȘȢ, transl. ȇȓțĮ ȂʌİȕİȞȓıIJİ, Vanias, Thessaloniki 1993. Especially for the position of women, see Nina Skouteri – Didaskalou, ǹȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ, Athens 1984; Efi Avdela – Angelica Psarra (eds.), ȈȚȦʌȘȡȑȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓİȢ, īȣȞĮȓțİȢ țĮȚ ijȪȜȠ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȒ ĮijȒȖȘıȘ, Alexandreia, Athens, 1997; Hufton Olwen, ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ǼȣȡȫʌȘ (1500-1800), transl. ǼȚȡȒȞȘ ȋȡȣıȠȤȩȠȣ, Nefeli, Athens 2003.

164

Chapter Twelve

the free formation of the political personality of women and their claim for an equal place in the social and political field.17 The model of Martha corresponds to traditional social structures, according to which women are restricted to the private sphere, have no say in public affairs, remain silent in the public space, and even cover their head. They make decisions on domestic issues that relate to their household and children, while public issues, administrative and financial responsibilities are the concern only of men. Women remain “hidden” in the home’s kitchen, having absolute responsibility for the necessary yet menial jobs and roles, without any prospect of education or social participation. The model of Mary expresses a society that is open to women’s participation: women are given the opportunity to fight for a position in the public sphere, perform a variety of roles and offer diaconia to the community and broader society, depending on their gifts. This model is closer to that of modern women, who claim an equal position in society alongside men and perform a variety of roles at many levels of modern life: political, financial, professional, educational and so on. The image of Mary, seated at the feet of Jesus and listening attentively to him, actually represents modern women who experience enriched possibilities to participate and offer diaconia in a variety of ways in the Church. In reality, it expresses the attempt of women to function as full and equal members of the new society that Christ himself inaugurates and realizes. The model of Martha, identified with the traditional perception of women, relates to the old world and appears to be insufficient; it does an injustice to women and, for this reason, is looked down on by Christ. When Christ inaugurates a new world, he pays a compliment to Mary and condones the quest for an equal position for women at an ontologicalcharismatic level and, by extension, at a social-institutional level, at least in the framework of the community.

3. The prevalence of “Martha” in the ecclesiastical field In the new society that was inaugurated by Jesus, the abilities and gifts of women were used by the early Church in a very positive way, and efforts were made to even out differences regarding women’s participation. In the 17

See, Ioannis Petrou, ȀȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ, op. cit., pp. 285-301. For the modern society, see St. Hall, D. Held, A. Mc Grew, Ǿ ȞİȦIJİȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ıȒȝİȡĮ. ȅȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ, țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ, ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȒ, ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩȢ, transl. Ĭ. ȉıĮțȓȡȘȢ – Ǻ. ȉıĮțȓȡȘȢ, Savalas, Athens 2003.

Martha and Mary as Models of Christian Witness

165

early Christian communities, women performed a variety of roles and diaconias, actively contributing to their better function. This is emphasized by the fact that the Eucharistic life takes place mainly in the domestic sphere, i.e. oikos.18 As public gatherings of the Church of Christ take place in homes, and believers see themselves as a community with family characteristics, its organization provides opportunities for women to actively participate. So, along with the traditional role of wife and mother, women adopt a set of new unexpected roles within the community, such as missionary, charismatic prophetess, teacher and social worker.19 The role of deaconess, especially in the ancient Church, confers an institutional upgrading of the position of women at that time, at least within the community. This institution was created with the view of exercising social, as well as liturgical, work since deaconesses took on tasks related to women’s baptism and the Eucharist. Irrespective of whether or not deaconesses had the permission to be ordained, the institutional recognition of their role within the community indicates that there was a relative improvement in their position compared to the one they held in the surrounding society.20 In so far as the Church has been shaped and reshaped by society and broader social conditions, it was gradually transformed into a patriarchal and andocentric institution that placed women in submissive positions. Given these conditions, the multifaceted diaconia of women was restricted, so that it finally coincided with what society required of them: to be limited to the private-domestic sphere of activities and deal only with 18

See, Eleni Kasselouri-Hatzivassiliadi, «ǼȣȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮ țĮȚ ȠȓțȠȢ ıIJȘȞ ȀĮȚȞȒ ǻȚĮșȒțȘ: ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ȠȣIJȠʌȓĮ ıIJȘȞ İȝʌİȚȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ȣʌȑȡȕĮıȘȢ IJȦȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȫȞ įȚĮijȠȡȫȞ», ǼȚıȒȖȘıȘ ıIJȘȞ ǹțĮįȘȝȓĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ ȈʌȠȣįȫȞ ǺȩȜȠȣ ıIJȘ ıİȚȡȐ ȝȘȞȚĮȓȦȞ İȚıȘȖȒıİȦȞ ȝİ șȑȝĮ: ǼȣȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮ – ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ – ȀȩıȝȠȢ 20072008, Volos, 26 ǿĮȞȠȣĮȡȓȠȣ 2008, www.academia.org, Rastko Jovic, ȅȓțȠȢ țĮȚ ǼȣȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮ ıIJȚȢ ȆĮȪȜİȚİȢ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȑȢ, Doctoral Thesis, ȉȝȒȝĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ǹ.Ȇ.Ĭ., Thessaloniki 2012. 19 For the women referred to in the early Christian communities, see, Eleni Kasselouri-Hatzivassiliadi, «ȅ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤȑȖȠȞȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ», in Ioannis Petrou (ed.), ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮȢ, v. 1, op. cit., pp. 356360. See also, Spyridoula Athanasopoulou – Kypriou & Eleni KasselouriHatzivassiliadi, Ǽțİȓ ıȣȝȕĮȓȞȦ. DzȝijȣȜĮ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ įȠțȓȝȚĮ, Armos, Athens 2012, Elisabeth Clark, Women in the Early Church, Wilmington 1983. 20 Evangelos Theodorou, ǾȡȦȓįİȢ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ ĮȖȐʌȘȢ. ǹȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȚ įȚĮ IJȦȞ ĮȚȫȞȦȞ, Athens 1949 and «ȅȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», in ĭȪȜȠ țĮȚ ĬȡȘıțİȓĮ. Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, Indiktos, Athens 2004, pp.185208. See also, Kevin Madigan & Carolyn Osiek, Ordained Women in the Early Church, Johns Hopkins, Baltimore 2005.

166

Chapter Twelve

their own household and not with the affairs of community and broader society. Despite the Church’s theological ideal of equality between the two sexes, at an ontological-charismatic level, the positions taken by faithful men and women in the ecclesiastical body gradually came to correspond to their positions in broader society. Very soon, therefore, women were forbidden to speak and teach in the Church and the roles of teacher and prophetess were weakened and eventually vanished. The narrow interpretation of certain Pauline passages, together with compulsory silence in public worship and the covering of women’s heads, heralded the hierarchical subordination of women to men. This directly related to the rearrangement of space: for as long as the Church “functioned” in the private domain, being persecuted and “marginal”, different roles were developed and adopted by its members, regardless of gender, and the participation of all was essential and natural. When the Church, after its official recognition (313 AD), identified with and became part of the public domain, it accepted the distinction of social roles and reproduced the dominant social hierarchy.21 With the public recognition of the Church, especially after the 4th century AD, deaconesses were excluded from the public functions of community, such as teaching, baptism and Eucharist, and limited to the provision of social care. The institution of deaconesses, as such, flourished, especially during the era of the Great Fathers (5th century), with Olympiad being the most famous deaconess, and the collaborator of St. John Chrysostom. There have been many sectors of feminine diaconia, covering many areas of the diverse social and philanthropic work of the Church, involving a variety of activities, especially during the early Byzantine period. Deaconesses worked mainly in ecclesiastical hospitals and philanthropic institutions. They cared for the sick, the poor, prisoners and the elderly; they were responsible for keeping churches clean and in order; they gave the signal to women to participate in the chanting of the congregation and the “kiss of peace.” In our patristic sources, reference is also made to their active participation in the enshrouding, funeral and burial of deceased Christian women, as well as the consolation of their relatives.22 21 See Ioannis Petrou, ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩȢ țĮȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ, Vanias, Thessaloniki 2004, pp. 386-405, E. A. Clark, “Ideology, History and the Construction of ‘Woman’ in Late Christianity”, Journal of Early Christian Studies 2 (1994) 155-184, Robert F. Taft, “Women at Church in Byzantium: Where, WhenAnd Why?”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 52 (1998) 27-87. 22 See, Valerie Karras, “Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church,” Church History 73/2 (2004) 272-316 and “The liturgical functions of consecrated women

Martha and Mary as Models of Christian Witness

167

Over the centuries, however, institutional recognition of the role of deaconesses, even in the form of their social contribution to Byzantine society, gradually degenerated, ceasing to exist around the 10th century. The Church was affected by its gradual identification with society and eventually came to reflect society’s patriarchal and hierarchical social structures. As a consequence, it has gradually accepted strictly distinct fields of action for women and men, that have followed society’s standards. Women became increasingly confined in the private sphere and emphasis was placed on models of the good mother and wife that connected women primarily with the family, rather than with the model of social worker associated with the “public” sphere. Equality between men and women, if and when recognized theologically, has been interpreted in soteriological and eschatological terms, without affecting the historic ecclesiastical body and the conscience of believers.23 The work of the Church, in all its dimensions – liturgical, pastoral, administrative, social and educational – has been gradually concentrated in the hands of men, especially the clergy, leaving women on the margins. In the structure and distribution of ecclesiastical work, expressed in a variety of areas, women have held auxiliary, complementary roles which have been socially (rather than ecclesiastically) defined, kept away from positions of authority, and excluded from administrative or liturgical duties.24 In the traditional Greek society of the late 19th century, on the island of Skiathos, for example, one can get a glimpse into the auxiliary presence of women in priests’ work. In the liturgies of small chapels, as described in the work of Papadiamantis, women keep the church and yard clean and in good order, made altar bread, refueled candles and oil lamps,

in the Byzantine Church,” Theological Studies 66 (2005) 96-116, Ninna Edgardh, “Gender and the Study of Christian Social Practice,” Diaconia 1/2 (2010) 199-213. 23 See, Ioannis Petrou, « ȉȠ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ țĮȚ Ș İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ», ǼȆǼȆĬȈ 10 (2000) 221-237, Thomas Hopko (ed.), Women and the Priesthood, New York 1983, Christina Breaban, Sophie Deicha, Eleni KasselouriHatzivassiliadi (eds.), Women’s Voices and Visions of the Church, Reflections of Orthodox Women, World Council of Churches, Geneva 2006. 24 See, Dimitra Koukoura, Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ țĮȚ ȐȜȜĮ ȝİȜİIJȒȝĮIJĮ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȠȪ ȆȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚıȝȠȪ, K. Sfakianaki, Thessaloniki 2005, Niki Papageorgiou, «ȅȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ įȚȠȓțȘıȘ: ǻȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJİȢ Ȓ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȑȢ;», in ȅ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȆȡĮțIJȚțȐ IJȘȢ ǹ’ țĮȚ Ǻ’ ȈȣȞįȚĮıțȑȥİȦȢ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞ – ǼțʌȡȠıȫʌȦȞ IİȡȫȞ ȂȘIJȡȠʌȩȜİȦȞ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȐįȠȢ, ȀȜȐįȠȢ ǼțįȩıİȦȞ IJȘȢ ǼʌȚțȠȚȞȦȞȚĮțȒȢ țĮȚ ȂȠȡijȦIJȚțȒȢ ȊʌȘȡİıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȐįȠȢ, Athens, 2007, pp.145-155.

168

Chapter Twelve

and so on.25 This image is not far from contemporary descriptions of the duties of women in the early 21st century, which reflect a significant part of current ecclesiastical views, at least in the Balkans. According to them, women’s work is limited to dealing with the “simple tasks of daily worship in the parish”, such as the propriety of the church, the preparation of altar bread, organization of festivals, reading the names in the family diptychs by the priest, and caring for funerals and memorial services of the deceased.26 In this way, while society changes and continually accepts new roles for women, the Church is still limited to a closed traditional worldview where gender roles remain strictly defined. Consequently, the diaconal contribution of women is easily accepted as long as it is limited to traditional sectors (teaching, catecheses, social work), always in an auxiliary form, without disturbing the established ecclesiastical structure. This diaconia, beyond its actual value as a silent offering by women as a gift of love, is regarded by the ecclesiastical milieu as absolutely normal and an extension of women’s housekeeping roles in the family. But this certainly does not mean full and equal participation of women in the entire work and function of the Church, which would necessitate a certain upgrade and institutional recognition of women’s diaconia.

4. In search of “Mary”? Nowadays, since the renewal of theological discourse over the past few decades, we are able to argue about a “theology of equality” that positively faces the feminine person and recognizes gender equality. Even the negative position against the priesthood of women is attributable to ideas about tradition rather than theological reasons.27 Yet, the ecclesiastical reality is inconsistent with the theological discourse. As Elizabeth BehrSiegel points out: “in the Christian milieu – some conservative groups 25

See, for example, Maria Gasouka, Ǿ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ șȑıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ ȆĮʌĮįȚĮȝȐȞIJȘ, Filippoti, Athens 1998. 26 See, for example, f. Michail Pigasios, «Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮȚ IJȠ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ IJȘȢ İȞȠȡȓĮȢ», (2009) http://www.churchofcyprus.org.cy/article.php?articleID=661 (accessed 15/12/2014). 27 See, Paul Evdokimov, Ǿ īȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮȚ Ș ıȦIJȘȡȓĮ IJȠȣ țȩıȝȠȣ, ȝIJijȡ. ȃ. ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ, P. Pournaras, Thessaloniki 1992, Nikos Matsoukas, «Ǿ ǼȪĮ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ», ȈȪȞĮȟȘ 36 (1990) 5-15 and «Ǿ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȦȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ țĮȚ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ», in Petros Vasiliadis (ed.), ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩȢ ǻȚȐȜȠȖȠȢ, ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ǻȚĮțȠȞȓĮ, Athens 2005, pp.122-127.

Martha and Mary as Models of Christian Witness

169

excluded – the inferiority of women and their natural submission to men is not an issue. Nevertheless, we often talk about alterity, difference: a difference that supposedly assigns different social roles to men and women, different, complementary, spiritual missions. This position, appearing as self-evident, and despite the undeniable intention to recognize the recognized ‘feminine qualities’, contains a lot of ambiguities. In practice, it often perpetuates, in a special form, the traditional subjugation of women, limiting them to menial roles under the control of men.” 28 The debate is open and, local Orthodox churches, depending on the specific conditions under which their members live, have realized that they need to answer the underlying question hidden behind the theological “self-sufficiency.” Several initiatives have been taken in recent years, either under the pressure of society or the pressure of the other churches and the WCC; these initiatives point towards the need for the empowerment of the role of women in the ecclesiastical body and their active participation in ecclesiastical life.29 The Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference of Rhodes (1998) put forward specific proposals for the full development of women’s abilities and contributions, such as reviving the institution of deaconesses, taking up positions of authority in the ecclesiastical administration, and being appointed as representatives in the ecumenical movement, as well as providing diaconia as readers, chanters, social care providers and so on.30 28

Ǽ. Behr-Siegel, «Ǿ İIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ȐȞIJȡĮ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ», ȈȪȞĮȟȘ 36 (1990) 17-31, p. 29. See also the same author, ȉȠ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȝIJijȡ. Ȁ. ȋȚȦIJȑȜȜȘ, Athens n.d. 29 Especially the Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference of Rhodes (1988), but also the Conferences of Damascus (1996) and Constantinople (1997). See, ǹrchim. Gennadios Lymouris (ed.), Woman in the Orthodox Church and the Question of the Ordination of Women, Inter-Orthodox Symposium, (Rhodes, 30 October-7 November 1988), Tertios, Katerini 1992; Kyriaki Karidogianni - Fitzgerald, Orthodox Women Speak. Discerning the “Signs of Times”, WCC Geneva – Holy Cross Press, Brookline Massachusetts 1999; Eleni Kasselouri – Hatzivassiliadi, Fulata Mbano Moyo, Aikaterini Pekridou (eds.), Many Women Were Also There… The Participation of Orthodox Women in the Ecumenical Movement, WCC – Volos Academy for Theological Studies, Geneva/Volos 2010, Holy Synod of the Church of Greece/Special Synodical Committee, ȅ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȆȡĮțIJȚțȐ IJȘȢ ǹ’ țĮȚ Ǻ’ ıȣȞįȚĮıțȑȥİȦȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ – İțʌȡȠıȫʌȦȞ IİȡȫȞ ȂȘIJȡȠʌȩȜİȦȞ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȐįȠȢ, ȀȜȐįȠȢ ǼțįȩıİȦȞ IJȘȢ ǼʌȚțȠȚȞȦȞȚĮțȒȢ țĮȚ ȂȠȡijȦIJȚțȒȢ ȊʌȘȡİıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȐįȠȢ, Athens 2007. 30 ǹrchim. Gennadios Lymouris (ed.), Woman in the Orthodox Church and the Question of the Ordination of Women, op., cit., p.38.

170

Chapter Twelve

These decisions could only be the first steps towards the full and equal participation of women in the body of the Church, since both the development of the theology of the person and the requirements of contemporary society acknowledge the contribution of women in the social arena and show the way to their full recognition at every level. Women who study, acquire professional experience and have positions of authority in many sectors of social life are also capable of offering their knowledge and experience to the broader liturgical, administrative, pastoral and educational work of the Church. Making the best out of women’s – as well as lay people’s – potential constitutes a dynamic perspective for the Church.31 This realization, however, is difficult and impinges on the deeply rooted patriarchal structures and attitudes of the institutional Church that hold it captive in an absolute and, often, beautified past, creating a confrontation between theology and ecclesiastic praxis. In the early 21st century, the “old fashioned” work of women, expressed by “Martha”, remains important and maintains its value. Nevertheless, the Church should seriously take into consideration the dynamics expressed by “Mary”, respectfully accept women as being equal to men, recognize the central role they can play in the ecclesiastical body, provide the necessary institutional framework to recognize the work women can offer, and seek new pathways for the development of feminine gifts. Further, it should seek new operational models to transform itself into a participatory, decentralized, democratic and member-centered Church, functioning as a body that provides space and opportunities for both “Martha” and “Mary.” These two evangelical images of Martha and Mary, as models of diaconia in the ecclesiastical field, best describe the path to full and active participation of women in multi-dimensional and multifaceted ecclesiastical life. The development of these models offers unlimited possibilities, both for the Church, in order to make the best of the rich contribution that women can make at all levels, and to women themselves, so they can offer their multifaceted diaconia to the Church from the position they wish.

31

Dimitra Koukoura, Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ, op. cit., p.64, Kaiti Chiotelli, «Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ», ȈȪȞĮȟȘ 36 (1990) 33-45.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN THE ORDINATION OF DEACONESSES IN THE ORTHODOX LITURGICAL TRADITION PANAGIOTIS I. SKALTSIS

Abstract: Evangelos Theodorou, Prof. Emeritus of Liturgics, has connected his name and his scholarly research with the study and revival of the institution of the deaconess. In the early Church, devout woman were selected “with accurate trials” and ordained by the bishop as deaconesses, in a way that was similar to the deacon, with only minor differences. According to the Apostolic Constitutions, the ordination of a deaconess occurred by the laying on of hands by the bishop and with a specific prayer. A complete rite of the ordination of a deaconess has survived in the oldest euchologion manuscript, the Barberini Codex 336, from the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th centuries. According to the manuscript, ordination occurred for deacons within the divine liturgy, after the anaphora, with the laying on of hands and the epiclectic invocation of “the divine grace,” along with two prayers. The tradition of the Barberini Euchologion influenced the subsequent manuscript tradition of the Byzantine period. The differences between the ordination of a deacon and the ordination of a deaconess are that the deaconess does not bend her knee, she wears the orarion under the maphorion and, at the time of Holy Communion, “she communes no one” but “places it [the holy chalice] on the Holy Altar Table.” This liturgical experience and tradition of the Church inspired modern initiatives for the revival of the deaconess and, in every case, is the measure of our stance regarding this issue.

It is well known that Prof. Emeritus of Liturgics, Evangelos Theodorou, who is honored by this conference, has had his name and research connected with the study and revival of the institution of the deaconess. An institution that has its roots in the New Testament, it is recognized by three ecumenical councils and was blessed by our Orthodox liturgical tradition until the end of the Byzantine period.

172

Chapter Thirteen

The early accounts “of woman deacons […] in the women’s balcony by whom the Lord’s teaching was unexceptionably interpolated,”1 and on the structured order of the deaconess necessary in multis rebus,2 also find justification in the Church’s Euchologion, from the 4th century onwards. Terms such as “ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ,” “ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞİ߿Ȟ,”“ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ” (with the meaning of ordination), “țĮșȚĮȚȡȠࠎȞ,” “‫݋‬ʌȚIJȚșȑȞĮȚ Ȥİ߿ȡĮȢ,” “ʌȡȠȤİȚȡȓȗİıșĮȚ,” “ordination,” “ordinare,” and others which can be seen in the sources, suggest that, for the deaconess, there existed a ritual of ordination similar to that of the deacon.3 A woman who was “virgin immaculate,” had been “widowed after one marriage,” was “abstaining in her first marriage” or was a bishop’s wife – in any case a woman who was “meek” and, according to the Apostolic Constitutions, “quiet, gentle, guileless, without anger, not talkative, not clamorous, not hasty of speech, not slanderous, not giving more meaning to words than actions, not meddlesome”4 – was selected “with accurate trials”5 and dedicated by the bishop. In other words, she was ordained in the same way as a deacon, with only minor variations. The oldest complete ritual of the ordination of the deaconess is found in the Apostolic Constitutions, a text from the end of the 4th century that preserved the liturgical traditions of the time. Before the rubrics concerning the subdeacon, and after the epiclesis (invocation) for the ordination of a deacon, there exists the invocation for the ordination of a deaconess: “‫݋ ޝ‬ʌȓıțȠʌİ, ‫݋‬ʌȚșȒıİȚȢ Į‫ރ‬IJ߲ IJȐȢ Ȥİ߿ȡĮȢ, ʌĮȡİıIJࠛIJȠȢ IJȠࠎ ʌȡİıȕȣIJİȡȓȠȣ țĮȓ IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ țĮȚ ‫݋‬ȡİ߿Ȣ: ‫ ݾ‬ĬİȩȢ ‫ ݸ‬Į‫ݧ‬ȫȞȚȠȢ, ‫ ݸ‬ȆĮIJȒȡ IJȠࠎ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ ‫ݘ‬ȝࠛȞ ‫ݯ‬ȘıȠࠎ ȋȡȚıIJȠࠎ, ‫ܻ ݸ‬ȞįȡȩȢ țĮȓ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȩȢ, ‫ ݸ‬ʌȜȘȡȫıĮȢ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ ȂĮȡȚȐȝ țĮȓ ǻİȕȫȡȡĮȞ țĮȓ ݇ȞȞĮȞ țĮȓ ‫ށ‬ȜįĮȞ, ‫ ݸ‬ȝȒ ܻʌĮȟȚȫıĮȢ IJȩȞ ȝȠȞȠȖİȞ߱ ıȠȣ Ȋ‫ݨ‬ȩȞ ȖİȞȞȘș߱ȞĮȚ ‫݋‬ț ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ, ‫ ݸ‬țĮȓ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ ıțȘȞ߲ IJȠࠎ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓȠȣ țĮȓ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJࠜ ȞĮࠜ ʌȡȠȤİȚȡȚıȐȝİȞȠȢ IJȐȢ ijȡȠȣȡȠȪȢ IJࠛȞ ܼȖȓȦȞ ıȠȣ ʌȣȜࠛȞ. ǹ‫ރ‬IJȩȢ ȞࠎȞ ‫ݏ‬ʌȚįİ IJȒȞ įȠȪȜȘȞ ȈȠȣ IJȒȞįİ, IJȒȞ ʌȡȠȤİȚȡȚȗȠȝȑȞȘȞ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ 1

Clement of Alexandria, ȈIJȡȦȝĮIJİ߿Ȣ 3,6, PG 8, 115ǹ. See also Ev. D. Theodorou, «ȅੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıIJȒȞ ੂıIJȠȡȓĮ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», in ĭȪȜȠ țĮȓ ĬȡȘıțİȓĮ. ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȘ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȒȞ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮ, Indiktos, Athens 2004, p.186. 2 F.X. Funk, Didaskalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum, III, 13, 2, vol. 1, Paderborn 1905, pp.212-214. 3 See, Ev. D. Theodorou, ‫« ݠ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» ‫« ݛ‬ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ» IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ, Doctoral Dissertation, Athens 1954, and ibidem, «ȅੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıIJȒȞ ੂıIJȠȡȓĮ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», p.190. 4 ǻȚĮIJĮȖĮȓ IJࠛȞ ݄ȖȓȦȞ ݃ʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ 3, 5, 1, Sources Chrétiennes 329, 128 (= PG 1, 768B). 5 Canon 15 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

The Ordination of Deaconesses in the Orthodox Liturgical Tradition

173

įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȞ, țĮȓ įȩȢ Į‫ރ‬IJ߲ ȆȞİࠎȝĮ ݀ȖȚȠȞ țĮȓ țĮșȐȡȚıȠȞ Į‫ރ‬IJȒȞ ܻʌȩ ʌĮȞIJȩȢ ȝȠȜȣıȝȠࠎ ıĮȡțȩȢ țĮȓ ʌȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ, ʌȡȩȢ IJȩ ‫݋‬ʌĮȟȓȦȢ ‫݋‬ʌȚIJİȜİ߿Ȟ Į‫ރ‬IJȒȞ IJȩ ‫݋‬ȖȤİȚȡȚıșȑȞ Į‫ރ‬IJ߲ ‫ݏ‬ȡȖȠȞ, İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ įȩȟĮȞ ıȒȞ țĮȓ ‫ݏ‬ʌĮȚȞȠȞ IJȠࠎ ȋȡȚıIJȠࠎ ȈȠȣ . ȝİș’ Ƞ‫ މ‬ȈȠȚ įȩȟĮ țĮȓ ʌȡȠıțȪȞȘıȚȢ, țĮȓ IJࠜ ݄Ȗȓ࠙ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ, İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȠȪȢ Į‫ࠛݧ‬ȞĮȢ. ݃ȝȒȞ.” 6 We see here that the ordination of the deaconess is accomplished by the laying on of hands by the bishop, in the presence of the entire presbyterate, the deacons and the deaconesses, with only one prayer. One prayer, in this early period, is foreseen for the dedication to ordination of all ranks of the clergy. The ordination of the deacon is similar to the ordination of the deaconess. The prayer is, of course, different: the deacon may be found worthy of “greater rank,” while in the case of the deaconess the bishop prays “that she may worthily accomplish her entrusted duty.”7 The Apostolic Constitutions classify the deaconess in the ranks of clergy and clearly specify the limits of her ministry. Specifically, in the Second Book, the following is noted: “But let the deacon stand beside him [the bishop, in other words] as Christ does to His Father and let him serve him in all things blamelessly, as Christ does nothing by Himself, but always does those things that please His Father. May you honor the deaconess in the type of the Holy Spirit, and without the deacon may she not do or say anything, as neither does the Paraclete do or say anything by Itself but glorifies Christ, awaiting His will. And as we cannot believe in Christ without the teaching of the Spirit, so without the deaconess let not any woman address the deacon or bishop.”8 An ordination prayer for the deaconess is also preserved in “The Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ” (a text of the 5th century AD) in Latin.9 The prayer is lengthier than that included in the Apostolic Constitutions, but makes no mention of the laying on of hands by the bishop. When the gifts are offered, the deaconesses are inside the altar and stand with the presbyters to the left side of the holy sanctuary. The

6

ǻȚĮIJĮȖĮȓ IJࠛȞ ݄ȖȓȦȞ ݃ʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ 19,1-20,1, Sources Chrétiennes 336, 220-222 (=PG 1, 1116D – 1117A). 7 ǻȚĮIJĮȖĮȓ IJࠛȞ ݄ȖȓȦȞ ݃ʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ 17,1-20,1, Sources Chrétiennes 336, 218-222 (=PG 1, 1116D-1117A). See also Ev. D. Theodorou, ‫« ݠ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» ‫ݛ‬ «ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ» IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ, pp.50-51. 8 ǻȚĮIJĮȖĮȓ IJࠛȞ ݄ȖȓȦȞ ݃ʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ 26, 4, Sources Chrétiennes 320, 238 (=PG 1, 668AB). 9 I.E. Rahmani, Testamentum Domini nostri Jesu Christi, Moguntiae 1899, p.99. See also Ev. D. Theodorou, ‫« ݠ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» ‫« ݛ‬ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ» IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ, p. 51.

174

Chapter Thirteen

deacons also stand to the left and receive communion first, followed by the deaconesses, the subdeacons and the readers. A complete rite of ordination of the deaconess, within the divine liturgy and with a diaconal litany – the laying on of hands by the bishop, the invocation, “the divine grace,” two prayers and vesting of the orarion – is preserved by the oldest surviving euchologion, the Barberini Codex 336 (from the end of the 8th and beginning of the 9th century). The text was published by the Dominican monk, Jacobi Goar, in the 17th century. «ȂİIJȐ IJȩ ȖİȞȑıșĮȚ IJȒȞ ܼȖȓĮȞ ܻȞĮijȠȡȐȞ țĮȓ ܻȞȠȚȖ߱ȞĮȚ IJȐȢ șȪȡĮȢ. ʌȡȓȞ ‫ݛ‬ İ‫ݧ‬ʌİ߿Ȟ IJȩȞ įȚȐțȠȞȠȞ. ȆȐȞIJȦȞ IJࠛȞ ܼȖȓȦȞ, ʌȡȠıijȑȡİIJĮȚ ‫ ݘ‬ȝȑȜȜȠȣıĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞİ߿ıșĮȚ IJࠜ ܻȡȤȚİȡİ߿ țĮȓ ‫݋‬țijȦȞࠛȞ IJȩ, ‫ ݠ‬șİȓĮ ȋȐȡȚȢ, țȜȚȞȠȪıȘȢ Į‫ރ‬IJ߱Ȣ IJȒȞ țİijĮȜȒȞ, ‫݋‬ʌȚIJȓșȘıȚ IJȒȞ Ȥİ߿ȡĮȞ Į‫ރ‬IJȠࠎ ‫݋‬ʌȓ IJȒȞ țİijĮȜȒȞ Į‫ރ‬IJ߱Ȣ, țĮȓ ʌȠȚࠛȞ ıIJĮȣȡȠȪȢ IJȡİ߿Ȣ ‫݋‬ʌİȪȤİIJĮȚ IJĮࠎIJĮ. ‫ ݾ‬ĬİȩȢ ‫݀ ݸ‬ȖȚȠȢ, ‫ ݸ‬ȆĮȞIJȠįȪȞĮȝȠȢ, ‫ ݸ‬įȚȐ IJ߱Ȣ ‫݋‬ț ȆĮȡșȑȞȠȣ țĮIJȐ ıȐȡțĮ ȖİȞȞȒıİȦȢ IJȠࠎ ȝȠȞȠȖİȞȠࠎȢ ıȠȣ Ȋ‫ݨ‬Ƞࠎ țĮȓ ĬİȠࠎ ‫ݘ‬ȝࠛȞ ܼȖȚȐıĮȢ IJȩ ș߱Ȝȣ. țĮȓ Ƞ‫ރ‬ț ܻȞįȡȐıȚ ȝȩȞȠȞ ܻȜȜȐ țĮȓ IJĮ߿Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚȟȓ įȦȡȘıȐȝİȞȠȢ IJȒȞ ȤȐȡȚȞ țĮȓ IJȒȞ ‫݋‬ʌȚijȠȓIJȘıȚȞ IJȠࠎ ܼȖȓȠȣ ıȠȣ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ. ǹ‫ރ‬IJȩȢ țĮȓ ȞࠎȞ, ǻȑıʌȠIJĮ, ‫ݏ‬ʌȚįİ ‫݋‬ʌȓ IJȒȞ įȠȪȜȘȞ ıȠȣ IJĮȪIJȘȞ. țĮȓ ʌȡȠıțĮȜȑıĮȚ Į‫ރ‬IJȒȞ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȩ ‫ݏ‬ȡȖȠȞ IJ߱Ȣ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ ıȠȣ, țĮȓ țĮIJȐʌİȝȥȠȞ Į‫ރ‬IJ߲ IJȒȞ ʌȜȠȣıȓĮȞ įȦȡİȐȞ IJȠࠎ ܼȖȓȠȣ ıȠȣ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ. ǻȚĮijȪȜĮȟȠȞ Į‫ރ‬IJȒȞ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ ‫ݷ‬ȡșȠįȩȟ࠙ ıȠȣ ʌȓıIJİȚ, ‫݋‬Ȟ ܻȝȑȝʌIJ࠙ ʌȠȜȚIJİȓߠ țĮIJȐ IJȩ ıȠȓ İ‫ރ‬ȐȡİıIJȠȞ IJȒȞ ‫݌‬ĮȣIJ߱Ȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮȞ įȚȐ ʌĮȞIJȩȢ ‫݋‬țʌȜȘȡȠࠎıĮȞ. ‫ނ‬IJȚ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ıȠȚ… ܻȝȒȞ. ȀĮȓ ȝİIJȐ IJȩ ܻȝȒȞ ʌȠȚİ߿ İ‫ݮ‬Ȣ IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ İ‫ރ‬ȤȒȞ Ƞ‫ވ‬IJȦȢ. ‫ݑ‬Ȟ İ‫ݧ‬ȡȒȞ߯ IJȠࠎ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ įİȘșࠛȝİȞ. ‫ދ‬ʌȑȡ IJ߱Ȣ ܿȞȦșİȞ İ‫ݧ‬ȡȒȞȘȢ, țĮȓ İ‫ރ‬ıIJĮșİȓĮȢ IJȠࠎ ıȪȝʌĮȞIJȠȢ țȩıȝȠȣ. IJȠࠎ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ įİȘșࠛȝİȞ. ‫ދ‬ʌȑȡ IJ߱Ȣ İ‫ݧ‬ȡȒȞȘȢ IJȠࠎ ıȪȝʌĮȞIJȠȢ țȩıȝȠȣ. IJȠࠎ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ įİȘșࠛȝİȞ. ‫ދ‬ʌȑȡ IJȠࠎ ܻȡȤȚİʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ ‫ݘ‬ȝࠛȞ [IJȠࠎ įİ߿ȞȠȢ], ‫ݨ‬İȡȦıȪȞȘȢ, ܻȞIJȚȜȒȥİȦȢ, įȚĮȝȠȞ߱Ȣ, İ‫ݧ‬ȡȒȞȘȢ, ‫ބ‬ȖİȓĮȢ, ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ Į‫ރ‬IJȠࠎ țĮȓ IJȠࠎ ‫ݏ‬ȡȖȠȣ IJࠛȞ ȤİȚȡࠛȞ Į‫ރ‬IJȠࠎ IJȠࠎ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ įİȘșࠛȝİȞ. ‫ދ‬ʌȑȡ IJ߱Ȣ ʌȡȠȤİȚȡȚȗȠȝȑȞȘȢ įȚĮțȠȞȓııȘȢ IJ߱ıįİ țĮȓ IJ߱Ȣ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ Į‫ރ‬IJ߱Ȣ. IJȠࠎ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ įİȘșࠛȝİȞ. ‫ދ‬ʌȑȡ IJȠࠎ İ‫ރ‬ıİȕİıIJȐIJȠȣ țĮȓ șİȠijȚȜİıIJȐIJȠȣ ȕĮıȚȜȑȦȢ ‫ݘ‬ȝࠛȞ. ‫ދ‬ʌȑȡ IJȠࠎ ࠍȣıș߱ȞĮȚ ‫ݘ‬ȝߢȢ. ݃ȞIJȚȜĮȕȠࠎ ıࠛıȠȞ. ȀĮȓ ਥȞ IJ૶ ȖİȞȑıșĮȚ IJĮȪIJȘȞ IJȒȞ İ੝ȤȒȞ ਫ਼ʌȩ IJȠ૨ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ, ਩ȤȦȞ ੒ȝȠȓȦȢ IJȒȞ Ȥİ૙ȡĮ ਥʌȓ IJȒȞ țİijĮȜȒȞ IJોȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȣȝȑȞȘȢ ੒ ਫʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ, ਥʌİȪȤİIJĮȚ Ƞ੢IJȦȢ. ǻȑıʌȠIJĮ ȀȪȡȚİ, ‫ ݸ‬ȝȘįȑ ȖȣȞĮ߿țĮȢ ܻȞĮșİȝȑȞĮȢ ‫݌‬ĮȣIJȐȢ țĮȚ ȕȠȣȜȘșİȓıĮȢ țĮș’ ‫ ݼ‬ʌȡȠı߱țİ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖİ߿Ȟ IJȠ߿Ȣ ܼȖȓȠȚȢ Ƞ‫ݫ‬țȠȚȢ ıȠȣ ܻʌȠȕĮȜȜȩȝİȞȠȢ, ܻȜȜȐ IJĮȪIJĮȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJȐȟİȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖࠛȞ ʌȡȠıįİȟȐȝİȞȠȢ. įȫȡȘıĮȚ IJȒȞ ȤȐȡȚȞ IJ߱Ȣ

The Ordination of Deaconesses in the Orthodox Liturgical Tradition

175

įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ ܻʌȠʌȜȘȡࠛıĮȚ ȤȐȡȚȞ, ‫ސ‬Ȣ ‫ݏ‬įȦțĮȢ ȤȐȡȚȞ IJ߱Ȣ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ ıȠȣ ĭȠȓȕ߯, ‫ݜ‬Ȟ ‫݋‬țȐȜİıĮȢ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȩ ‫ݏ‬ȡȖȠȞ IJ߱Ȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ. ʌĮȡȐıȤȠȣ įȑ Į‫ރ‬IJ߲ ‫ ݸ‬ĬİȩȢ, ܻțĮIJĮțȡȓIJȦȢ ʌȡȠıțĮȡIJİȡİ߿Ȟ IJȠ߿Ȣ ܼȖȓȠȚȢ ȞĮȠ߿Ȣ ıȠȣ, ‫݋‬ʌȚȝİȜİ߿ıșĮȚ IJ߱Ȣ Ƞ‫ݧ‬țİȓĮȢ ʌȠȜȚIJİȓĮȢ, ıȦijȡȠıȪȞȘȢ įȑ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ, țĮȓ IJİȜİȓĮȞ ܻʌȩįİȚȟȠȞ įȠȪȜȘȞ ıȠȣ. ‫ݬ‬ȞĮ țĮȓ Į‫ރ‬IJȒ, ʌĮȡĮıIJࠛıĮ IJࠜ ȕȒȝĮIJȚ IJȠࠎ ȋȡȚıIJȠࠎ, ܿȟȚȠȞ IJ߱Ȣ ܻȖĮș߱Ȣ ʌȠȜȚIJİȓĮȢ ܻʌȠȜȒȥȘIJĮȚ IJȩȞ ȝȚıșȩȞ. ‫ݑ‬ȜȑİȚ țĮȓ ijȚȜĮȞșȡȦʌȓߠ IJȠࠎ ȝȠȞȠȖİȞȠࠎȢ ıȠȣ Ȋ‫ݨ‬Ƞࠎ, ȝİș’ Ƞ‫ ފ‬İ‫ރ‬ȜȠȖȘIJȩȢ İ‫ݧ‬. țĮȓ IJȐ ‫݌‬ȟ߱Ȣ. ȀĮȓ ȝİIJȐ IJȩ ܻȝȒȞ, ʌİȡȚIJȓșȘıȚ IJࠜ IJȡĮȤȒȜ࠙ Į‫ރ‬IJ߱Ȣ ‫ބ‬ʌȠțȐIJȦșİȞ IJȠࠎ ȝĮijȦȡȓȠȣ IJȩ įȚĮțȠȞȚțȩȞ ‫ݷ‬ȡȐȡȚȠȞ, ijȑȡȦȞ ‫ݏ‬ȝʌȡȠıșİȞ IJȐȢ įȪȠ ܻȡȤȐȢ. țĮȓ IJȩIJİ ‫݋ ݸ‬Ȟ IJࠜ ܿȝȕȦȞȚ įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ ȜȑȖİȚ. ȆȐȞIJȦȞ IJࠛȞ ܼȖȓȦȞ ȝȘȝȠȞİȪıĮȞIJİȢ țĮȓ IJȐ ȜȠȚʌȐ. ȂİIJȐ (įȑ) IJȩ ȝİIJĮȜĮȕİ߿Ȟ Į‫ރ‬IJȒȞ IJȠࠎ ܼȖȓȠȣ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȓ IJȠࠎ ܼȖȓȠȣ Į‫ݬ‬ȝĮIJȠȢ, ‫݋‬ʌȚįȓįȦıȚȞ Į‫ރ‬IJ߲ ‫݃ ݸ‬ȡȤȚİʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ IJȩ ݀ȖȚȠȞ ʌȠIJȒȡȚȠȞ. ‫ݼ‬ʌİȡ įİȤȠȝȑȞȘ ܻʌȠIJȓșİIJĮȚ IJ߲ ܼȖȓߠ IJȡĮʌȑȗ߯.”10 Other very important manuscripts – Sinaitic, the Grottaferrata, the Athenian etc., – from the 11th to the 14th century, provide similar findings.11 From the study of this manuscript tradition, which was first highlighted by Prof. Theodorou in his doctoral dissertation entitled, ‫« ݠ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» ‫ݛ‬ «ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ» IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ, in Athens 1954, but also in his other, more recent works, the following points emerge: 1) The ordination of the deaconess occurs in the same way as the ordination of the deacon and other ranks of the priesthood, within the holy altar and during the divine liturgy. In contrast though, ordination (ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ) of the subdeacon, reader and chanter (lower clergy) occurs outside of the holy altar and not during the divine liturgy. 2) The point in the divine liturgy at which the ordination of the deaconess and deacon occurs, is after “the mercy of our great God,” in front of the holy altar table. In other words, at the end of the anaphora or, after the deposition of the holy gifts at the great entrance, when a pre-sanctified liturgy is celebrated. This is

10 S. Parenti - E. Velkovska, L’ Eucologio Barberini gr336, CLV-Edizioni Liturgicae, Roma2 2000. See, also, Ev. D. Theodorou, ‫« ݠ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» ‫ݛ‬ «ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ» IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ, p. 55-56. Also his «ȅੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıIJȒȞ ੂıIJȠȡȓĮ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», pp. 191-192; J. Goar, E‫ރ‬ȤȠȜȩȖȚȠȞ sive Rituale Graecorum, Venetiis 21730 (=facsimile reproduction Graz 1960), pp. 218-219. 11 See Ev. D. Theodorou, ‫« ݠ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» ‫« ݛ‬ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ» IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ, pp.5657. Ibidem, «ȅੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıIJȒȞ ੂıIJȠȡȓĮ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», pp. 193-194.

Chapter Thirteen

176

3)

4)

5)

6)

because the deacon, and especially the deaconess, serve, rather than officiate. Until the time of her ordination, the deaconess stands on the solea, as does the deacon, in front of the central doors of the holy altar, wearing a maphorion on her head. Brought before the holy altar table, she bows her head and the bishop ordains her with the laying on of hands and the epiclectic invocation, “the divine grace.” He then makes three signs of the cross over her and prays, reading the prayer, “‫ ݾ‬ĬİȩȢ ‫݀ ݸ‬ȖȚȠȢ , ‫ݸ‬ ȆĮȞIJȠįȪȞĮȝȠȢ,” in which God is entreated to send down the abundant gifts of the Holy Spirit and to invite the deaconess “to the task of His ministry.” The petitions are said by the deacon who is of the same rank as the deaconess. This takes place at the ordination of all three orders. After the first prayer, a cleric of the same rank as the one being ordained intervenes with the petitions. The differences between the ordination of the deacon and the deaconess are that although the deacon bends his right knee and rests his forehead on the holy altar table, the deaconess stands upright, bowing only her head in respect; “the ordained deaconess was vested, as the deacon, with the diaconal orarion, placing it however ‘under the maphorion’ with its two ends in the front.” The deacon receives holy communion first, followed by the deaconess.12

The ministry of the deaconess is very similar to the ministry of the deacon, who is called to his mission and ordination. According to the Apostolic Constitutions, the deacon “does not bless, does not give a blessing, but receives it from a bishop or presbyter. He does not baptize, he does not offer, but when a bishop or a presbyter has offered, he distributes to the people not as a priest, but as one who ministers to the priests.”13 Deaconesses offered an invaluable service to the Church. For example, they were the link between the Christian woman and the clergy. During worship, they supervised their participation in “chanting together” and in the kiss of peace, and they entered and assisted in the holy altar, standing next to the deacons. During baptisms, they also assisted women “for 12

Ev. D. Theodorou, «ȅੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıIJȒȞ ੂıIJȠȡȓĮ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», pp. 60-65. Ibidem, ‫« ݠ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» ‫« ݛ‬ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ» IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ, pp. 194-196. 13 ǻȚĮIJĮȖĮȓ IJࠛȞ ݄ȖȓȦȞ ݃ʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ 8, 28, Sources Chrétiennes 336, 230 (=PG 1, 1125ǹ).

The Ordination of Deaconesses in the Orthodox Liturgical Tradition

177

decency.” In monasteries, nuns with the great schema, or those who had the responsibility of Abbess, exercised the duties of a deaconess. Deaconesses could also undertake the transport of the holy gifts from the Church, and even commune infirmed woman.14 This liturgical experience and tradition of the Church, both in the ancient period and during the Byzantine era, can be supported by modern examples. For example, attending to the needs of the Monastery of the Holy Trinity “on the day of Pentecost” in 1911, St. Nektarios “‘ordained’ in the holy Altar and during the celebration of the Divine Liturgy by the laying on of hands and by the prayer that is said during the ordination of the deacon ‘The divine grace.’ The ordained did not wear robes, but a sticharion reaching down to her lower back, as well as a diaconal orarion and diaconal cuffs. She was succeeded by another deaconess who was also dedicated by St. Nektarios for the ministerial needs of the monastery.”15 The former Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, Christodoulos of blessed memory, in his role as Metropolitan of Demetrias, also ordained (outside the holy altar, of course) a nun as a deaconess, “so that the abbess – deaconess could distribute the pre-sanctified holy gifts of Holy Communion to the sisters, when it was not possible for a priest to visit the Holy Monastery, because it was located in an inaccessible area.”16 Also, by his own initiative as Archbishop of Athens, a synodal decision decreed that the institution of the deaconess may be brought back to the holy monasteries for needs as described above. In any case, this liturgical richness cannot remain unutilized in the discussions that are occurring today about the deaconess, and in the opportunities that exist for the revival of this ancient institution.

14

See, Ǽ੝. ǻ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, «ȅੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıIJȒȞ ੂıIJȠȡȓĮ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», p. 66ff. Ev. D. Theodorou, «ȅੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıIJȒȞ ੂıIJȠȡȓĮ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», pp. 95-96. 16 Ev. D. Theodorou, «ǼੁıȘȖȘIJȚțȑȢ ਫ਼ʌȠȕȠȜȑȢ ʌȡȩȢ ਕȞĮȕȓȦıȚȞ țĮȓ ਕȞȐʌIJȣȟȚȞ IJȠ૨ șİıȝȠ૨ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ», in ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȄĬ’ (October –December 1998), issue 4, p. 600. 15

CHAPTER FOURTEEN DEACONESSES AND WOMEN IN THE PUBLIC WORSHIP OF GOD: THE EVIDENCE OF ORTHODOX CANON LAW THEODORE YAGOU

Abstract: Orthodox canonical law and certain patristic writings are very clear on the active participation of deaconesses, as well as women’s chanting, in public worship. For example, chanting by dedicated women was acceptable both in the monastic and parochial worship of the Church. The fact that women are excluded from taking part in public worship and that this is a consolidated habit in today’s practice does not mean this was the case in earlier Orthodox tradition. Later developments in these issues followed the laws of liquidity and accepted the influences of various local traditions. In choosing to ban female chanting in public worship, the Church was influenced by general social views about woman, which worked dynamically in relation to ecclesiastical teaching. Over the course of time, and especially during the Ottoman Empire, these perceptions became more strident and less flexible, thus becoming more legalistic.

ȈIJઁȞ ǺȓȠ IJȠ૨ ਖȖȓȠȣ ȀȣȡȚĮțȠ૨ IJȠ૨ ਝȞĮȤȦȡȘIJો (BHG 463) ੒ ȕȚȠȖȡȐijȠȢ ȀȪȡȚȜȜȠȢ ȈțȣșȠʌȠȜȓIJȘȢ įȚĮıȫȗİȚ ਪȞĮ ʌİȡȚıIJĮIJȚțઁ IJȣȤĮȓĮȢ ıȣȞȐȞIJȘıȘȢ ਥȡȘȝȚIJ૵Ȟ ȝȠȞĮȤ૵Ȟ ȝ੻ ȝȓĮ ਕıțȒIJȡȚĮ ʌȠઃ įȚĮȕȚȠ૨ıİ ȝȩȞȘ țĮ੿ ਙȖȞȦıIJȘ ı੻ ਕʌȩȝİȡȘ ıʌȘȜȚ੹ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਩ȡȘȝȠ IJોȢ ȆĮȜĮȚıIJȓȞȘȢ. ਺ ਕʌȡȠıįȩțȘIJȘ ıȣȞȐȞIJȘıȘ ʌȡȠțȐȜİıİ IJ੽Ȟ ਩țʌȜȘȟȘ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ʌİȡȚȑȡȖİȚĮ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȜİȣȡ੹ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ IJ੽ ıȣıIJȠȜ੽ ʌȠઃ ਥțįȘȜȫșȘțİ ȝ੻ IJȐıȘ ijȣȖોȢ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȜİȣȡ੹ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ. ȉİȜȚț੹ ਫ਼ʌİȡȓıȤȣıİ ਲ ਕʌȠijĮıȚıIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJ૵Ȟ ʌȡȫIJȦȞ Ȟ੹ ȖȞȦȡȓıȠȣȞ țȐIJȚ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ ਕıțȘIJȚț੽ ʌȠȜȚIJİȓĮ IJોȢ ȟİȤĮıȝȑȞȘȢ ਕıțȒIJȡȚĮȢ țĮ੿ ਩IJıȚ Į੝IJ੽ ਕȞĮȖțȐıIJȘțİ Ȟ੹ ਕʌĮȞIJȒıİȚ, ȝ઼ȜȜȠȞ ijİȚįȦȜȐ, ıIJ੿Ȣ ਕȞĮțȡȚIJȚț੻Ȣ ਥȡȦIJȒıİȚȢ ʌȠઃ ਕʌȠıțȠʌȠ૨ıĮȞ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ ıIJઁ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțઁ ੕ijİȜȠȢ. ਝʌઁ ੖ıĮ ȝĮȡIJȪȡȘıİ ਲ ਕıțȒIJȡȚĮ ਩ȤȠȣȞ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ ȖȚ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJİȣıȘ IJȠ૨ șȑȝĮIJȩȢ ȝĮȢ IJ੹ ਦȟોȢ:

180

Chapter Fourteen «ȉઁ ȝ੻Ȟ ੕ȞȠȝȐ ȝȠȣ ȂĮȡȓĮ ȜȑȖȠȝĮȚ, ‫݋‬ȖİȞȩȝȘȞ į‫ ޡ‬ȥȐȜIJȡȚĮ IJ߱Ȣ ܼȖȓĮȢ ȋȡȚıIJȠࠎ ݃ȞĮıIJȐıİȦȢ țĮ੿ ʌȠȜȜȠઃȢ ੒ įȚȐȕȠȜȠȢ ਥıțĮȞįȐȜȚıİȞ İੁȢ ਥȝȑ, țĮ੿ ijȠȕȘșİ૙ıĮ ȝȒʌȦȢ ਫ਼ʌİȪșȣȞȠȢ ȖİȞȠȝȑȞȘ IJ૵Ȟ IJȠȚȠȪIJȦȞ ıțĮȞįȐȜȦȞ ʌȡȠıșȒıȦ ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮȢ ਥij’ ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮȚȢ ȝȠȣ, ਥįȣıȫʌȠȣȞ IJઁȞ ĬİઁȞ ૧ȣıșોȞĮȓ ȝİ IJોȢ ĮੁIJȓĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ IJȠȚȠȪIJȦȞ ıțĮȞįȐȜȦȞ»1.

ȉઁ țİȓȝİȞȠ İੇȞĮȚ ਕȡțİIJ੹ İ੡ȖȜȦIJIJȠ. Ȇȡ૵IJȠȞ, ijĮȞİȡȫȞİȚ ੖IJȚ IJ੽Ȟ ਥʌȠȤ੽ ʌȠઃ ȗȠ૨ıİ ੒ ਚȖȚȠȢ ȀȣȡȚĮțઁȢ († 29 ȈİʌIJİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 556) ਩ȥĮȜȜĮȞ ıIJઁȞ ȞĮઁ IJોȢ ਝȞĮıIJȐıİȦȢ ıIJ੹ ੊İȡȠıȩȜȣȝĮ (įȘȜ. ı੻ ȝ੽ ȝȠȞĮıIJȘȡȚĮțઁ ȞĮઁ) ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ țĮ੿ įİȪIJİȡȠȞ, įȓȞİȚ ਪȞĮ țĮȜઁ ıIJȓȖȝĮ ȖȚ੹ ʌȠȚઁ ȜȩȖȠ IJİȜȚț੹ Ƞੂ ȥȐȜIJȡȚİȢ ਩ʌĮȣıĮȞ Ȟ੹ įȚĮțȠȞȠ૨Ȟ IJ੽ įȘȝȩıȚĮ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ. ȈIJ੽Ȟ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ਲ ਕıțȒIJȡȚĮ șȓȖİȚ țĮ੿ IJઁ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡȠ șȑȝĮ ʌİȡ੿ IJોȢ ਕįȚȐȕȜȘIJȘȢ ıȣȞȣʌȐȡȟİȦȢ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ țĮIJ੹ IJ੿Ȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੻Ȣ ıȣȞȐȟİȚȢ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ਫ਼ʌĮȖȩIJĮȞ ੕ȤȚ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ ıIJȠઃȢ ੅įȚȠȣȢ țĮȞȩȞİȢ Į੝ıIJȘȡȩIJȘIJȠȢ, țĮșȩıȠȞ ਥȟĮȡIJȫIJĮȞ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚț੽ ੪ȡȚȝȩIJȘIJĮ țĮ੿ IJ੿Ȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੻Ȣ ਕȞȐȖțİȢ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ਺ įȚĮȤȡȠȞȚț੽ ʌĮȡĮȓȞİıȘ ਷IJĮȞ ਲ ਕʌȠijȣȖ੽ IJȠ૨ ıțĮȞįĮȜȚıȝȠ૨ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ İ੅IJİ ਕʌઁ IJ੽ șȑĮ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ ੑȝȠȡijȚ઼Ȣ İ੅IJİ ਕʌઁ IJઁ ਙțȠȣıȝĮ ȝİȜȦįȚț૵Ȟ ੢ȝȞȦȞ ਕʌઁ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ ijȦȞȒ, ʌȠઃ ıȣȞİȚȡȝȚț੹ ș੹ ȝʌȠȡȠ૨ıİ Ȟ੹ ijȑȡİȚ ıIJ੽ șȪȝȘıȘ șȣȝİȜȚț੹ ਙıȝĮIJĮ2. ਺ ਕʌȠijȣȖ੽ IJોȢ ਥȖȖȪIJȘIJĮȢ ਲ਼ IJોȢ ıȣȝʌȜȠțોȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਦIJİȡȠijȪȜȦȞ ʌȡȠıȫʌȦȞ ȖȑȞȞȘıİ șİıȝȠઃȢ (ʌ.Ȥ. Į੝IJઁȞ IJȠ૨ ਕȕȐIJȠȣ ıIJ੿Ȣ ȝȠȞ੻Ȣ) țĮ੿ įȘȝȚȠȪȡȖȘıİ IJ੿Ȣ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑıİȚȢ ȖȚ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ੒ıȘȝȑȡİȢ ਕʌȠȝȐțȡȣȞıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ ਥȞİȡȖઁ ਥȝʌȜȠțȒ IJȘȢ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਫ਼ʌȩșİıȘ IJોȢ įȘȝȩıȚĮȢ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮȢ.3 ਝıijĮȜ૵Ȣ ȖȚ੹ IJ੿Ȣ ਥʌȚȜȠȖ੻Ȣ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ İੇȤĮȞ ȝİȡȓįȚȠ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ 1 ȀȣȡȓȜȜȠȣ ȈțȣșȠʌȠȜȓIJȠȣ, ǺȓȠȢ IJȠࠎ ܻȕȕߢ ȀȣȡȚĮțȠࠎ, ĭȚȜȠțĮȜȓĮ IJࠛȞ ‫ݨ‬İȡࠛȞ ȞȘʌIJȚțࠛȞ, ȀȪȡȚȜȜȠȢ ȈțȣșȠʌȠȜȓIJȘȢ, İੁıĮȖȦȖȒ - țİȓȝİȞȠ - ȝİIJȐijȡĮıȘ - ıȤȩȜȚĮ ǹȚț. īțȩȜIJıȠȣ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 1987, ı. 522 (ȕȜ. Ǿ. ǺȠȣȜȖĮȡȐțȘ, ȀĮșȘȝİȡȚȞ‫ޡ‬Ȣ ‫ݨ‬ıIJȠȡȓİȢ ܼȖȓȦȞ țĮ‫ܼ ޥ‬ȝĮȡIJȦȜࠛȞ ıIJާ ǺȣȗȐȞIJȚȠ, ਝșȒȞĮ 2001, ıı. 90-91). ǺȜ. țĮ੿ PG 115, 940C-941A. 2 ǺȜ. ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚț੹ ǹ. ǹȜȣȖȚȗȐțȘ, ĬȑȝĮIJĮ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț߱Ȣ ȂȠȣıȚț߱Ȣ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 1991, ı. 47 ਦȟ. 3 īȚ੹ IJ੽ șȑıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJ੽ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੽ ȗȦ੽ ȕȜ. ਥȞįİȚțIJȚț੹ IJ੽ ȝİȜȑIJȘ IJȠ૨ ਕİȚȝȞȒıIJȠȣ įĮıțȐȜȠȣ ǿȦ. Ȃ. ĭȠȣȞIJȠȪȜȘ, ਺ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İੁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੽Ȟ ȗȦ੽Ȟ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ਥȞȠȡȚĮț੽Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȞ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ıIJઁ ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțާȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟ࠙ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓߠ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJ‫ ޟ‬ʌİȡ‫ ޥ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ. ǻȚȠȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ șİȠȜȠȖȚțާȞ ıȣȞȑįȡȚȠȞ ȇȩįȠȢ, 30 ‫ݽ‬țIJȦȕȡȓȠȣ-7 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1988, ਥʌȚȝ. ਥțį. ਝȡȤȚȝ. īİȞȞĮįȓȠȣ ȁȣȝȠȪȡȘ, ȀĮIJİȡȓȞȘ 1994, ıı. 295-307. ੘ IJȩȝȠȢ ʌİȡȚȑȤİȚ ਥȡȖĮıȓİȢİੁıȘȖȒıİȚȢ ੁįȚĮȗȩȞIJȦȢ ਥȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȣıİȢ ȖȚ੹ IJઁ șȑȝĮ IJોȢ șȑıİȦȢ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJ੽ įȘȝȩıȚĮ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ. ȈȘȝĮȞIJȚț੽ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ İੁıȒȖȘıȘ IJȠ૨ ੒ȝȩIJȚȝȠȣ țĮșȘȖȘIJો ǺȜĮı. ĭİȚįȐ, «ȉઁ ਕȞİʌȓIJȡİʌIJȠȞ IJોȢ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ țĮIJ੹ IJȠઃȢ ੂİȡȠઃȢ țĮȞȩȞĮȢ», ı. 245-293. ਫʌȓıȘȢ ȕȜ. Ȁ. ȋ. īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘ, ‫ݨ ݠ‬İȡȦıȪȞȘ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ ıIJާ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJ߱Ȣ ȅ‫ݧ‬țȠȣȝİȞȚț߱Ȣ ȀȓȞȘıȘȢ, ȀĮIJİȡȓȞȘ 1995, țĮ੿ ıIJઁȞ IJȩȝȠ IJ૵Ȟ ȆȡĮțIJȚț૵Ȟ, ੊İȡ੹ ȂȘIJȡȩʌȠȜȚȢ ǻȘȝȘIJȡȚȐįȠȢ, ਝțĮįȘȝȓĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚț૵Ȟ ȈʌȠȣį૵Ȟ, ĭȪȜȠ țĮ‫ޥ‬

Deaconesses and Women in the Public Worship of God

181

ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡİȢ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚț੻Ȣ ਕȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ ʌİȡ੿ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, ʌȠઃ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȠ૨ıĮȞ ı੻ ıȤȑıȘ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț੽ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ਕȝijȓįȡȠȝĮ. ǹ੝IJ੻Ȣ Ƞੂ ਕȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ ੖ıȠ ੒ ȤȡȩȞȠȢ ȕĮȓȞİȚ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੽Ȟ IJȠȣȡțȠțȡĮIJȓĮ, ȖȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ Į੝ıIJȘȡȩIJİȡİȢ țĮ੿ ਕȞİȜĮıIJȚțȑȢ, țĮșȩıȠȞ ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ ਪȞĮ ʌİȡȓȕȜȘȝĮ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠȞ įȚțĮȞȚțȩ. ਺ ੢ʌĮȡȟȘ ȥȐȜIJȡȚĮȢ ıIJઁȞ ȞĮઁ IJોȢ ਝȞĮıIJȐıİȦȢ ਕıijĮȜ૵Ȣ į੻Ȟ ʌȡȠȑțȣȥİ ਕʌઁ ʌĮȡșİȞȠȖȑȞİıȘ. ਿIJĮȞ ਕʌȩȡȡȠȚĮ IJોȢ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡȘȢ ʌȡȐȟİȦȢ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਕȡȤĮȓĮ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ਲ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ Ȟ੹ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ਕʌઁ ੖ȜȠ IJઁ ʌȜȒȡȦȝĮ (ਙȞįȡİȢ țĮ੿ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ), ਫ਼ʌȠȥȐȜȜȠȞIJĮȢ țĮ੿ ȝ੻ ਕȞIJȚijȦȞȚțઁ IJȡȩʌȠ.4 ǼੇȞĮȚ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚț੽ ਲ ʌȜȘȡȠijȠȡȓĮ ʌȠઃ įȚĮıȫȗİIJĮȚ ıIJઁȞ ǺȓȠ IJȠ૨ ੒ıȓȠȣ ǹ੝ȟİȞIJȓȠȣ IJȠ૨ ਥȞ IJ૶ ǺȠȣȞ૶ (BHG 199) († ȖȪȡȦ ıIJઁ 470, ȝȞȒȝȘ 14 ĭİȕȡȠȣĮȡȓȠȣ) ʌİȡ੿ IJોȢ įȠȟȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨ «ਫ਼ʌઁ ʌȐȞIJȦȞ» (ਵIJȠȚ IJȠ૨ «ȜĮȠ૨», țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ੒ȡȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț૵Ȟ įȚĮIJȐȟİȦȞ) ı੻ «਷șȠȢ ਖʌȜȠȪıIJİȡȠȞ țĮ੿ ਕʌİȡȓİȡȖȠȞ», ıȣȞIJĮȖȝȑȞȦȞ țĮ੿ ȝİȜȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȦȞ («țĮIJ੹ IJઁ IJȠ૨ ȝĮțĮȡȓȠȣ ੒ȡȚıș੻Ȟ ਕțİȞȩįȠȟȠȞ ȝȑȜȠȢ») IJ૵Ȟ IJȡȠʌĮȡȓȦȞ ਕʌઁ IJઁȞ ਚȖȚȠ ǹ੝ȟȑȞIJȚȠ: «ȉȚȞ੹ Ƞ੣Ȟ IJȡȠʌȐȡȚĮ ਕʌઁ įȪȠ ȡȘIJ૵Ȟ ਲ਼ IJȡȚ૵Ȟ ȜȓĮȞ IJİȡʌȞ੹ țĮ੿ ਥʌȦijİȜો ȝİIJ੹ ਵșȠȣȢ ਖʌȜȠȣıIJȑȡȠȣ țĮ੿ ਕʌİȡȚȑȡȖȠȣ įȚĮIJȣʌȫıĮȢ ʌĮȡĮıțİȣȐȗİȚ ȥȐȜȜİȚȞ IJȠީȢ ʌȐȞIJĮȢ. ȉȠ૨ ʌȡȫIJȠȣ Ȗ੹ȡ ૧ȘșȑȞIJȠȢ ʌȜİȠȞȐțȚȢ ਥț įȚĮįȠȤોȢ țĮ੿ ʌȐȜȚȞ țĮIJ੹ țȑȜİȣıȚȞ IJȠ૨ ȝĮțĮȡȓȠȣ IJȠ૨ ਦIJȑȡȠȣ țĮIJȒȡȤȠȞIJȠǜ țĮ੿ İੇș’ Ƞ੢IJȦȢ ਥț IJȠ૨ įİȣIJȑȡȠȣ IJઁ IJȡȓIJȠȞ, țĮ੿ IJ੹ ȜȠȚʌ੹ țĮIJ੹ IJȐȟȚȞ. Ǽ੡ȜȠȖȠȞ Ƞ੣Ȟ țĮ੿ IJ੹ IJȠȪIJȦȞ ૧ȘIJ੹ ਥȞșİ૙ȞĮȚ IJ૶ įȚȘȖȒȝĮIJȚ ʌȡઁȢ ੩ijȑȜİȚĮȞ IJ૵Ȟ ਥȞIJȣȖȤĮȞȩȞIJȦȞ. ਯıIJȚ IJȠȓȞȣȞ IJĮ૨IJĮ: ȆIJȦȤާȢ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ʌȑȞȘȢ ‫ބ‬ȝȞȠࠎȝȑȞ ıİ, ȀȪȡȚİǜ įȩȟĮ IJࠜ ȆĮIJȡȓ, įȩȟĮ IJࠜ Ȋ‫ࠜݨ‬, įȩȟĮ IJࠜ ݄Ȗȓ࠙ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ, IJࠜ ȜĮȜȒıĮȞIJȚ įȚ‫ ޟ‬IJࠛȞ ʌȡȠijȘIJࠛȞ. ȂİIJ੹ į੻ IJȠ૨IJȠǜ ȈIJȡĮIJȚĮ‫݋ ޥ‬Ȟ Ƞ‫ރ‬ȡĮȞȠ߿Ȣ ‫ވ‬ȝȞȠȞ ܻȞĮʌȑȝʌȠȣıȚȞ țĮ‫ݘ ޥ‬ȝİ߿Ȣ Ƞ‫݋ ݨ‬ʌ‫ ޥ‬IJ߱Ȣ Ȗ߱Ȣ IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ įȠȟȠȜȠȖȓĮȞǜ ݈ȖȚȠȢ, ݀ȖȚȠȢ, ݀ȖȚȠȢǜ ȀȪȡȚȠȢ, ʌȜȒȡȘȢ ‫ ݘ‬Ȗ߱ IJ߱Ȣ įȩȟȘȢ ıȠȣ. ǼੇIJĮ țĮșİȟોȢǜ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖ‫ ޡ‬ʌȐȞIJȦȞ, İ‫ݭ‬ʌĮȢ țĮ‫݋ ޥ‬ȖİȞȒșȘıĮȞǜ ‫݋‬ȞİIJİȓȜȦ țĮ‫݋ ޥ‬țIJȓıșȘȝİȞǜ ʌȡȩıIJĮȖȝĮ ‫ݏ‬șȠȣ țĮ‫ ޥ‬Ƞ‫ ރ‬ʌĮȡİȜİȪıİIJĮȚ, ȈࠛIJİȡ, İ‫ރ‬ȤĮȡȚıIJȠࠎȝȑȞ ıİ. șȡȘıțİȓĮ. ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȘ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮ, ਝșȒȞĮ 2004, ȕȜ. țȣȡȓȦȢ IJ੿Ȣ İੁıȘȖȒıİȚȢ IJȠ૨ Ǽȣ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ (ıı. 185-208), IJȠ૨ ȈIJ. īȚĮȖțȐȗȠȖȜȠȣ (ıı. 243-271) țĮ੿ IJȠ૨ Ȁ. ȋ. īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘ (ıı. 273-335). ǺȜ. ȖȚ੹ IJ੽ șȑıȘ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ıIJઁ ǺȣȗȐȞIJȚȠ IJઁȞ IJȩȝȠ IJ૵Ȟ ʌȡĮțIJȚț૵Ȟ IJȠ૨ 26Ƞȣ ȈȣȝʌȠıȓȠȣ ǺȣȗĮȞIJȚȞોȢ țĮ੿ ȂİIJĮȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞોȢ ਝȡȤĮȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țĮ੿ ȉȑȤȞȘȢ, ਝșȒȞĮ 12-14 ȂĮǸȠȣ 2006: ‫ ݠ‬ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJާ ǺȣȗȐȞIJȚȠ. ȁĮIJȡİȓĮ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ȉȑȤȞȘ, ਥʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚț੽ ਥʌȚȝȑȜİȚĮ ȂĮȡȚĮ ȆĮȞĮȖȚȦIJȓįȘȀİıȓıȠȖȜȠȣ, ȆİȚȡĮȚ੹Ȣ 2012. 4 ǺȜ. ਥȞįİȚțIJȚț੹ Ȇ. Ȁ. ȋȡȒıIJȠȣ, ੘ ȤȠȡȚțઁȢ ੢ȝȞȠȢ İੁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȡȤĮȓĮȞ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȞ, ĬİȠȜȠȖȚț‫ ޟ‬ȝİȜİIJȒȝĮIJĮ. ‫ދ‬ȝȞȠȖȡĮijȚțȐ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 1981, ı. 123 ਦȟ. ਫʌȓıȘȢ ȖȚ੹ IJઁ «ਫ਼ʌȩȥĮȜȝĮ» ȕȜ. IJ੽Ȟ ਕȞȑțįȠIJȘ ȝİIJĮʌIJȣȤ. ਥȡȖĮıȓĮ IJોȢ ĬİȠijȐȞȘȢ Ȃ. ǺȠȪIJıȘ, ȁİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț‫ޡ‬Ȣ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ ıIJȠީȢ ȕȓȠȣȢ IJࠛȞ ‫ݸ‬ıȓȦȞ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2010, ı. 82 ਦȟ.

182

Chapter Fourteen ȀĮ੿ ʌȐȜȚȞǜ ȀȪȡȚİ IJࠛȞ įȣȞȐȝİȦȞ, ‫ݏ‬ʌĮșİȢ, ܻȞȑıIJȘȢǜ ‫ޓ‬ijșȘȢ țĮ‫ܻ ޥ‬ȞİȜȒijșȘȢǜ ‫ݏ‬ȡȤȘ țȡ߿ȞĮȚ țȩıȝȠȞ, Ƞ‫ݧ‬țIJİȓȡȘıȠȞ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ıࠛıȠȞ ‫ݘ‬ȝߢȢ. ȀĮ੿ ʌȐȜȚȞ. ‫ݑ‬Ȟ ȥȣȤ߲ IJİșȜȚȝȝȑȞ߯ ʌȡȠıʌȓʌIJȠȝȑȞ ıȠȚ țĮ‫ ޥ‬įİȩȝİșȐ ıȠȣ, ȈࠛIJİȡ IJȠࠎ țȩıȝȠȣǜ ıީ Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ İ‫ ݭ‬ĬİާȢ IJࠛȞ ȝİIJĮȞȠȠȪȞIJȦȞ. ȀĮ੿ ʌȐȜȚȞǜ ‫ ݾ‬țĮșȒȝİȞȠȢ ‫݋‬ʌ‫ ޥ‬IJࠛȞ ȤİȡȠȣȕ‫ޥ‬ȝ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJȠީȢ Ƞ‫ރ‬ȡĮȞȠީȢ ܻȞȠȓȟĮȢ, Ƞ‫ݧ‬țIJİȓȡȘıȠȞ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ıࠛıȠȞ ‫ݘ‬ȝߢȢ. ǼੇIJĮǜ ݃ȖĮȜȜȚߢıșİ, įȓțĮȚȠȚ, ‫݋‬Ȟ Ȁȣȡȓ࠙ǜ ʌȡİıȕİȪȠȞIJİȢ, ‫ބ‬ʌ‫ޡ‬ȡ ‫ݘ‬ȝࠛȞǜ įȩȟĮ ıȠȚ, ȀȪȡȚİ, ‫ ݸ‬ĬİާȢ IJࠛȞ ܼȖȓȦȞ. ȉઁ ʌȜોșȠȢ ȝ੻Ȟ Ƞ੣Ȟ IJ૵Ȟ ʌĮȡȩȞIJȦȞ IJ૵Ȟ ਕʌȩȡȦȞ țĮ੿ İ੝ʌȩȡȦȞ, ܻȞįȡࠛȞ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ, įȠȪȜȦȞ IJİ țĮ੿ ਥȜİȣșȑȡȦȞ, țĮIJ੹ IJઁ IJȠ૨ ȝĮțĮȡȓȠȣ ੒ȡȚıș੻Ȟ ਕțİȞȩįȠȟȠȞ ȝȑȜȠȢ, İ‫ރ‬ȡȪșȝȦȢ ‫ݏ‬ȥĮȜȜİ IJĮࠎIJĮ, Ƞੂ ȝ੻Ȟ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ਪȦȢ IJȡȓIJȘȢ ੮ȡĮȢ țĮ੿ ਕʌİȜȪȠȞIJȠ ਥȞ ਕȖĮȜȜȚȐıİȚ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțૌ, Ƞੂ į੻ ਪȦȢ ਪțIJȘȢ ʌȡȠıİțĮȡIJȑȡȠȣȞǜ Į੝IJઁȢ į੻ ȜȠȚʌઁȞ İੁȢ IJઁ IJȑȜȠȢ IJઁȞ ੢ȝȞȠȞ IJ૵Ȟ IJȡȚ૵Ȟ ʌĮȓįȦȞ, ਝȞĮȞȓĮ, ਝȗĮȡȓĮ, ȂȚıĮȒȜ, IJ૵Ȟ ਥȞ IJ૶ ȆȡȠijȒIJૉ ǻĮȞȚ੽Ȝ įȚ’ ਦĮȣIJȠ૨ ਥʌİijȫȞİȚ Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣǜ Ǽ੝ȜȠȖİ૙IJİ ʌȐȞIJĮ IJ੹ ਩ȡȖĮ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ, IJઁȞ ȀȪȡȚȠȞǜ ܻʌȠțȡȚȞȠȝȑȞȦȞ ʌȐȞIJȦȞ. ੥ȝȞİ૙IJİ țĮ੿ ਫ਼ʌİȡȣȥȠ૨IJİ Į੝IJઁȞ İੁȢ IJȠઃȢ Įੁ૵ȞĮȢ».5

਺ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤ੽ ıIJ੽Ȟ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ ȖȚȞȩIJĮȞ ਕʌઁ IJȠઃȢ ʌȡȠıİȡȤȠȝȑȞȠȣȢ ʌȜȘıȚȠȤȫȡȠȣȢ, țȣȡȓȦȢ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȚȞȠȣʌȠȜȓIJİȢ, ʌȡȠıțȣȞȘIJȑȢ, ʌȠઃ ਩IJȡİijĮȞ ȕĮșȪIJĮIJȠ ıİȕĮıȝઁ ıIJઁȞ ਚȖȚȠ ǹ੝ȟȑȞIJȚȠ, ੒ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȢ ıȣȞȑıIJȘıİ ıʌȠȣįĮȓĮ ȝȠȞ੽ ʌĮȡ੹ IJ੽ ȋĮȜțȘįȩȞĮ ıIJઁ ȜİȖȩȝİȞȠ ǺȠȣȞȩ. ੘ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠȢ ਢȖȚȠȢ ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ਕʌȠijȪȖİȚ IJ੿Ȣ ıȣȞİȤİ૙Ȣ ੑȤȜȒıİȚȢ ਕʌઁ IJȠઃȢ ʌȚıIJȠȪȢ, ੖ȡȚıİ «ıȣȞȒșȘ țĮȚȡȩȞ, ਥȞ મ IJȠީȢ ʌĮȡȩȞIJĮȢ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ įȠȟȠȜȠȖȓĮȞ ʌȡȠİIJȡȑʌİIJȠ ʌȡࠛIJȠȞ, İੇș’ Ƞ੢IJȦȢ IJ૶ ȜȩȖ૳ IJોȢ ȤȐȡȚIJȠȢ ʌĮȡĮȚȞ૵Ȟ ਪțĮıIJȠȞ țĮ੿ țĮIJİȣȜȠȖ૵Ȟ ਕʌȑȜȣİȞ».6 ੘ ǹ੝ȟȑȞIJȚȠȢ ȣੂȠșȑIJȘıİ IJ੽Ȟ IJȐȟȘ IJોȢ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮȢ ਕʌઁ ਙȞįȡİȢ țĮ੿ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ıIJ੽ ȝȠȞȒ IJȠȣ, ਕțȠȜȠȣșȫȞIJĮȢ IJઁ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțઁ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ ʌȠઃ İੇȤİ ʌȡȠȕȐȜİȚ ıIJ੽Ȟ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȚȞȠȪʌȠȜȘ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȣȝȑȞȦȢ ੒ ੒ıȚȫIJĮIJȠȢ ਡȞșȚȝȠȢ, «ȝĮșȘIJ੽Ȣ țĮȓ ıȣȞȩȝȚȜȠȢ» IJ૵Ȟ ȈȚIJ઼ țĮ੿ ਖȖȓȠȣ ȂĮȡțȚĮȞȠ૨ ʌȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȠȣ IJોȢ ȂİȖȐȜȘȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ († ȝİIJ੹ IJઁ 471, ȝȞȒȝȘ 10 ੉ĮȞȠȣĮȡȓȠȣ): «ਢȝĮ Ƞ੣Ȟ ȈȚIJઽ IJȚȞȚ Ƞ੢IJȦ ʌȡȠıĮȖȠȡİȣȠȝȑȞ૳, ਕȞįȡ੿ ʌĮȞıȑȝȞ૳ IJ੹ ʌȐȞIJĮ, țĮ੿ ȂĮȡțȚĮȞ૶ IJ૶ IJȠȚȞȚțĮ૨IJĮ ȜĮȧț૶ ੕ȞIJȚ ... ȝİIJ’ Ƞ੝ ʌȠȜઃ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ȠੁțȠȞȠȝȓĮȞ IJોȢ ਖȖȚȦIJȐIJȘȢ ȂİȖȐȜȘȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȚȞȠȣʌȩȜİȦȢ ਥȝʌȚıIJİȣșȑȞIJȚ țĮ੿ ਝȞșȓȝ૳ IJ૶ ȝİȖȐȜ૳ țĮ੿ șĮȣȝĮıIJ૶ ਕȞįȡ੿ IJȩIJİ įİțȐȞ૳ ੕ȞIJȚ ਥȞ ੑȡįȓȞ૳ IJȠ૨ șİȓȠȣ ʌĮȜĮIJȓȠȣ, ਩ʌİȚIJĮ į੻ įȚĮțȩȞ૳ ȖİȖȠȞȩIJȚ, ȜȠȚʌઁȞ į੻ țĮ੿ ʌȡİıȕȣIJȑȡ૳, IJ૶ țĮ੿ țĮIJĮțȠıȝȒıĮȞIJȚ ȝİIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ȝİIJȐıIJĮıȚȞ IJ૵Ȟ ʌȡȠİȚȡȘȝȑȞȦȞ

5 6

PG 114, 1416A-D. ǺȜ. țĮ੿ ĬİȠijȐȞȘ Ȃ. ǺȠȪIJıȘ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ıı. 62-65. PG 114, 1388D.

Deaconesses and Women in the Public Worship of God

183

țĮ੿ ijĮȚįȡȪȞĮȞIJȚ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJĮ߿Ȣ ‫ބ‬ȝȞ࠙įȓĮȚȢ įȚ‫ ޟ‬ȤȠȡࠛȞ ܻȞįȡࠛȞ IJİ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ IJ‫ޟ‬Ȣ Į‫ރ‬IJ‫ޟ‬Ȣ ʌĮȞȞȣȤȓįĮȢ Į‫ݮ‬Ȣ ʌȡȠıȓįȡȣıİȞ ‫ ݸ‬ȝĮțȐȡȚȠȢ ǹ‫ރ‬ȟȑȞIJȚȠȢ».7 ਝȞȐȜȠȖİȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ ʌİȡȚȑȤȠȞIJĮȚ įȚȐıʌĮȡIJİȢ țĮ੿ ıIJ੹ ʌĮIJİȡȚț੹ țİȓȝİȞĮ, Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙İȢ, ੖IJĮȞ ਥȟĮȞIJȜȘIJȚț੹ ਕȞșȠȜȠȖȘșȠ૨Ȟ, ș੹ ıȤȘȝĮIJȓıȠȣȞ ਕȡțİIJ੹ ਥȝijĮȞ૵Ȣ IJઁ ʌ੹ȗȜ ȖȚ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ਩țIJĮıȘ IJોȢ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤોȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ıIJ੽Ȟ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ, țĮșઅȢ țĮ੿ ȖȚ੹ IJ੽ ıIJȐıȘ IJ૵Ȟ ʌĮIJȑȡȦȞ ਕʌȑȞĮȞIJȚ ı੻ Į੝IJ੽ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȡȐȟȘ. ਫȞįİȚțIJȚț੹ țĮ੿ ȝȩȞȠȞ ʌĮȡĮIJȓșİȞIJĮȚ ਥį૵ Ƞੂ ਦȟોȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ: ੘ ੂ. ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȢ ਕȞĮijȑȡİȚ: «ȉȠıĮȪIJȘ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ਲ İ੝ȖȑȞİȚĮ ...ǜ Ƞ੝į’ Į੣ ਕȞ੽ȡ ȝ੻Ȟ ʌĮȡȡȘıȚȐȗİIJĮȚ, ȖȣȞ੽ į੻ țĮ੿ ıȚȖઽ țĮ੿ ਙijȦȞȠȢ ਪıIJȘțİȞǜ ܻȜȜ‫ ޟ‬ʌȐȞIJİȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ Į‫ރ‬IJ߲ IJȚȝ߲ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ijȦȞ߲ ȝȚߣ ‫݋‬ț įȚĮijȩȡȦȞ ȖȜȦIJIJࠛȞ ʌȡާȢ IJާȞ IJ߱Ȣ Ƞ‫ݧ‬țȠȣȝȑȞȘȢ ܻȞĮʌȑȝʌİIJĮȚ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȩȞ».8 ੘ ੅įȚȠȢ ੒ ʌĮIJȑȡĮȢ įȓȞİȚ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȜȘȡȠijȠȡȓĮ ੖IJȚ ਩ȥĮȜȜĮȞ țĮ੿ ȤȠȡȠ੿ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ țĮIJ੹ IJ੿Ȣ ȜȚIJĮȞİ૙İȢ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੹ İ੝țIJȒȡȚĮ ȝĮȡIJȪȡȦȞ țĮ੿ ਖȖȓȦȞ IJ੽Ȟ ਲȝȑȡĮ IJોȢ ȝȞȒȝȘȢ IJȠȣȢ.9 ਫʌȓıȘȢ ੒ ਚȖȚȠȢ ਝȝȕȡȩıȚȠȢ ȂİįȚȠȜȐȞȦȞ ਫ਼ʌȠıIJȘȡȓȗİȚ IJ੽Ȟ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ ਕʌઁ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ, ੁįȓȦȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȌĮȜȝ૵Ȟ, IJȠઃȢ ੒ʌȠȓȠȣȢ șİȦȡİ૙ ੁįȚĮȗȩȞIJȦȢ ੩ijȑȜȚȝȠȣȢ ȖȚ੹ IJȠઃȢ ʌȚıIJȠȪȢ, ਥʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞȠȞIJĮȢ ਥȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞ૳ ੖IJȚ ਲ ʌĮȡĮȓȞİıȘ IJȠ૨ ਕʌ. ȆĮȪȜȠȣ (ǹǯ ȀȠȡ. 14, 34), Ƞੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ Ȟ੹ ıȚȦʌȠ૨Ȟ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ੮ȡĮ IJ૵Ȟ ıȣȞȐȟİȦȞ, į੻Ȟ ਕȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıIJ੽Ȟ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ.10 ਺ ਕȞȠȤ੽ IJȠ૨ ੂ. ȋȡȣıȠıIJȩȝȠȣ ıIJઁ șȑȝĮ IJોȢ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮȢ ਕʌઁ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ਦįȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ıIJ੽ ȕȚȕȜȚț੽ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ʌİȡ੿ IJોȢ ੁıȩIJȘIJȠȢ IJ૵Ȟ ijȪȜȦȞ, ੁįȓȦȢ ıIJઁ țȜĮııȚțઁ ȤȦȡȓȠ IJȠ૨ ਕʌ. ȆĮȪȜȠȣ: «Ƞ‫ރ‬ț ‫ݏ‬ȞȚ ܿȡıİȞ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ș߱Ȝȣ» (īĮȜ. 3, 28). ǹ੝IJ੽ ਲ ਥʌĮȞĮıIJĮIJȚțȒ, ੁįȓȦȢ ȖȚ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ਥʌȠȤ੽ ਥțİȓȞȘ, ਕʌȠıIJȠȜȚț੽ șȑıȘ, ʌȠઃ ਕıijĮȜ૵Ȣ ਥȟȪȥȦıİ IJ੽ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, į੻Ȟ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ Ȟ੹ ਫ਼ʌİȡȓıȤȣİ ıIJ੿Ȣ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ʌȠઃ ਲ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ ਕʌઁ ʌȜİȣȡ઼Ȣ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ਷IJĮȞ ĮੁIJȓĮ ਕIJĮȟȓĮȢ ਲ਼ ıțĮȞįĮȜȚıȝȠ૨ ȝ੻ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ ੒ ੢ȝȞȠȢ Ȟ੹ ȝ੽Ȟ ijșȐȞİȚ ıIJઁȞ Ĭİઁ ਖȖȞઁȢ țĮ੿ ਕțȘȜȓįȦIJȠȢ. ਯIJıȚ ੒ ੉ıȓįȦȡȠȢ ȆȘȜȠȣıȚȫIJȘȢ ıȣȝȝİȡȓȗİIJĮȚ IJ੽Ȟ IJȩIJİ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț੽ ʌȡȐȟȘ Ƞੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ Ȟ੹ ȥȐȜȜȠȣȞ «ıȣȞİIJ૵Ȣ»,

7

PG 114, 1380BC. ‫ݾ‬ȝȚȜȓĮ 4 ʌĮȡĮȚȞİIJȚț‫ ޣ‬ȜİȤșİ߿ıĮ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJࠜ ȞĮࠜ IJ߱Ȣ ܼȖȓĮȢ ݃ȞĮıIJĮıȓĮȢ ʌȡާȢ IJȠީȢ ܻʌȠȜİȚijșȑȞIJĮȢ …, PG 63, 487. ȆȡȕȜ. ȉȠȣ ǿįȓȠȣ, ‫ݒ‬ȡȝȘȞİȓĮ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȠީȢ ȌĮȜȝȠȪȢ, 46, 5, PG 55, 215, 141, 4, PG 55, 462- 463. ‫ݾ‬ȝȚȜȓĮ 18 İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ Ǻǯ ȀȠȡȚȞș., PG 61, 527. ‫ݾ‬ȝȚȜȓĮ 19 İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ ‫ݑ‬ijİıȓȠȣȢ, PG 62, 129. ‫ݾ‬ȝȚȜȓĮ 9 İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ ȀȠȜĮııĮİ߿Ȣ, PG 62, 364. ‫ݾ‬ȝȚȜȓĮ 19 İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ ȂĮIJșĮ߿ȠȞ, PG 57, 277. 9 ǺȜ. ıȤİIJȚț੹ ıIJઁ W. Mayer țĮ੿ P. Allen, John Chrysostom, ȃȑĮ ੥ȩȡțȘ 2000, ıı. 85-92 țĮ੿ Susan Ashbrook-Harvey, Performance as exegesis. Women’s liturgical Choirs in Syriac tradition, ıIJઁ Inquiries into eastern christian worship. Selected papers of the Second International Congress of the Society of the Oriental Liturgy, Rome 17-21, September 2008, ed. by B. Groen, St. Hawkes-Teeples, St. Alexopoulos, Peeters, Leuven, Paris, Walpole MA 2012, ıı. 52-53. 10 ǺȜ. ıIJȠ૨ J. McKinnon, Music in Early Christian Literature, Cambridge 1987, ıı. 126-127. 8

184

Chapter Fourteen

ਥʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ੖ȝȦȢ IJ੿Ȣ ਕȡȞȘIJȚț੻Ȣ ıȣȞȑʌİȚİȢ ʌȠઃ ʌȡȠțȪʌIJȠȣȞ, ੖IJĮȞ ਲ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ į੻Ȟ ıȣıIJȠȚȤİ૙ ıIJઁ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțઁ ਷șȠȢ: «ȉ੹Ȣ ਥȞ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȚȢ ijȜȣĮȡȓĮȢ țĮIJĮʌĮ૨ıĮȚ ȕȠȣȜȩȝİȞȠȚ Ƞੂ IJȠ૨ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ ਕʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ țĮ੿ IJોȢ ਲȝ૵Ȟ ʌĮȚįİȣIJĮ੿ țĮIJĮıIJȐıİȦȢ, ȥȐȜȜİȚȞ ‫݋‬Ȟ Į‫ރ‬IJĮ߿Ȣ IJ‫ޟ‬Ȣ ȖȣȞĮ߿țĮȢ ıȣȞİIJࠛȢ ıȣȞİȤȫȡȘıĮȞ. ਝȜȜ’ ੪Ȣ ʌȐȞIJĮ İੁȢ IJȠ੝ȞĮȞIJȓȠȞ ਥIJȡȐʌȘ IJ੹ șİȠijȩȡĮ įȚįȐȖȝĮIJĮǜ țĮ੿ IJȠ૨IJȠ İੁȢ ਩țȜȣıȚȞ țĮ੿ ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮȢ ਫ਼ʌȩșİıȚȞ IJȠ૙Ȣ ʌȜİȓȠıȚ ȖȑȖȠȞİ. ȀĮ੿ țĮIJȐȞȣȟȚȞ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥț IJ૵Ȟ șİȓȦȞ ੢ȝȞȦȞ Ƞ੝Ȥ ਫ਼ʌȠȝȑȞȠȣıȚǜ IJૌ į੻ IJȠ૨ ȝȑȜȠȣȢ ਲįȪIJȘIJȚ İੁȢ ਥȡİșȚıȝઁȞ ʌĮșȘȝȐIJȦȞ ȤȡȫȝİȞȠȚ, Ƞ੝į੻Ȟ Į੝IJ੽Ȟ ʌȜȑȠȞ IJ૵Ȟ ਥʌ੿ IJોȢ ıțȘȞોȢ ઇıȝȐIJȦȞ ȜȠȖȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ. ȋȡȒ, IJȠȓȞȣȞ, İੁ ȝȑȜȜȠȝİȞ IJઁ IJ૶ Ĭİ૶ ਕȡȑıțİȚȞ ȗȘIJİ૙Ȟ, țĮ੿ IJઁ țȠȚȞૌ ıȣȝijȑȡȠȞ ʌȠȚİ૙Ȟ, ʌĮȪİȚȞ IJĮȪIJĮȢ țĮ੿ IJોȢ ਥȞ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȚȢ ધįોȢ țĮ੿ IJોȢ ਥȞ ʌȩȜİȚ ȝȠȞોȢ, ੪Ȣ ȤȡȚıIJȠțĮʌȒȜȠȣȢ țĮ੿ IJઁ șİ૙ȠȞ ȤȐȡȚıȝĮ ȝȚıșઁȞ ਕʌȦȜİȓĮȢ ਥȡȖĮȗȠȝȑȞĮȢ».11

਺ ਕȞIJȓȡȡȘıȘ IJȠ૨ ੉ıȚįȫȡȠȣ ȆȘȜȠȣıȚȫIJȘ ıȤİIJȚȗȩIJĮȞ ਕʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚț੹ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ਱șȚț੽ ȕȜȐȕȘ, ȤȦȡ੿Ȣ Ȟ੹ șȑIJİȚ ı੻ ੒ʌȠȚȠįȒʌȠIJİ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ IJઁ șȑȝĮ ਥʌ੿ IJોȢ įȚĮijȠȡ઼Ȣ ijȪȜȠȣ. ਫȟȐȜȜȠȣ Ƞੂ «ʌĮȚįİȣIJĮȓ», įȘȜ. Ƞੂ ਕʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ ʌĮIJȑȡİȢ, ਥʌȑIJȡİȥĮȞ IJ੽ «ıȣȞİIJ੽» ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ ਕʌઁ IJ੿Ȣ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ, ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ਕȞIJȚȝİIJȦʌȚıșȠ૨Ȟ Ƞੂ ijȜȣĮȡȓİȢ IJȠȣȢ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ੮ȡĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚț૵Ȟ ıȣȞȐȟİȦȞ. ਿIJĮȞ ਪȞĮȢ įȩțȚȝȠȢ ʌĮȚįĮȖȦȖȚțઁȢ IJȡȩʌȠȢ, ੒ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȢ įȚ੹ IJોȢ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤોȢ ıIJ੹ ȥĮȜȜȩȝİȞĮ ਩įȚȞİ IJ੽ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ʌİȡȚıȣȜȜȠȖોȢ IJȠ૨ ȞȠ૨ țĮ੿ țĮIJ’ ਥʌȑțIJĮıȘ țĮIJĮȞȠȒıİȦȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț૵Ȟ țİȚȝȑȞȦȞ. ȉ੹ ʌȡȐȖȝĮIJĮ ਷IJĮȞ ਕțȩȝĮ ʌȚઁ ਕȞİțIJȚț੹ ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ʌȠઃ Ƞੂ ȥȐȜIJȡȚİȢ ਕȞોțĮȞ ıIJ੽ ȤȠȡİȓĮ IJ૵Ȟ ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȞ, įȘȜ. IJ૵Ȟ ਕijȚİȡȦȝȑȞȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ (ȝȠȞĮȗȠȣı૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ȝȒ), Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙İȢ į੻Ȟ ਩ȥĮȜȜĮȞ ȝȩȞȠ ıIJȠઃȢ ȝȠȞĮıIJȘȡȚĮțȠઃȢ ȞĮȠઃȢ ਕȜȜ੹ țĮ੿ ı੻ ਥȞȠȡȚĮțȠȪȢ. ȈȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ ੒ ਚȖȚȠȢ ਫijȡĮ੿ȝ ੒ ȈȪȡȠȢ ੑȡȖȐȞȦıİ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠȣȢ ȤȠȡȠઃȢ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਯįİııĮ, IJȠઃȢ ੒ʌȠȓȠȣȢ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ țĮ੿ įȚȘȪșȣȞİ.12 ੲȢ ਫ਼ʌȑȡȝĮȤȠȢ IJ૵Ȟ įȠȖȝĮIJȚț૵Ȟ ਕʌȠijȐıİȦȞ IJોȢ ǹǯ ȅੁțȠȣȝİȞȚțોȢ ıȣȞȩįȠȣ, ਕʌȑȕȜİʌİ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ IJ૵Ȟ įȠȖȝĮIJȚț૵Ȟ ੢ȝȞȦȞ, ʌȠઃ ੒ ੅įȚȠȢ ıȣȞȑșİıİ, Ȟ੹ ਥȝʌȞİȪıİȚ țĮ੿ ıIJ੿Ȣ İ੝ȜĮȕİ૙Ȣ ੑȡșȩįȠȟİȢ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȓıIJȘ IJોȢ țĮșȠȜȚțોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ.13 ਺ įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ ȆȠȣʌȜȓĮ (ȝȞȒȝȘ 9 ੗țIJȦȕȡȓȠȣ), ȝȘIJȑȡĮ țȐʌȠȚȠȣ ਥʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ ੉ȦȐȞȞȘ ਥʌ੿ IJોȢ ȕĮıȚȜİȓĮȢ ੉ȠȣȜȚĮȞȠ૨ IJȠ૨ ȆĮȡĮȕȐIJȘ (361-363), įȚĮIJȘȡȠ૨ıİ ıIJઁȞ 11

‫ݑ‬ʌȚıIJȠȜ‫ ޣ‬90 ‫ݯ‬ıȚįȫȡ࠙ ‫݋‬ʌȚıțȩʌ࠙, PG 78, 244D-245A (ȕȜ. Ǿ. ǺȠȣȜȖĮȡȐțȘ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ıı. 89-90). ǺȜ. ıȤİIJȚț੹ Ȇ. ȉȡİȝʌȑȜĮ, ‫ ݠ‬ȖȣȞ‫݋ ޣ‬Ȟ IJ߲ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓߠ, ਝșોȞĮȚ 1926, ıı. 25-27 țĮ੿ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȓĮȢ ȋ. ȈʌȣȡȐțȠȣ, ȅ‫ ݨ‬ȤȠȡȠ‫ ޥ‬ȥĮȜIJࠛȞ țĮIJ‫ ޟ‬IJ‫ ޣ‬ȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞ‫ޣ‬ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ, ਥțįȓįİȚ ੒ īȡ. Ĭ. ȈIJȐșȘȢ, ਝșȒȞĮ 2008, ıı. 184-185. ਫʌȓıȘȢ ȕȜ. ĭȚȜȩșİȠȣ ȆȡȠȚțȠȞȒıȠȣ, ‫ ݠ‬ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤ‫ ޣ‬IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ ijȦȞ߱Ȣ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJࠜ ȌĮȜȝ࠙įȒȝĮIJȚ, ੉ıIJĮȞȝʌȠઃȜ 1953. ī. Ȉ. ȂĮȞȚȐțȘ, ȅ‫ ݨ‬ȖȣȞĮ߿țİȢ ıIJ‫ ޣ‬ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ. ‫ ݠ‬ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤ‫ ޣ‬IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ ıIJ‫ ޣ‬ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ țĮ‫ބ ޥ‬ȝȞȠȖȡĮijȓĮ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ਝșȒȞĮ 1993. 12 ȈȦȗȠȝȑȞȠȣ, ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț‫ݰ ޣ‬ıIJȠȡȓĮ īǯ, 16, PG 67, 1689. ǺȜ. țĮ੿ ȈʌȣȡȐțȠȣ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ı. 185. ǺȜ. ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡĮ ıIJોȢ Ashbrook-Harvey, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ı. 47 ਦȟ. 13 Ashbrook-Harvey, ıı. 47-48.

Deaconesses and Women in the Public Worship of God

185

ʌĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțઁ ȞĮઁ IJોȢ ਝȞIJȚȩȤİȚĮȢ ȤȠȡȠઃȢ ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȞ, IJ૵Ȟ ੒ʌȠȓȦȞ IJ੽Ȟ ਥțȖȪȝȞĮıȘ İੇȤİ ਕȞĮȜȐȕİȚ. ਯȥĮȜȜĮȞ, ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ, ਕȞIJȚȝĮȤȩȝİȞİȢ ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌȠȜȚIJȚț੽ IJȠ૨ Į੝IJȠțȡȐIJȠȡĮ, ਕȞIJȚİȚįȦȜȠȜĮIJȡȚțȠઃȢ ੢ȝȞȠȣȢ.14 ਝıijĮȜ૵Ȣ, ਥ੹Ȟ ਲ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ țĮșȓıIJĮIJȠ ਕijȠȡȝ੽ ıțĮȞįĮȜȚıȝȠ૨, ੁįȓȦȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȝȠȞĮȤ૵Ȟ, ਲ ʌȡȠIJȡȠʌ੽ ਷IJĮȞ Ȟ੹ ਕʌȠijİȪȖİIJĮȚ ਲ ĮੁIJȓĮ ʌȠઃ ȖİȞȞ઼ IJઁȞ ʌİȚȡĮıȝȩ. ǼੇȞĮȚ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȩȢ, ਥȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞ૳, țĮ੿ ੒ IJȓIJȜȠȢ IJȠ૨ 18Ƞȣ ȜȩȖȠȣ IJȠ૨ ȆĮȞįȑțIJȘ IJȠ૨ ȝȠȞĮȤȠ૨ ਝȞIJȚȩȤȠȣ: «Ȇİȡ‫ ޥ‬IJȠࠎ ȝ‫݋ ޣ‬ȞįİȜİȤȓȗİȚȞ ȥĮȜȜȠȪıĮȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȚȟȓȞ». ȅੂ ȝȠȞĮȤȠ੿ ੕ijİȚȜĮȞ Ȟ੹ İੇȞĮȚ ੁįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ ʌȡȠıİțIJȚțȠ੿ ıIJ੿Ȣ ਥʌĮijȑȢ IJȠȣȢ ȝ੻ IJ੿Ȣ ȝȠȞĮȤȑȢ, ȝ੽ ਥȟĮȚȡȠȣȝȑȞȘȢ țĮ੿ IJોȢ ੮ȡĮȢ IJોȢ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮȢ ਕʌઁ Į੝IJȑȢ. «ȀĮ੿ IJઁ ਥȞįİȜİȤȓȗİȚȞ ȥĮȜȜȠȪıĮȚȢ ਕıȪȝijȠȡȠȞ ਲȝ૙Ȟ ਥıIJȚȞ, ȕȜĮʌIJȠȝȑȞȦȞ ਲȝ૵Ȟ IJĮ૙Ȣ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ıȣȞIJȣȤȓĮȚȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȜİȖȠȝȑȞȦȞ ȝȠȞĮıIJȡȚ૵Ȟ. ȉઁ Ȗ੹ȡ ੅ȞįĮȜȝĮ IJોȢ ੕ȥİȦȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ਙȡȤİIJĮȚ țȜȠȞȓȗİȚȞ IJ੽Ȟ țĮȡįȓĮȞ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ țĮ੿ ਕʌȠıʌ઼Ȟ IJઁȞ ȞȠ૨Ȟ ਕʌઁ IJોȢ ਲıȣȤȓĮȢ ...».15 ੜȝȦȢ Į੝IJ੻Ȣ ਷IJĮȞ ʌĮȡĮȚȞȑıİȚȢ ʌȠઃ İੇȤĮȞ ਙȝİıȠȣȢ ਕʌȠįȑțIJİȢ IJȠઃȢ ȝȠȞĮȤȠȪȢ. ȈIJ੽Ȟ ਥȞȠȡȓĮ IJ੹ ʌȡȐȖȝĮIJĮ ਷IJĮȞ țȐʌȦȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȐ. ȅੂ ਕijȚİȡȦȝȑȞİȢ ıIJઁȞ Ĭİઁ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ, ੖ʌȦȢ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ ȝȠȞȐȗȠȣıİȢ, İੇȤĮȞ IJ੽ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ਥȞIJઁȢ ȝȓĮȢ țĮșȚİȡȦȝȑȞȘȢ IJȐȟȘȢ Ȟ੹ ȥȐȜȜȠȣȞ țĮIJ੹ IJ੿Ȣ ਕțȠȜȠȣșȓİȢ țĮ੿ ıIJȠઃȢ țȠıȝȚțȠઃȢ ȞĮȠȪȢ. ȉȠ૨IJȠ ıȣȞȐȖİIJĮȚ ਕʌઁ ȞȠȝȠșİIJȚț੽ ȡȪșȝȚıȘ IJȠ૨ Į੝IJȠțȡȐIJȠȡĮ ੉ȠȣıIJȚȞȚĮȞȠ૨, ੒ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȢ, ıIJઁ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJોȢ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡȘȢ ijȡȠȞIJȓįĮȢ IJȠȣ ȖȚ੹ IJઁȞ țȜોȡȠ IJોȢ ਞȖȓĮȢ ȈȠijȓĮȢ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȚȞȠȣʌȩȜİȦȢ, ʌĮȡĮȤȫȡȘıİ ੁįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ «ıțȘȞȫȝĮIJĮ» (=țİȜȜȓĮ) țĮ੿ ȖȚ੹ IJ੿Ȣ ȥȐȜIJȡȚİȢ IJȠ૨ ȞĮȠ૨: «įȑįȦțİ į੻ țĮ੿ IJ૶ țȜȒȡ૳ țİȜȜȓĮ İੁȢ IJ੹ ʌȑȡȚȟ Į੝IJ૶ (ਵIJȠȚ IJ૶ ȞĮ૶ IJોȢ ਞȖȓĮȢ ȈȠijȓĮȢ) țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ IJȐȟȚȞ Į੝IJ૵Ȟǜ țĮ੿ IJĮ߿Ȣ ޭįȠȪıĮȚȢ ıțȘȞȫȝĮIJĮ, įȪȠ ਕıțȘIJȒȡȚĮ».16 ਺ ੢ʌĮȡȟȘ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ (ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȞ ਲ਼ ੑȡșȩIJİȡĮ ȝȠȞĮȗȠȣı૵Ȟ țĮIJ੹ ʌ઼ıĮȞ ʌȚșĮȞȩIJȘIJĮ) ʌȠઃ ਩ȥĮȜȜĮȞ ıIJ੿Ȣ ਕțȠȜȠȣșȓİȢ IJોȢ ਞȖȓĮȢ ȈȠijȓĮȢ ਥʌȚȕİȕĮȚȫȞİIJĮȚ țĮ੿ ਕʌઁ IJ੽ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ ੖IJȚ ੒ 14

ȈʌȣȡȐțȠȣ, ı. 185-186. «ਝȜȜ੹ ȖİȖȠȞȫIJİȡȠȞ IJ੹Ȣ ıȣȞȒșİȚȢ ‫ބ‬ȝȞ࠙įȓĮȢ ȝİIJ‫ ޟ‬IJࠛȞ ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȞ ‫ݏ‬ȥĮȜȜİȞ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJȠީȢ ȥĮȜȝȠީȢ ‫݋‬țİȓȞȠȣȢ ‫݋‬ʌ߲įİȞ, Ƞ੄ IJ૵Ȟ İੁįȫȜȦȞ IJ੽Ȟ ਕıșȑȞİȚĮȞ țȦȝ૳įȠ૨ıȚȞ țĮ੿ ȝİIJ੹ IJȠ૨ ǻĮȣ੿į ਩ȜİȖİȞǜ ȉ‫ ޟ‬İ‫ݫ‬įȦȜĮ IJࠛȞ ‫݋‬șȞࠛȞ …», Synaxarium CP, ਩țį. H. Delehaye, ǺȡȣȟȑȜȜİȢ 1902, ıIJ. 123. ǺȜ. țĮ੿ ĬİȠįȫȡȘIJȠȣ, ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț‫ݰ ޣ‬ıIJȠȡȓĮ, PG 82 1152 ਦȟ., 1168 ਦȟ. ȈȦțȡȐIJȠȣȢ, ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț‫ޣ‬ ‫ݰ‬ıIJȠȡȓĮ īǯ 18, PG 67, 425. ȂȘȞȠȜȩȖȚȠȞ ǺĮıȚȜİȓȠȣ, PG 117, 97C. ǺȜ. ıȤİIJȚț੹ ǻ. ȀĮțȜĮȝȐȞȠȣ, ȂȐȡIJȣȡİȢ țĮ‫ݸ ޥ‬ȝȠȜȠȖȘIJ‫ޡ‬Ȣ IJ߱Ȣ ‫݋‬ʌȠȤ߱Ȣ IJȠࠎ ‫ݯ‬ȠȣȜȚĮȞȠࠎ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2007, ı. 293. 15 PG 89, 1484B. ਺ ǹȚț. ȃȚțȠȜȐȠȣ ੪Ȣ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠȣ ਕȡȚșȝȠ૨ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ਫ਼ȝȞȠȖȡȐijȦȞ șİȦȡİ૙, ʌȡ૵IJȠȞ, IJ੽Ȟ ਕʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ Ȟ੹ ਕțȠȪȖİIJĮȚ ਲ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ ijȦȞ੽ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ (șȑıȘ ੖ȝȦȢ ʌȠઃ ਕȞIJȚțȡȠȪİIJĮȚ ਕʌઁ IJ੿Ȣ ʌĮȡĮIJȚșȑȝİȞİȢ țĮ੿ ਥį૵ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ) țĮ੿ įİȪIJİȡȠȞ, IJઁ ȤĮȝȘȜઁ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ ȝȠȡijȫıİȦȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ, ȕȜ. ‫ݠ‬ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJ‫ ޣ‬ȝȑıȘ ȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞ‫݋ ޣ‬ʌȠȤȒ. ȀȠȚȞȦȞȚț‫ ޟ‬ʌȡȩIJȣʌĮ țĮ‫ ޥ‬țĮșȘȝİȡȚȞާȢ ȕȓȠȢ ıIJ‫ޟ‬ ܼȖȚȠȜȠȖȚț‫ ޟ‬țİȓȝİȞĮ, ਝșȒȞĮ 2005, ı. 208. 16 ǺȜ. ıIJોȢ ȈʌȣȡȐțȠȣ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ıı. 188-189. ǺȜ. țĮ੿ Ǽȣ. ǹȞIJȦȞȚȐįȠȣ, ‫ݕ‬țijȡĮıȚȢ ݄ȖȓĮȢ ȈȠijȓĮȢ, IJ. ǹǯ, ਥȞ ਝșȒȞĮȚȢ 1907 (=ਝșોȞĮȚ 1983), ıı. 66-67.

186

Chapter Fourteen

੉ȠȣıIJȚȞȚĮȞઁȢ «ਥțȜȒȡȦıİȞ ੂİȡİ૙Ȣ IJİ țĮ੿ ਪȦȢ ਥıȤȐIJȠȣ IJ૵Ȟ ਫ਼ʌȠȣȡȖȠȪȞIJȦȞ IJ૶ ȞĮ૶ ȤȚȜȚȐįĮ ȝȓĮȞǜ ઇįȠȪıĮȚȢ ȡǯ, ȝİȡȚȗȠȝȑȞĮȢ İੁȢ įȪȠ ਦȕįȠȝȐįĮȢ»17. ੘ ੅įȚȠȢ Į੝IJȠțȡȐIJȠȡĮȢ ȝ੻ IJ੽ ȃİĮȡ੹ 59 (11ȘȢ ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 537) ੖ȡȚıİ IJ੹ «ܻıțȘIJȒȡȚĮ», ʌȠઃ ıȣȖțȡȠIJȠ૨ȞIJĮȞ ਥȟ ੑțIJઅ IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ «ਕıțȘIJȡȚ૵Ȟ ਲ਼ țĮȞȠȞȚț૵Ȟ...ਲȖȠȣȝȑȞȦȞ IJોȢ țȜȓȞȘȢ țĮ੿ ȥĮȜȜȠȣıࠛȞ»,18 Ȟ੹ ȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ ਥȞİȡȖઁ ȡȩȜȠ ıIJ੽Ȟ IJİȜİIJ੽ IJોȢ țȘįİȓĮȢ ਫ਼ʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ İ੝șȪȞȘ IJ૵Ȟ ȠੁțȠȞȩȝȦȞ țĮ੿ ਥțįȓțȦȞ IJȠ૨ ȞĮȠ૨. īİȞȚțȩIJİȡĮ IJ੹ «ਕıțȘIJȒȡȚĮ»19 (ȝȚțȡ੻Ȣ ੒ȝȐįİȢ ਕijȚİȡȦȝȑȞȦȞ ıIJઁȞ Ĭİઁ ʌȡȠıȫʌȦȞ), ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝ੻ IJઁ ȉȣʌȚțઁ IJોȢ ȂİȖȐȜȘȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, İੇȤĮȞ ਥȞİȡȖઁ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ ıIJ੽Ȟ IJȑȜİıȘ IJ૵Ȟ ਕțȠȜȠȣșȚ૵Ȟ, ȝİȡȚȗȠȝȑȞȘȢ IJોȢ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ ı੻ ਦȕįȠȝȐįİȢ («ਦȕįȠȝĮįȐȡȚȠȚ»). ਝȡȖȩIJİȡĮ ੒ Į੝IJȠțȡȐIJȠȡĮȢ ਝȜȑȟȚȠȢ ǹǯ ȀȠȝȞȘȞઁȢ (1081-1118), ੖ʌȦȢ ਕȞĮijȑȡİȚ ਲ țȩȡȘ IJȠȣ ਡȞȞĮ, ਩țIJȚıİ ȞĮઁ ʌȡઁȢ IJȚȝ੽Ȟ IJȠ૨ ਕʌ. ȆĮȪȜȠȣ țĮ੿ ੑȡijĮȞȠIJȡȠijİ૙Ƞ ıIJ੽ ǻȐȝĮȜȚȞ (ıIJ੽Ȟ ਕıȚĮIJȚț੽ ȝİȡȚ੹ IJોȢ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȚȞȠȣʌȩȜİȦȢ) țĮ੿ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽ ıȣȞȒșȘ ʌȡȐȟȘ, IJ੽Ȟ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ਥʌȚIJȐııȠȣȞ țĮ੿ IJ੹ ȞȠȝȠșİIJȚț੹ țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȠ૨ ੉ȠȣıIJȚȞȚĮȞȠ૨, ੖ȡȚıİ ıIJઁȞ ȞĮઁ Ȟ੹ ȥȐȜȜȠȣȞ țĮ੿ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ: «ȉ૶ į੻ ȞĮ૶ IJȠ૨ ȝİȖĮȜȠțȒȡȣțȠȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ țȜોȡȠȢ ȝȑȖĮȢ țĮIJİȓȜİțIJȠ țĮ੿ ʌȠȜઃȢ țĮ੿ ijȫIJȦȞ įĮȥȓȜİȚĮǜ țĮ੿ ʌĮȡĮȖİȞȩȝİȞȠȢ İੁȢ IJȠȣIJȠȞ੿ IJઁȞ ȞİઅȞ ੅įȠȚȢ ਗȞ ȤȠȡȠઃȢ ਦțĮIJȑȡȦșİȞ ਕȞIJ઻įȠȞIJĮȢǜ țĮIJȑIJĮȟİ Ȗ੹ȡ IJ૶ IJ૵Ȟ ਕʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ Ȟİ૶ ‫ޱ‬įȠȞIJĮȢ țĮ‫ޭ ޥ‬įȠȪıĮȢ, țĮIJ੹ IJઁȞ ȈȠȜȠȝ૵ȞIJĮǜ ਥʌȚȝİȜ੻Ȣ Ȗ੹ȡ țĮ੿ IJઁ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ ʌİʌȠȓȘțİȞ ਩ȡȖȠȞ».20 17

ȈʌȣȡȐțȠȣ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ı. 189. Ǽȣ. ǹȞIJȦȞȚȐįȠȣ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., IJ. īǯ, ਥȞ ਝșȒȞĮȚȢ 1909 (= ਝșોȞĮȚ 1983), ı. 152. ੘ ੅įȚȠȢ Į੝IJȠțȡȐIJȠȡĮȢ ıIJઁ ȞȠȝȠșİIJȚțȩ IJȠȣ ਩ȡȖȠ ਕȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ țĮ੿ ıIJ੿Ȣ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ. ੘ Ǽȣ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ (ȅੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıIJ੽Ȟ ੂıIJȠȡȓĮ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ĭȪȜȠ țĮ‫ ޥ‬șȡȘıțİȓĮ. ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȘ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ıı. 198-199) ਕȞĮijȑȡİȚ: «ੜIJȚ Ƞੂ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȘȝȑȞİȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ਕȞોțĮȞ ıIJઁȞ țȜોȡȠ, ȝĮȡIJȣȡİ૙IJĮȚ țĮ੿ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ Į੝IJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȚț੽Ȟ ȞȠȝȠșİıȓĮȞ IJ૵Ȟ ȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞ૵Ȟ ȤȡȩȞȦȞ. ੘ ੉ȠȣıIJȚȞȚȐȞİȚȠȢ Ȁ૵įȚȟ ੒ȝȚȜİ૙ ȖȚ੹ Į੝IJ੻Ȣ ı੻ ȞȠȝȠșİIJȚț੻Ȣ įȚĮIJȐȟİȚȢ, Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙İȢ ਩ȤȠȣȞ IJȓIJȜȠȞ “Ȇİȡ੿ ਥʌȚıțȩʌȦȞ țĮ੿ țȜȘȡȚț૵Ȟ” (“De episcopis et clericis”). ਺ 6Ș “ȃİĮȡ੹” IJȠ૨ ੉ȠȣıIJȚȞȚĮȞȠ૨ ਩ȤİȚ IJઁȞ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțઁȞ țĮ੿ ਕʌȠțĮȜȣʌIJȚțઁȞ IJȓIJȜȠȞ “Ȇİȡ੿ IJȠ૨ ʌ૵Ȣ įİ૙ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞİ૙ıșĮȚ IJȠઃȢ ਥʌȚıțȩʌȠȣȢ țĮ੿ ʌȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȠȣȢ țĮ੿ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣȢ ܿȡȡİȞİȢ țĮ‫ ޥ‬șȘȜİȓĮȢ”. ਺ 3Ș ੉ȠȣıIJȚȞȚȐȞİȚĮ “ȃİĮȡȐ”, ʌȠઃ ijȑȡİȚ IJ੽Ȟ ਥʌȚȖȡĮij੽Ȟ “Ȇİȡ੿ IJȠ૨ ੪ȡȚıȝȑȞȠȞ İੇȞĮȚ IJઁȞ ਙȡȚșȝઁȞ IJ૵Ȟ țȜȘȡȚț૵Ȟ IJોȢ ਖȖȚȦIJȐIJȘȢ ȝİȖȐȜȘȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJોȢ ʌĮȞİȣįĮȓȝȠȞȠȢ ʌȩȜİȦȢ”, ੒ȡȓȗİȚ ੖IJȚ ıIJઁȞ ȞĮઁȞ IJોȢ ਞȖȓĮȢ ȈȠijȓĮȢ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ਫ਼ʌȘȡİIJȠ૨Ȟ 60 ੂİȡİ૙Ȣ, 100 įȚȐțȠȞȠȚ, 40 įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ (“įȚĮțȩȞȠȣȢ į੻ ਙȡȡİȞĮȢ ਦțĮIJઁȞ țĮ੿ IJİııĮȡȐțȠȞIJĮ șȘȜİȓĮȢ”) … ȉઁ ȈȪȞIJĮȖȝĮ țĮȞȩȞȦȞ IJȠ૨ ੂİȡȠ૨ ĭȦIJȓȠȣ ਕȞĮijȑȡİȚ ੖IJȚ țĮ੿ țȐʌȠȚĮ “ȃİĮȡ੹” IJȠ૨ ਺ȡĮțȜİȓȠȣ (610-641) IJȐııİȚ IJ੿Ȣ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıIJઁȞ ੂİȡઁȞ țȜોȡȠȞ țĮ੿ ਥʌĮȞĮȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ, ੖IJȚ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਞȖȓĮȞ ȈȠijȓĮȞ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ਫ਼ʌȘȡİIJȠ૨Ȟ 40 įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ». 18 ȈʌȣȡȐțȠȣ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ı. 189. ǺȜ. țĮ੿ ǹȞIJȦȞȚȐįȠȣ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ı. 152. 19 īȚ੹ IJ੹ ਝıțȘIJȒȡȚĮ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ȡȩȜȠ IJȠȣȢ ıIJ੽Ȟ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ, ȕȜ. ȈʌȣȡȐțȠȣ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ı. 189 ਦȟ. 20 ݃ȜİȟȚȐȢ, ı. 231. ǺȜ. țĮ੿ ȈʌȣȡȐțȠȣ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ı. 190.

Deaconesses and Women in the Public Worship of God

187

ȉઁ ਥȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞ IJȠ૨ Į੝IJȠțȡȐIJȠȡĮ ਝȜİȟȓȠȣ Ȟ੹ ȥȐȜȜȠȣȞ ਕȞIJȚijȦȞȚț੹ ı੻ ȤȠȡȠઃȢ ਙȞįȡİȢ țĮ੿ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ਦįȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ı੻ ȝĮțȡĮȓȦȞȘ ʌȡȐȟȘ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ਥʌȚȝĮȡIJȣȡİ૙IJĮȚ țĮ੿ țĮIJȠȤȣȡȫȞİIJĮȚ ਕʌઁ IJȠઃȢ ʌĮIJȑȡİȢ. ǼੇȞĮȚ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțઁ ੖IJȚ ਲ ȡȪșȝȚıȘ ʌȠઃ ਕȞĮijȑȡİȚ ਲ ਡȞȞĮ ȀȠȝȞȘȞ੽ țĮIJ੹ IJઁ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ ıȣȝijȦȞİ૙ ȝ੻ IJઁȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮȢ ʌȠઃ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijİIJĮȚ ıIJઁȞ ǺȓȠ IJોȢ ਖȖȓĮȢ ȂĮțȡȓȞĮȢ (BHG 1012) († 379, ȝȞȒȝȘ 19 ੉ȠȣȜȓȠȣ). ȈIJ੽Ȟ țȘįİȓĮ IJȘȢ, ੒ ਕįİȜijȩȢ IJȘȢ īȡȘȖȩȡȚȠȢ ȃȪııȘȢ: «įȚĮıIJȒıĮȢ țĮIJ੹ ȖȑȞȠȢ IJઁȞ ıȣȡȡİȑȞIJĮ ȜĮઁȞ țĮ੿ IJާ ‫݋‬Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚȟ‫ ޥ‬ʌȜ߱șȠȢ IJ૶ IJ૵Ȟ ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȞ ıȣȖțĮIJĮȝȓȟĮȢ ȤȠȡ૶, IJ૵Ȟ į੻ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ įોȝȠȞ IJ૶ IJ૵Ȟ ȝȠȞĮȗȩȞIJȦȞ IJȐȖȝĮIJȚ, ȝȓĮȞ ਥȟ ਦțĮIJȑȡȦșİȞ İ੡ȡȣșȝȩȞ IJİ țĮ੿ ਥȞĮȡȝȩȞȚȠȞ, țĮșȐʌİȡ ਥȞ ȤȠȡȠıIJĮıȓ઺ IJ੽Ȟ ȥĮȜȝ૳įȓĮȞ ȖȓȞİıșĮȚ».21 ਺ ȝȞȘȝȠȞİȣȩȝİȞȘ ਕʌઁ IJ੿Ȣ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ʌȘȖ੻Ȣ ʌȡȐȟȘ İੇȞĮȚ ʌȠȜઃ ʌȚșĮȞઁȞ Ȟ੹ ਷IJĮȞ ਲ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȠ૨ıĮ ıIJ੿Ȣ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȜİȖȠȝȑȞȦȞ įȚʌȜ૵Ȟ ȝȠȞĮıIJȘȡȓȦȞ (ȕȜ. țĮȞȩȞĮ 20 ǽǯ ȅੁțȠȣȝİȞȚțોȢ), ıIJ੹ ੒ʌȠ૙Į įȚĮȕȚȠ૨ıĮȞ, ਫ਼ʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ Į੝IJ੽Ȟ Ƞ੝ıȚĮıIJȚț੹ ıIJȑȖȘ, ȝȠȞĮȤȠ੿ țĮ੿ ȝȠȞĮȤȑȢ, țĮIJ੹ IJઁ ʌȜİ૙ıIJȠȞ ıȣȖȖİȞİ૙Ȣ. ਝʌઁ IJ੹ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ıȣȞȐȖİIJĮȚ ੖IJȚ ਲ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ ਕʌઁ ਕijȚİȡȦȝȑȞİȢ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ਷IJĮȞ ਥȟȓıȠȣ ਕʌȠįİțIJ੽ IJȩıȠ ıIJ੽ ȝȠȞĮıIJȘȡȚĮț੽ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ ੖ıȠ țĮ੿ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਥȞȠȡȚĮțȒ, țĮ੿ ਥIJİȜİ૙IJȠ İ੅IJİ ıȣȞĮij૵Ȣ ȝ੻ ȤȠȡȠઃȢ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ İ੅IJİ ȤȦȡ੿Ȣ Į੝IJȠȪȢ. ȉȠ૨IJȠ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ Ȟ੹ IJİțȝȘȡȚȦșİ૙ țĮ੿ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȠȜઃ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚț੽ ʌȜȘȡȠijȠȡȓĮ ʌȠઃ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ ıIJઁȞ ȉȚȝĮȡȓȦȞĮ (12ȠȢ Įੁ.), ıȤİIJȚț੹ ȝ੻ IJ੽ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤ੽ ȤȠȡȠ૨ «੒ıȓȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ȝȠȞĮȗȠȣı૵Ȟ» țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ਦȠȡIJ੽ IJોȢ ȝȞȒȝȘȢ IJȠ૨ ʌȠȜȚȠȪȤȠȣ IJોȢ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘȢ ਖȖȓȠȣ ǻȘȝȘIJȡȓȠȣ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ਥIJİȜİ૙IJȠ ȝ੻ ȟİȤȦȡȚıIJ੽ ȜĮȝʌȡȩIJȘIJĮ. «ȉȩIJİ ȖȠ૨Ȟ IJ૵Ȟ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ਦȠȡIJ੽Ȟ ȝ઼ȜȜȠȞ ਱țȡȚȕȦȝȑȞȦȞ – ȠੈĮ IJȠȪIJȠȣȢ ıȤȩȞIJȦȞ IJȠઃȢ șİȦȡȠȪȢ –, ȥĮȜȝ૳įȓĮ șİȚȠIJȑȡĮ IJȚȢ ਥȟȘțȠȪİIJȠ, ૧ȣșȝ૶ țĮ੿ IJȐȟİȚ țĮ੿ ਕȝȠȚȕૌ ਥȞIJȑȤȞ૳ ʌȠȚțȚȜȜȠȝȑȞȘ ʌȡઁȢ IJઁ ȤĮȡȚȑıIJİȡȠȞǜ ‫ݝ‬Ȟ į‫ ޡ‬Ƞ‫ރ‬ț ܻȞįȡࠛȞ ȝȩȞȠȞ ‫ވ‬ȝȞȠȢ ܻȞĮʌİȝʌȩȝİȞȠȢ, ܻȜȜ‫ ޟ‬į‫ ޣ‬țĮ‫ ޥ‬ȖȣȞĮ߿țİȢ ‫ݼ‬ıȚĮȚ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ȝȠȞȐȗȠȣıĮȚ ʌİȡ‫ ޥ‬IJާ ʌIJİȡȪȖȚȠȞ İ‫ރ‬ȫȞȣȝȐ ʌȠȣ IJȠࠎ ‫ݨ‬İȡȠࠎ, ʌȡާȢ įȪȠ ȤȠȡȠީȢ ܻȞIJȚijȫȞȠȣȢ įȚĮȚȡİșİ߿ıĮȚ țĮ‫ ޥ‬Į‫ފ‬IJĮȚ IJާ ‫ݼ‬ıȚȠȞ ܻʌİįȓįȠȣȞ IJࠜ ȝȐȡIJȣȡȚ».22 ȈIJ੽ ȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞ੽ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੽ ʌȡȐȟȘ, ʌȠઃ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗİIJĮȚ IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJઁȞ 11Ƞ ĮੁȫȞĮ ȖȚ੹ ʌȜȠȣȡĮȜȚıȝȩ, ਲ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ ਕʌઁ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ į੻Ȟ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ Ȟ੹ ʌȡȠıȑțȡȠȣİ ıIJઁȞ ʌȡȠıįȠțȫȝİȞȠ ıİȕĮıȝઁ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੽ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੽ IJȐȟȘ. ***

21

ǻ. ȉıȐȝȘ, ȂȘIJİȡȚțȩȞ, IJ. ǹǯ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 1990, ı. 274. Ȇİȡ੿ Į੝IJȠ૨ ȕȜ. țĮ੿ ǹș. ǺȠȣȡȜȒ, ĬȑȝĮIJĮ ‫ݨ‬İȡߢȢ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮȢ, IJİ૨Ȥ. ǹǯ, ਝșોȞĮȚ 2000, ı. 66. 22 ȉȚȝĮȡȓȦȞ 55, 59. ǺȜ. ıȤİIJȚț੹ țĮ੿ Ashbrook-Harvey, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ı. 53.

188

Chapter Fourteen

ȅੂ ȥȐȜIJİȢ ਕȞȒțȠȣȞ ıIJ੽Ȟ IJȐȟȘ IJȠ૨ țĮIJȫIJİȡȠȣ țȜȒȡȠȣ, ʌȠઃ ਥȞIJȐııİIJĮȚ ıIJ੽Ȟ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ ȝ੻ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ ਕʌઁ IJઁȞ ਥʌȓıțȠʌȠ ਥțIJઁȢ IJȠ૨ ੂ. ȕȒȝĮIJȠȢ. ǼੇȞĮȚ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțઁȢ ੒ 15ȠȢ țĮȞȩȞĮȢ IJોȢ ȁĮȠįȚțİȓĮȢ: «Ȇİȡ‫ ޥ‬IJȠࠎ ȝ‫ ޣ‬įİ߿Ȟ ʌȜ‫ޣ‬Ȟ IJࠛȞ țĮȞȠȞȚțࠛȞ ȥĮȜIJࠛȞ, IJࠛȞ ‫݋‬ʌ‫ ޥ‬IJާȞ ܿȝȕȦȞĮ ܻȞĮȕĮȚȞȩȞIJȦȞ țĮ‫ܻ ޥ‬ʌާ įȚijșȑȡĮȢ ȥĮȜȜȩȞIJȦȞ, ‫݌‬IJȑȡȠȣȢ IJȚȞ‫ޟ‬Ȣ ȥȐȜȜİȚȞ ‫݋‬Ȟ ‫݋‬țțȜȘıȓߠ».23 ȅੂ ਦȡȝȘȞİȣIJ੻Ȣ IJȠ૨ țĮȞȩȞĮ ਫ਼ʌȠȖȡĮȝȝȓȗȠȣȞ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȞĮȖțĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJોȢ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮȢ, ੪Ȣ Ƞ੝ıȚĮıIJȚțઁ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Ƞ IJોȢ İ੝IJĮȟȓĮȢ, ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ Ȟ੹ ȥȐȜȜİȚ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ੮ȡĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚț૵Ȟ ıȣȞȐȟİȦȞ.24 ੘ ǺĮȜıĮȝȫȞĮȢ įȚİȣțȡȚȞȓȗİȚ ʌİȡĮȚIJȑȡȦ «੖IJȚ IJઁ ʌĮȜĮȚઁȞ țȠȚȞȠȜĮǸIJĮȚ IJȚȞ੻Ȣ ੁįȚȠ૨ȞIJȠ IJ੹ IJ૵Ȟ țȜȘȡȚț૵Ȟ ʌȡȠȞȩȝȚĮ, țĮ੿ ਥʌ’ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ șİȓȦȞ ȥĮȜȝ૳įȘȝȐIJȦȞ țĮIJȒȡȤȠȞIJȠ, İੁȢ țĮIJĮijȡȩȞȘıȚȞ IJ૵Ȟ țȜȘȡȚț૵Ȟ. ਯȥĮȜȜȠȞ į੻ țĮȓ IJȚȞĮ ʌĮȡĮȜȜĮȖȝȑȞĮ țĮ੿ ਕıȣȞȒșȘ, ȠੈȐ İੁıȚ IJ੹ ıȒȝİȡȠȞ ȥĮȜȜȩȝİȞĮ ʌĮȡ੹ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ IJ૵Ȟ ਦʌȠȝȑȞȦȞ IJȠ૙Ȣ ıȓȖȞȠȚȢ».25 ȈIJ੽Ȟ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ਲ țĮȞȠȞȚț੽ ਥʌȚIJĮȖ੽ IJોȢ ıȣȞȩįȠȣ IJોȢ ȁĮȠįȓțİȚĮȢ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ Ȟ੹ ıȣıȤİIJȚıșİ૙ ʌȚșĮȞȩIJĮIJĮ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ਕʌȩȡȡȚȥȘ ਕʌઁ ʌȜİȣȡ઼Ȣ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ Ȟ੹ ȥȐȜȜȠȣȞ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ, ʌȡȐȟȘ ʌȠઃ ıIJ੽Ȟ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȘ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ʌȡȠȦșȠ૨ıĮȞ ĮੂȡİIJȚțȠȓ, ȤȦȡ੿Ȣ Ȟ੹ ıȑȕȠȞIJĮȚ ਥȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞ૳ IJ੿Ȣ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț੻Ȣ ਕȡȤȑȢ.26 ȅੂ ੂ. țĮȞȩȞİȢ ʌȡȠȕȜȑʌȠȣȞ ʌİȡ੿ IJ૵Ȟ ȥĮȜIJ૵Ȟ ੁįȚĮȓIJİȡİȢ țĮ੿ Į੝ıIJȘȡȩIJİȡİȢ ı੻ ıȤȑıȘ ȝ੻ IJȠઃȢ ȜĮȧțȠઃȢ įȚĮIJȐȟİȚȢ. Ȇ.Ȥ. ੒ 14ȠȢ țĮȞȩȞĮȢ IJોȢ ǻǯ ȅੁțȠȣȝİȞȚțોȢ ਥʌȚIJȐııİȚ IJ੽ ȝ੽ ıȪȞĮȥȘ ȝȚțIJȠ૨ ȖȐȝȠȣ ਕʌઁ IJȠઃȢ ਕȞĮȖȞ૵ıIJİȢ țĮ੿ IJȠઃȢ ȥȐȜIJİȢ.27 ੜıȠȚ ਷IJĮȞ ਵįȘ ਩IJıȚ ȞȣȝijİȣȝȑȞȠȚ ੕ijİȚȜĮȞ Ȟ੹ ʌȡȠıȐȖȠȣȞ IJ੹ ʌĮȚįȚȐ IJȠȣȢ ıIJ੽Ȟ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȘ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ. ੘ ੂİȡĮIJȚțઁȢ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȥĮȜIJ૵Ȟ ੖ȝȦȢ į੻Ȟ ıȣȞȚıIJȠ૨ıİ țȫȜȣȝĮ ȖȐȝȠȣ țĮ੿ ਦʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ ਷IJĮȞ įȣȞĮIJ੽ ਲ ıȪȞĮȥȒ IJȠȣ țĮ੿ ȝİIJ੹ IJ੽ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ. ਺ ʌȚıIJȩIJȘIJĮ ıIJ੽Ȟ țĮȞȠȞȚț੽ IJȐȟȘ ਥʌȑȕĮȜȜİ Ȟ੹ ȝ੽Ȟ ȥȐȜȜȠȣȞ țĮIJ੹ IJ੿Ȣ ਕțȠȜȠȣșȓİȢ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ ʌȠઃ į੻Ȟ İੇȤĮȞ ȜȐȕİȚ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȣȝȑȞȦȢ IJ੽ ıȤİIJȚț੽ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ. ǼੇȞĮȚ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚț੽ ਲ ਙȡȞȘıȘ IJȠ૨ ਕȕȕ઼ ȃİȓȜȠȣ (IJȑȜȠȢ 6Ƞȣ/ਕȡȤ੻Ȣ 7Ƞȣ Įੁ.) Ȟ੹ ȥȐȜȜİȚ «IJ੹ IJȡȠʌȐȡȚĮ», țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȖȡȣʌȞȓĮ IJȠ૨ ȈĮȕȕȐIJȠȣ ʌȡઁȢ ȀȣȡȚĮț੽ ʌȠઃ IJİȜȠ૨ıİ ıIJઁ țİȜȜȓ IJȠȣ ıIJ੽Ȟ țȠȡȣij੽ IJȠ૨ 23

ī. ȇȐȜȜȘ - Ȃ. ȆȠIJȜȒ, ȈȪȞIJĮȖȝĮ IJࠛȞ șİȓȦȞ țĮ‫ݨ ޥ‬İȡࠛȞ țĮȞȩȞȦȞ, IJ. īǯ, ı. 184. ੘ ǽȦȞĮȡ઼Ȣ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚț੹ ȜȑİȚ: «Ǽ੝IJĮȟȓĮȞ ȕȠȪȜȠȞIJĮȚ Ƞੂ IJોȢ ıȣȞȩįȠȣ ਧȞ IJĮ૙Ȣ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȚȢ ijȣȜȐIJIJİıșĮȚǜ įȚઁ țĮ੿ ȝ੽ įİ૙Ȟ İੇʌȠȞ ȥȐȜȜİȚȞ ਥȞ IJĮ૙Ȣ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȚȢ IJઁȞ ȕȠȣȜȩȝİȞȠȞ, ਕȜȜ੹ IJȠઃȢ ȥȐȜIJĮȢ IJȠઃȢ țĮȞȠȞȚțȠȪȢ, IJȠઃȢ ਥȞ țȜȒȡ૳ įȘȜĮį੽ IJİIJĮȖȝȑȞȠȣȢ, IJȠઃȢ ਥȞ ਦțȐıIJૉ ਥțțȜȘıȓ઺ țİȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȘȝȑȞȠȣȢ, IJȠઃȢ ਕʌઁ įȚijșȑȡĮȢ ȥȐȜȜȠȞIJĮȢ». ī. ȇȐȜȜȘ - Ȃ. ȆȠIJȜȒ, ੖ʌ.ʌ. 25 ‫ނ‬ʌ.ʌ. 26 ǹ. Ȉ. ȀȠȡĮțȓįȘ, ‫ ݠ‬ȝȠȣıȚț‫ܻ ޣ‬ȟȓĮ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ ijȦȞ߱Ȣ țĮ‫ ݘ ޥ‬ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ıIJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ ‫݋‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț‫ ޣ‬ȝİȜȦįȓĮ, ਝșȒȞĮ 2004, ı. 51. 27 Ȉʌ. ȉȡȦȚȐȞȠȣ, ȅੂ ȝȚțIJȠ੿ ȖȐȝȠȚ țĮIJ੹ IJȠઃȢ ੂİȡȠઃȢ țĮȞȩȞĮȢ, ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțާȢ ĭȐȡȠȢ 62-64 (1980-1982) 115-127, ਥį૵ ı. 117 [= Kanon, Vǿ (1983) 92-101 ıIJ੹ ȖİȡȝĮȞȚțȐ]. 24

Deaconesses and Women in the Public Worship of God

189

ȈȚȞ઼, ȜȑȖȠȞIJĮȢ ıIJȠઃȢ ਥʌȚıțȑʌIJİȢ IJȠȣ, ੉ȦȐȞȞȘ ȂȩıȤȠ țĮ੿ ȈȦijȡȩȞȚȠ (IJઁȞ ȝİIJȑʌİȚIJĮ ʌĮIJȡȚȐȡȤȘ ੊İȡȠıȠȜȪȝȦȞ), ੖IJȚ IJ੹ IJȡȠʌȐȡȚĮ ȥȐȜȜȠȞIJĮȚ ਲ਼ įȚĮȕȐȗȠȞIJĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ ਕʌઁ IJȠઃȢ ȥȐȜIJİȢ ਲ਼ IJȠઃȢ ੂİȡİ૙Ȣ ʌȠઃ ਩ȤȠȣȞ IJ੽ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ ਲ਼ IJ੽ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ. ਝȞIJȓșİIJĮ «Ƞੂ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȞ ȝ੽ ਩ȤȠȞIJİȢ (ȝİIJĮȟઃ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȚ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ ȝȠȞĮȤȠ੿) țĮ੿ ਫ਼ʌઁ ੂİȡȑȦȞ ȝ੽ ʌȡȠIJȡİʌȩȝİȞȠȚ țĮ੿ ਥȞ ਥțțȜȘıȓ઺ ਲ਼ ਥȞ țİȜȜȓ૳ İੁȢ IJ੹ ȥĮȜIJȚț੹ ʌȡȠȕȐȜȜȠȞIJĮȚ, ʌ઼ıȚ IJȠ૙Ȣ İ੣ ijȡȠȞȠ૨ıȚ ȖȞȦıIJઁȞ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ ੖IJȚ ਦĮȣIJȠઃȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠ૨ıȚ, ȝ઼ȜȜȠȞ į੻ ਫ਼ʌઁ IJોȢ țİȞȠįȠȟȓĮȢ țĮ੿ ਫ਼ʌİȡȘijĮȞȓĮȢ țĮ੿ ȠੁȒıİȦȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠ૨ȞIJĮȚ, țĮ੿ ʌȡઁȢ ȝ੻Ȟ IJ੹ ȜȣıȚIJİȜો țĮ੿ ıȣȝijȑȡȠȞIJĮ ਕȝȕȜȣȦʌȠ૨ıȚ țĮ੿ IJȣijȜȫIJIJȠȣıȚ, ʌȡઁȢ į੻ IJ੹ ȝ੽ ੩ijİȜȠ૨ȞIJĮ ਕȜȜ੹ țĮ੿ ȜȓĮȞ ȕȜȐʌIJȠȞIJĮ İ੡IJȠȜȝȠȚ țĮ੿ İ੝Ȥİȡİ૙Ȣ ੑȟȪȡȡȠʌȠȚ İਫ਼ȡȓıțȠȞIJĮȚ».28

਺ ਕȞIJȓșİıȘ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ʌĮȡĮȕȓĮıȘ IJોȢ țĮȞȠȞȚțȩIJȘIJȠȢ, ʌȠઃ ਥȞȓȠIJİ ੑȟȣȡȡȩʌȦȢ țĮ੿ Į੝șĮȚȡȑIJȦȢ ਥțįȘȜȦȞȩIJĮȞ ਕțȩȝĮ țĮ੿ ਕʌઁ ਕıȪȞİIJȠȣȢ ȝȠȞĮȤȠઃȢ ʌȠઃ ʌİȡȚijȡȠȞȠ૨ıĮȞ IJ੽Ȟ IJȐȟȘ, į੻Ȟ ਷IJĮȞ IJȩıȠ ੁıȤȣȡ੽ ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ʌİȡȚijȡȠȣȡȒıİȚ IJ੽Ȟ ੂİȡĮIJȚț੽ ੁįȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȥĮȜIJ૵Ȟ. ਯIJıȚ ıȚȖ੹-ıȚȖ੹ Į੝IJȒ, țĮșȩıȠȞ į੻Ȟ ਕʌĮȚIJİ૙IJĮȚ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ, ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ȜȘıȝȠȞȒșȘțİ, ੖ʌȦȢ țĮ੿ IJ૵Ȟ ਫ਼ʌȠȜȠȓʌȦȞ țĮIJȫIJİȡȦȞ țȜȘȡȚț૵Ȟ (ʌȜ੽Ȟ ੅ıȦȢ IJȠ૨ ਫ਼ʌȠįȚĮțȩȞȠȣ, ੒ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȢ ȝȑȤȡȚ țĮ੿ IJ੿Ȣ ȝȑȡİȢ ȝĮȢ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਦȜȜȘȞȚț੽ ੑȡșȠįȠȟȓĮ ȤİȚȡȠșİIJİ૙IJĮȚ ਩ıIJȦ țĮ੿ IJȣʌȚțȐ, ੪Ȣ ȝȓĮ ਕȞĮȖțĮȓĮ ȕĮșȝȓįĮ ʌȡ੿Ȟ ਕʌઁ IJ੽ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȠ૨ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ). ਫijȩıȠȞ ਲ țĮȞȠȞȚț੽ IJȐȟȘ ਥʌȚIJȐııİȚ IJ੽ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȥĮȜIJ૵Ȟ, IJȩIJİ ʌȠȚ੹ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ Ȟ੹ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ıȤȑıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȝ੻ ਪȞĮ ȕĮșȝઁ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ, ਩ıIJȦ țĮ੿ țĮIJȫIJİȡȠ; Ĭ੹ ȝʌȠȡȠ૨ıİ ਲ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ Ȟ੹ ȤİȚȡȠșİIJȒıİȚ ਲ਼ Ȟ੹ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȒıİȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ȝ੻ IJઁ įİįȠȝȑȞȠ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ੖IJȚ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ țĮȞȠȞȚț੽ ਕʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ İੁıȩįȠȣ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ਥȞIJઁȢ IJȠ૨ șȣıȚĮıIJȘȡȓȠȣ (ȕȜ. țĮȞȩȞĮ 44 ȁĮȠįȚțİȓĮȢ, ʌȡȕȜ. țĮ੿ 69 IJોȢ ȆİȞșȑțIJȘȢ, ੒ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȢ ਥʌİțIJİȓȞİȚ IJ੽Ȟ ਕʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ ı੻ ੖ȜȠȣȢ IJȠઃȢ ȜĮȧțȠȪȢ);

28

ǻ. ȉıȐȝȘ, ȉާ ȖİȡȠȞIJȚțާȞ IJȠࠎ ȈȚȞߢ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2000, ı. 462. ȉઁ țİȓȝİȞȠ IJȠ૨ ȁİȚȝȦȞĮȡȓȠȣ țĮIJĮȤȦȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJઁȞ 29Ƞ ȜȩȖȠ IJ૵Ȟ ‫ݒ‬ȡȝȘȞİȚࠛȞ IJࠛȞ ‫݋‬ȞIJȠȜࠛȞ IJȠࠎ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ IJȠ૨ ȃȓțȦȞȠȢ ȂĮȣȡȠȡİȓIJȘ. ǻȘȝȠıȚİȪșȘțİ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ Augusta Longo, Il testo intergrale della «Narrazione degli Abati Giovanni e Sofronio» attraverso le «ਬȡȝȘȞİ૙ĮȚ» di Nicone, Revista di Studi Byzantini e Neoellinici, t. 1/2 (1965-1966) 223-267. īȚ੹ IJ੹ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੹ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Į IJોȢ ǻȚȘȖȒıİȦȢ ʌİȡ੿ IJȠ૨ ਕȕȕ઼ ȃİȓȜȠȣ ȕȜ. R. F. Taft, ȉhe “ȕȘȝĮIJȓțȚȠȞ” in the 6/7th C. Narration of the Abbots John and Sophronius (BHG NA 1438w). An exercise in Comparative Liturgy, ıIJઁ Crossroad of Cultures. Studies in Liturgy and Patristics in Honor of Gabriele Winkler, ਥțį. H.-J. Feulner, Elena Velkovska țĮ੿ R. F. Taft [OCA, 260], ȇȫȝȘ 2000, ıı. 675-692. ȆȡȕȜ. țĮ੿ ݃ʌȩțȡȚıȚȞ 1 IJȠ૨ ȃȚțȠȜȐȠȣ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȚȞȠȣʌȩȜİȦȢ ʌȡઁȢ ȝȠȞĮȤȠઃȢ ਩ȟȦ IJોȢ ʌȩȜİȦȢ ਕıțȠȣȝȑȞȠȣȢ, ī. ȇȐȜȜȘ - Ȃ. ȆȠIJȜȒ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., IJ. ǻǯ, ıı. 417-418.

190

Chapter Fourteen

ੜ,IJȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ ਕȞIJȚȜĮȝȕĮȞȩȝİșĮ ੪Ȣ ʌĮȖȚȦȝȑȞȘ ʌȡȐȟȘ į੻Ȟ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJ੽ ੅ıȤȣİ țĮ੿ ʌĮȜĮȚȩIJİȡĮ. ਺ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੽ IJȐȟȘ ਫ਼ʌĮȖȩIJĮȞ ıIJȠઃȢ ȞȩȝȠȣȢ IJોȢ ȡİȣıIJȩIJȘIJȠȢ, įİȤȩȝİȞȘ IJ੿Ȣ ਥʌȚȡȡȠ੻Ȣ IJ૵Ȟ ʌȠȚțȓȜȦȞ IJȠʌȚț૵Ȟ ʌĮȡĮįȩıİȦȞ, ੪ı੹Ȟ IJ੽Ȟ țȠȓIJȘ ਦȞઁȢ İ੝ȡȪȤȦȡȠȣ ʌȠIJĮȝȠ૨ ʌȠઃ įȑȤİIJĮȚ IJ੽ ȡȠ੽ IJ૵Ȟ ਫ਼įȐIJȦȞ ਕʌઁ ਦțĮIJȑȡȦșİȞ ʌĮȡĮʌȠIJȐȝȠȣȢ. ਺ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ਕʌȠįİȤȩIJĮȞ IJ੽Ȟ ਥȟȑȜȚȟȘ ਲ਼ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȠȚțȚȜȓĮ IJોȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțોȢ ʌȡȐȟİȦȢ, ਥijȩıȠȞ į੻Ȟ ʌȡȠıȕĮȜȜȩIJĮȞ ਲ ਕʌȡȩıțȠʌIJȘ įȠȟȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨. ੧ȥȦȞİ ੖ȝȦȢ IJİȓȤȘ țĮ੿ ਩șİIJİ Į੝ıIJȘȡȠઃȢ țĮȞȩȞİȢ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਕȞIJȓșİIJȘ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ. ਺ įȚİȪȡȣȞıȘ ਲ਼ ਲ ıȣıIJȠȜ੽ IJોȢ ʌȠȚțȚȜȓĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț૵Ȟ ʌȡȐȟİȦȞ țĮșઅȢ țĮ੿ ੒ ਩ȜİȖȤȠȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡİ૙IJĮȚ țĮ੿ ıIJઁ șȑȝĮ IJોȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ (įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ). ੜʌȦȢ İੇȞĮȚ ਕʌઁ ʌȠȜȜ੻Ȣ ʌȘȖ੻Ȣ ȖȞȦıIJȩȞ, Ƞੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠ૨ȞIJĮȞ ੖ʌȦȢ ਕțȡȚȕ૵Ȣ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ įȚȐțȠȞȠȚ. ਺ ਫ਼ʌȠȥȒijȚĮ ıIJİțȩIJĮȞ ıIJ੽ ıȠȜȑĮ ʌȡઁ IJ૵Ȟ ਖȖȓȦȞ șȣȡ૵Ȟ ıțİʌĮıȝȑȞȘ ȝ੻ ȝĮijȩȡȚȠ. ਝʌઁ IJ੽ ıȠȜȑĮ ʌȡȠıĮȖȩIJĮȞ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਞȖȓĮ ȉȡȐʌİȗĮ, ੖ʌȠȣ ੒ ਥʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ IJ੽ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠ૨ıİ ȝ੻ ਥʌȓșİıȘ IJ૵Ȟ ȤİȚȡ૵Ȟ, ਕʌĮȖȖȑȜȜȠȞIJĮȢ ੕ȤȚ ȝȓĮȞ İ੝ȤȒ, ੖ʌȦȢ ıIJ੿Ȣ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓİȢ IJ૵Ȟ țĮIJȦIJȑȡȦȞ țȜȘȡȚț૵Ȟ, ਕȜȜ੹ įȪȠ İ੝ȤȑȢ, ʌȠઃ ıȣȞȚıIJ઼ ȖȞȫȡȚıȝĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȚ૵Ȟ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞȦIJȑȡȦȞ țȜȘȡȚț૵Ȟ. ȀĮIJ੹ IJ੽ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ੒ ਥʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ, ਩ȤȠȞIJĮȢ IJ੹ ȤȑȡȚĮ ਥʌ੿ IJોȢ țİijĮȜોȢ IJોȢ įȚĮțȠȞȓııȘȢ, ਥțijȦȞȠ૨ıİ «‫ ݠ‬șİȓĮ ȤȐȡȚȢ ‫ ݘ‬IJ‫ܻ ޟ‬ıșİȞ߱ șİȡĮʌİȪȠȣıĮ ...», ਥʌȓıȘȢ ȖȞȫȡȚıȝĮ IJોȢ IJȐȟİȦȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȚ૵Ȟ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞȦIJȑȡȦȞ țȜȘȡȚț૵Ȟ. ਺ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ ʌİȡȚİȕȐȜȜİIJȠ, ੖ʌȦȢ țĮ੿ ੒ įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ, IJઁ įȚĮțȠȞȚțઁ ੪ȡȐȡȚȠ, ijȑȡȠȣıĮ ੖ȝȦȢ IJȠ૨IJȠ «ਫ਼ʌȠțȐIJȦșİȞ IJȠ૨ ȝĮijȠȡȓȠȣ», ȝ੻ IJ੿Ȣ įȪȠ ਙțȡİȢ Į੝IJȠ૨ ȝʌȡȠıIJȐ. ȀĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ੮ȡĮ IJોȢ ș. țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ, ਲ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ țȠȚȞȦȞİ૙, ੖ʌȦȢ ੒ įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ, ʌĮȓȡȞȠȞIJĮȢ IJઁ ਚȖȚȠ ʌȠIJȒȡȚȠ ਕʌઁ IJ੹ ȤȑȡȚĮ IJȠ૨ ਕȡȤȚİȡȑĮ, ਕȜȜ੹ «Ƞ੝įİȞ੿ ȝİIJĮįȓįȦıȚ» IJ੽ ș. țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ, ਕȜȜ੹ «ਥʌȚIJȓșȘıȚ Į੝IJઁ (IJઁ ʌȠIJȒȡȚȠȞ) IJૌ ਖȖȓ઺ IJȡĮʌȑȗૉ».29 ੘ ȝȠȞĮȤઁȢ ȃȓțȦȞ IJȠ૨ ȂĮȪȡȠȣ ਜ਼ȡȠȣȢ (± 1025-ਕȡȤ੻Ȣ 12Ƞȣ Įੁ.) ਕȞĮijȑȡİȚ țĮȞȠȞȚț੽ įȚȐIJĮȟȘ ʌȠઃ ʌȡȠıIJȑșȘțİ ıIJ੽Ȟ ੢ȜȘ ȞȠȝȠțȐȞȠȞĮ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ੒ʌȠȓĮ Ƞੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ İੁıȑȡȤȠȞIJĮȞ ਥȞIJઁȢ IJȠ૨ ੂ. ȕȒȝĮIJȠȢ

29 ǼȣĮȖ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, ੘ șİıȝઁȢ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ੑȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȚȞ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ਚȖȚȠȞ ȃİțIJȐȡȚȠȞ, ‫ ݾ‬ȖȣȞĮțİ߿ȠȢ ȝȠȞĮȤȚıȝާȢ țĮ‫݀ ݸ ޥ‬ȖȚȠȢ ȃİțIJȐȡȚȠȢ. ȆȡĮțIJȚț‫ ޟ‬įȚȠȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ȝȠȞĮıIJȚțȠࠎ ıȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ ‫݋‬ʌ‫ ޥ‬IJ߲ ‫݌‬țĮIJȠȞʌİȞIJȘțȠȞIJĮİIJȘȡȓįȚ (1846-1996) ܻʌާ IJ߱Ȣ ȖİȞȞȒıİȦȢ IJȠࠎ ܼȖȓȠȣ ȃİțIJĮȡȓȠȣ (ǹ‫ݫ‬ȖȚȞĮ 9-11 ȈİʌIJİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1996), ਝșોȞĮȚ 1998, ı. 222-223. ȉȠȣ ȚįȓȠȣ, ‫« ݠ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» ‫« ݙ‬ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ» IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ, ਝșોȞĮȚ 1954, ੖ʌȠȣ țĮ੿ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡĮ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Į ʌİȡ੿ IJȠ૨ șİıȝȠ૨. ਺ IJȐȟȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ țĮIJĮȖȡȐijİIJĮȚ ıIJ੿Ȣ ਩ȞIJȣʌİȢ țĮ੿ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijİȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ: ʌ.Ȥ. ȕȜ. IJ੹ Ȥijij ǺĮȡȕİȡȚȞઁ 336, ȈȚȞ઼ 956, Parisinus 213, ȄİȞȠij૵ȞIJȠȢ ਞȖȓȠȣ ਜ਼ȡȠȣȢ 163. ǺȜ. țĮ੿ R. F. Taft, Women at Church in Byzantium. Where, When – and Why? DOP 52 (1998) 64 ਦȟ.

Deaconesses and Women in the Public Worship of God

191

țĮ੿ ıIJ੽ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ ȜȐȝȕĮȞĮȞ IJઁ ਚȖȚȠ ʌȠIJȒȡȚȠ ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ țȠȚȞȦȞȒıȠȣȞ IJ੿Ȣ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ.30 ੜȝȦȢ ıIJ੽ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੽ ʌȡȐȟȘ IJ૵Ȟ ȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞ૵Ȟ Ƞੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ į੻Ȟ ਷IJĮȞ Ƞੂ ȝȩȞİȢ ʌȠઃ țȠȚȞȦȞȠ૨ıĮȞ ਥȞIJઁȢ IJȠ૨ ȕȒȝĮIJȠȢ. ਺ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ʌĮȡİȓȤİIJȠ țĮ੿ ıIJ੿Ȣ Į੝IJȠțȡȐIJİȚȡİȢ, Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙İȢ ı੻ țȐʌȠȚİȢ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȠ૨ıĮȞ ੖ʌȦȢ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ Į੝IJȠțȡȐIJȠȡİȢ ਥȞIJઁȢ IJȠ૨ ੂ. ȕȒȝĮIJȠȢ. ਫȞįİȚțIJȚț੹ ਲ Į੝ȖȠȪıIJĮ ਖȖȓĮ ȆȠȣȜȤİȡȓĮ (399-453) (ȝȞȒȝȘ 17 ĭİȕȡȠȣĮȡȓȠȣ) ȗȒIJȘıİ ਕʌઁ IJઁȞ ʌĮIJȡȚȐȡȤȘ ȈȚıȓȞȞȚȠ ǹǯ (426-427) Ȟ੹ ȝİIJȑȤİȚ ıIJ੽ ș. İ੝ȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ਦȠȡIJ੽ IJȠ૨ ʌȐıȤĮ ਥȞIJઁȢ IJȠ૨ șȣıȚĮıIJȘȡȓȠȣ țĮ੿ ਥȟĮıijȐȜȚıİ IJ੽ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ. ੜȝȦȢ ੒ įȚȐįȠȤȩȢ IJȠȣ ȃİıIJȩȡȚȠȢ (428-431) IJ੽Ȟ ਥȝʌȩįȚıİ Ȟ੹ țȠȚȞȦȞİ૙ ਩IJıȚ. ਺ Į੝ȖȠȪıIJĮ IJȩIJİ ʌȡȠıʌȐșȘıİ Ȟ੹ ıIJȘȡȓȗİȚ șİȠȜȠȖȚț੹ IJઁ Į੅IJȘȝȐ IJȘȢ, ȜȑȖȠȞIJĮȢ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJȒ, ੪Ȣ Į੝ȖȠȪıIJĮ, İੇȞĮȚ IJȪʌȠȢ IJોȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ, ʌȠઃ ਷IJĮȞ ਲ ȝȠȞĮįȚț੽ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ʌȠઃ İੁıોȜșİ ıIJ੹ ਢȖȚĮ IJ૵Ȟ ਖȖȓȦȞ,31 ੖ʌȦȢ țĮ੿ ੒ Į੝IJȠțȡȐIJȠȡĮȢ İੇȞĮȚ IJȪʌȠȢ IJȠ૨ ȕĮıȚȜȑȦȢ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨. ǹ੝IJ੽ ਲ IJȐȟȘ, Ƞੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ Ȟ੹ ਩ȤȠȣȞ IJઁ ȡȩȜȠ ʌȠઃ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐȥĮȝİ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ, ੅ıȤȣİ ȖȚ੹ ʌȠȜȜȠઃȢ Įੁ૵ȞİȢ. ȉઁ «IJȐȖȝĮ» IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ IJȓȝȘıĮȞ ਥȟȑȤȠȣıİȢ ȝȠȡij੻Ȣ ਖȖȓȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ, ੖ʌȦȢ ʌ.Ȥ. ਲ ੗ȜȣȝʌȚȐįĮ (4ȠȢ5ȠȢ Įੁ., ȝȞȒȝȘ 25 ੉ȠȣȜȓȠȣ), ਲ ǻȠȝȞȓțȘ (5ȠȢ Įੁ., ȝȞȒȝȘ 8 ੉ĮȞȠȣĮȡȓȠȣ), ਲ ǼੁȡȒȞȘ ȋȡȣıȠȕĮȜȐȞIJȠȣ (9ȠȢ-10ȠȢ Įੁ., ȝȞȒȝȘ 28 ੉ȠȣȜȓȠȣ) ț.ਙȜ. 30

«ੜIJȚ ʌİȡ੿ IJȠ૨ ȝ੽ İੁıȑȡȤİıșĮȚ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮȢ ਥȞ IJ૶ șȣıȚĮıIJȘȡȓ૳ ʌȜİȓȠȞĮ ȞȠȝȠțȐȞȠȞĮ ਥȞȑIJȣȤĮ ਩ȞșİıȝĮ, țĮ੿ ਕȡȤĮ૙Į țĮ੿ ȞȑĮ, țĮ੿ Ƞ੝įĮȝȠ૨ İ੢ȡȘȞIJĮȚ ʌĮȡ੹ IJઁȞ șİ૙ȠȞ țĮȞȩȞĮ, ੔Ȟ ʌȡȠİȖȡȐȥĮȝİȞ IJોȢ ਥȞ ȁĮȠįȚțİȓ઺ ਖȖȓĮȢ ıȣȞȩįȠȣ … ਝȜȜ੹ Ș੤ȡĮ ȝȚțȡઁȞ ȕȚȕȜȓȠȞ țĮȚȞȠȪȡȖȘȞ ਩ȤȠȞ ʌȡȠıșȒțȘȞ IJĮȪIJȘȞ țĮ੿ ȜȑȖȠȞ Ƞ੢IJȦȢǜ ੜIJȚ Ƞ੝ įİ૙ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮȢ ਥȞ IJ૶ șȣıȚĮıIJȘȡȓ૳ İੁıȑȡȤİıșĮȚ ʌĮȡ’ ਥțIJઁȢ IJ૵Ȟ țĮȞȠȞȚț૵Ȟ. Ȇİȡ੿ į੻ IJ੹Ȣ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣȢ ਩ȖȡĮijİȞ İੁȢ Į੝IJȩ, ‫ݼ‬IJȚ Ȟ‫݋ ޟ‬ȞİȡȖȠࠎȞ İ‫ݫ‬Ȣ IJȚȞĮ IJ‫ ޟ‬IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ țĮ‫ ޥ‬Ȟ‫ ޟ‬țȠȚȞȦȞȠࠎȞ IJ‫ޟ‬Ȣ ȖȣȞĮ߿țĮȢ. ǼੇįİȢ ʌ૵Ȣ ʌȜĮȞ૵ȞIJĮȚ IJȚȞ੻Ȣ ਕʌઁ IJ੹Ȣ įȚİijșĮȜȝȑȞĮȢ ȕȓȕȜȠȣȢ ȝ੽ ijȚȜȠʌȠȞȠ૨ȞIJİȢ IJ੹Ȣ ਥȞșȑıȝȠȣȢ țĮ੿ ਕȜȘșȚȞ੹Ȣ țĮ੿ ਥț ĬİȠ૨ įȚ੹ IJ૵Ȟ ਖȖȓȦȞ ʌĮIJȑȡȦȞ įȚįĮıțȠȝȑȞĮȢ ȕȓȕȜȠȣȢ țĮ੿ ਥțįȚįȠȝȑȞĮȢ;». ‫ݑ‬ʌȚıIJȠȜ‫ ޣ‬ʌȡާȢ IJާȞ ܻȕȕߢȞ ‫ݯ‬ȦȐȞȞȘȞ ʌİȡ‫ޥ‬ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ ‫݋‬ʌȚıțȩʌȦȞ ‫ݏ‬ȟȦ ‫ݻ‬ȞIJȦȞ IJࠛȞ ‫݌‬ĮȣIJࠛȞ șȡȩȞȦȞ, Ȥij ȈȚȞ઼ 436 (441), ij. 175Į. ȈIJઁ țİȓȝİȞȠ IJȠ૨ ȃȓțȦȞȠȢ țĮIJĮȖȡȐijİIJĮȚ ਲ ȝİIJȐȕĮıȘ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȡȤĮȚȩIJİȡȘ ʌȡȐȟȘ ı੻ Į੝IJ੽ IJોȢ ਥʌȠȤોȢ IJȠȣ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ į੻Ȟ ȖȞȫȡȚȗİ ʌȜȑȠȞ IJ੽Ȟ İ੅ıȠįȠ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ ıIJઁ șȣıȚĮıIJȒȡȚȠ. īȚ੹ IJઁȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ȝİIJȐįȠıȘȢ IJોȢ ș. İ੝ȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮȢ ȕȜ. IJ੽Ȟ ਥȟĮȞIJȜȘIJȚț੽ ȝİȜȑIJȘ IJȠ૨ R. F. Taft, A history of the Liturgy of st. Chrysostom. Volum VI, The Communion, Thanksgiving, and Concluding Rites, ȇȫȝȘ 2008, ı. 80 ਦȟ. īȚ੹ IJ੹ țĮȞȠȞȚț੹ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJĮ IJોȢ ș. İ੝ȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮȢ ȕȜ. ȋȡȣı. ȃȐııȘ, ‫ ݠ‬IJİȜİıȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ IJȠࠎ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJ߱Ȣ Ǽ‫ރ‬ȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮȢ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2007. ȀĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ਥʌȚIJĮȖ੽ IJȠ૨ țĮȞȩȞĮ 18 IJોȢ ǹǯ ȅੁțȠȣȝİȞȚțોȢ, Ƞੂ įȚȐțȠȞȠȚ į੻Ȟ ș੹ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ țȠȚȞȦȞȠ૨Ȟ ʌȡ੿Ȟ ਕʌઁ IJȠઃȢ ਥʌȚıțȩʌȠȣȢ ਲ਼ IJȠઃȢ ʌȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȠȣȢ, ਕȜȜ੹ ਕȞIJȓșİIJĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȠ૨Ȟ, ʌȡȠıijİȡȠȝȑȞȦȞ ı੻ Į੝IJȠઃȢ IJ૵Ȟ İ੝ȤĮȡȚıIJȚĮț૵Ȟ įȫȡȦȞ ਕʌઁ IJȠઃȢ ਥʌȚıțȩʌȠȣȢ ਲ਼ IJȠઃȢ ʌȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȠȣȢ, ȕȜ. ī. ȇȐȜȜȘ - Ȃ. ȆȠIJȜȒ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., IJ. Ǻǯ, ı. 154-158. 31 R. E. Taft, Women at Church in Byzantium, Where, When- and why? ੖ʌ.ʌ., ı. 70 ਦȟ.

192

Chapter Fourteen

ȅੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ਕȡȤȚț੹ İੇȤĮȞ IJ੽Ȟ ਫ਼ʌȠȤȡȑȦıȘ Ȟ੹ ȕȠȘșȠ૨Ȟ ıIJ੿Ȣ ȕĮʌIJȓıİȚȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਥȞȘȜȓțȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ, ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌȠȡİȓĮ ੖ȝȦȢ IJȠ૨ ȤȡȩȞȠȣ, ੁįȓȦȢ ȝİIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ İੁıĮȖȦȖ੽ IJȠ૨ ȞȘʌȚȠȕĮʌIJȚıȝȠ૨, ʌİȡȚȠȡȓıșȘțİ IJઁ İ੣ȡȠȢ IJ૵Ȟ țĮșȘțȩȞIJȦȞ IJȠȣȢ, țĮIJ੹ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ țĮ੿ ਲ ਕȡȚșȝȘIJȚțȒ IJȠȣȢ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਥȞȠȡȚĮț੽ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੽ ȗȦȒ. ਯIJıȚ ʌȜȑȠȞ ੒ șİıȝઁȢ ਕʌĮȞIJ઼IJĮȚ țȣȡȓȦȢ ıIJઁȞ ȝȠȞĮȤȚıȝȩ, ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ਲȖȠȣȝȑȞȘ Ȟ੹ ȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ıȤİįઁȞ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ IJ੽ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJોȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȢ. ਝȞĮijȑȡȦ įȪȠ-IJȡȓĮ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚț੹ ȤȦȡȓĮ ਕʌઁ ਖȖȚȠȜȠȖȚț੻Ȣ ʌȘȖȑȢ. ੘ ȃİțIJȐȡȚȠȢ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȚȞȠȣʌȩȜİȦȢ «IJઁ ੂİȡĮIJȚțઁȞ ıȤોȝĮ IJોȢ ਥȞ ȋȡȚıIJ૶ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ įȓįȦıȚȞ Į੝IJૌ (IJૌ ੒ıȓ઺ ǻȠȝȞȓțૉ), ʌȡȠİıIJ૵ıĮȞ țĮIJĮıIJȒıĮȢ Į੝IJ੽Ȟ ʌĮı૵Ȟ IJ૵Ȟ ʌȡȠıİȡȤȠȝȑȞȦȞ ȥȣȤ૵Ȟ ıȫȗİıșĮȚ įȚ੹ IJોȢ ਥȞ IJૌ ȝȠȞૌ»32 įȚĮȕȚȫıİȦȢ. ਝȞȐȜȠȖȘ ʌȡȐȟȘ ਕȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ țĮ੿ ıIJઁȞ ǺȓȠ IJોȢ ੒ıȓĮȢ ǼੁȡȒȞȘȢ ȋȡȣıȠȕĮȜȐȞIJȠȣ (BHG 952): «Ǽ‫ރ‬șީȢ Ƞ‫މ‬Ȟ ȝȘį‫ޡ‬Ȟ ȝİȜȜȒıĮȢ ‫ݸ‬ ʌĮIJȡȚȐȡȤȘȢ (ȂİșȩįȚȠȢ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȚȞȠȣʌȩȜİȦȢ) ܻȞĮıIJ‫ޟ‬Ȣ IJȠࠎ șȡȩȞȠȣ țĮ‫ޥ‬ șȣȝȚĮIJȒȡȚȠȞ Į‫ݧ‬IJȒıĮȢ ȕĮȜȫȞ IJİ șȣȝȓĮȝĮ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJާȞ ĬİާȞ İ‫ރ‬ȜȠȖȒıĮȢ ‫ބ‬ȝȞ࠙įȓĮȢ IJİ ʌȡȠıijȩȡȠȣ ʌȡࠛIJȠȢ ܻȡȟȐȝİȞȠȢ, įȚȐțȠȞȠȞ IJ߱Ȣ ȝİȖȐȜȘȢ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮȢ ʌȡࠛIJȠȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞİ߿ IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ Ǽ‫ݧ‬ȡȒȞȘȞ –߁įȘ Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ IJࠜ ‫݋‬Ȟ Į‫ރ‬IJࠜ ʌȞİȪȝĮIJȚ IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ Į‫ރ‬IJ߱Ȣ țĮșĮȡȩIJȘIJĮ– țĮ‫ ޥ‬ȝİIJ‫ ޟ‬IJȠࠎIJȠ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݘ‬ȖȠȣȝİȞİȓĮȢ ‫݋‬ʌȚIJȓșȘıȚ ıijȡĮȖȓįĮ».33 ਺ ੅įȚĮ ʌȡȐȟȘ ਥijĮȡȝȩıșȘțİ țĮ੿ ıIJ੽ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJોȢ ʌȠȜઃ ȖȞȦıIJોȢ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ țĮ੿ ਲȖȠȣȝȑȞȘȢ ੒ıȓĮȢ ੗ȜȣȝʌȚȐįȠȢ, țĮșઅȢ țĮ੿ ı੻ Į੝IJ੽ IJોȢ įȚĮįȩȤȠȣ IJȘȢ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਲȖȠȣȝİȞȓĮ ਫȜȚıĮȞșȓĮȢ: «ȆȡȠȤİȚȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝİIJ‫ ޟ‬IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ IJİȜİȣIJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݸ‬ıȓĮȢ ‫ݘ‬ȖȠȣȝȑȞȘ IJ߱Ȣ ܼȖȓĮȢ ‫݋‬țİȓȞȘȢ IJȠࠎ ȋȡȚıIJȠࠎ ʌȠȓȝȞȘȢ ‫… ݘ‬ șİȠijȚȜİıIJȐIJȘ ‫ݑ‬ȜȚıĮȞșȓĮ ‫ ݘ‬įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ, ‫ ݘ‬Į‫ރ‬IJ߱Ȣ ıȣȖȖİȞȓȢ, ܻʌĮȡȐȜȜĮțIJȠȞ ʌȐȞIJĮ IJާȞ țĮȞȩȞĮ, ‫ݺ‬Ȟ ʌĮȡȑȜĮȕİȞ ‫ބ‬ʌާ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݸ‬ıȓĮȢ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ȝĮțĮȡȓĮȢ ‫݋‬țİȓȞȘȢ ȥȣȤ߱Ȣ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ʌȐıĮȢ IJ‫ޟ‬Ȣ ܻȡİIJ‫ޟ‬Ȣ Į‫ރ‬IJ߱Ȣ ȕĮįȓıĮıĮ».34 Ĭ੹ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ਥȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞ૳ ıȣȞĮij૵Ȣ Ȟ੹ ਫ਼ʌȠȖȡĮȝȝȚıșİ૙ ੖IJȚ ਲ ਲȖȠȣȝȑȞȘ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ İੇȤİ IJ੽ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ Ȟ੹ ਕȞĮįȑȤİIJĮȚ IJ੿Ȣ ȝȠȞĮȤȑȢ, ਥȞIJȐııȠȞIJȐȢ IJİȢ įȚ੹ IJોȢ țȠȣȡ઼Ȣ ıIJ੽ ȝȠȞĮıIJȚț੽ ਕįİȜijȩIJȘIJĮ. ਺ Ǽ੝ȖİȞȓĮ ǽȠȪțȠȕĮ35 ਩ȤİȚ ਵįȘ ਥʌȚıȘȝȐȞİȚ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌઁ IJ੿Ȣ ਖȖȚȠȜȠȖȚț੻Ȣ ʌȘȖ੻Ȣ ੖IJȚ IJઁ ıȤોȝĮ IJઁ ਩įȚįİ ıIJ੿Ȣ ȝȠȞĮȤ੻Ȣ ਲ ਲȖȠȣȝȑȞȘ, ਩ʌİȚIJĮ ਕʌઁ ȝȓĮ İ੝Ȥ੽ ਲ਼ ਕțȠȜȠȣșȓĮ ʌȠઃ IJİȜȠ૨ıİ ਲ ੅įȚĮ. ȈIJઁȞ ǺȓȠ IJોȢ ਖȖȓĮȢ Ǽ੝ʌȡĮȟȓĮȢ (5ȠȢ Įੁ., ȝȞȒȝȘ 24 ੉ȠȣȜȓȠȣ) (BHG 631) ȜȑȖȠȞIJĮȚ ʌ.Ȥ. ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚț੹ IJ੹ ਦȟોȢ: «ȉૌ Ƞ੣Ȟ ਥʌĮȪȡȚȠȞ ȜĮȕȠ૨ıĮ ਲ įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ IJ੽Ȟ Ǽ੝ʌȡĮȟȓĮȞ İੁıijȑȡİȚ Į੝IJ੽Ȟ ਥȞ IJ૶ İ੝țIJȘȡȓ૳ țĮ੿ İ੝ȟĮȝȑȞȘ Į੝IJ੽ ʌİȡȚȑȕĮȜİȞ Į੝IJૌ IJઁ ȝȠȞĮȤȚțઁȞ ıȤોȝĮ».36 ȈIJઁȞ ǺȓȠ IJોȢ ੒ıȓĮȢ ȂĮIJȡȫȞĮȢ (5ȠȢ-6ȠȢ Įੁ., ȝȞȒȝȘ 9 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ) (BHG 1221) ਕȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ੖IJȚ 32

ǻ. ȉıȐȝȘ, ȂȘIJİȡȚțȩȞ, IJ. Ǻǯ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 1991, ı. 212. ‫ނ‬ʌ.ʌ., ı. 258. 34 ǻ. ȉıȐȝȘ, ȂȘIJİȡȚțȩȞ, IJ. ǹǯ, ı. 336. 35 īȑȞȞȘıȘ țĮ‫݋ ޥ‬ȟȑȜȚȟȘ IJ߱Ȣ ܻțȠȜȠȣșȓĮȢ IJȠࠎ ȝȠȞĮȤȚțȠࠎ ıȤȒȝĮIJȠȢ țĮIJȐ IJȠȪȢ ǻǯ-ǽǯ Į‫ࠛݧ‬ȞİȢ ȕȐıİȚ ܼȖȚȠȜȠȖȚțࠛȞ ʌȘȖࠛȞ, ਝșȒȞĮ 2010, ıİȜ. 109 ਦȟ. 36 ǺȓȠȢ ܼȖȓĮȢ Ǽ‫ރ‬ʌȡĮȟȓĮȢ, Act. SS, Mart. II, 1865, ı. 922. 33

Deaconesses and Women in the Public Worship of God

193

ਲ ੒ıȓĮ ਩ȜĮȕİ IJઁ ıȤોȝĮ ਕʌઁ IJઁȞ ǺĮıȚĮȞઁ ı੻ ȝȓĮ IJȐȟȘ ਕțȠȜȠȣșȓĮȢ ʌȠઃ ੒ ੅įȚȠȢ țĮșȩȡȚıİ. ȈIJ੽ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ IJઁ ੅įȚȠ ਥijȒȡȝȠȗİ țĮ੿ ਲ ੅įȚĮ ıIJઁ ȝȠȞĮıIJȒȡȚ IJȘȢ. «… ‫ݺ‬Ȟ Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ IJȡȩʌȠȞ ܻʌȠIJĮȟĮȝȑȞȘ ‫ݸ ݘ‬ıȚȦIJȐIJȘ ȂĮIJȡȫȞĮ ‫ݗ‬ȟȚȫșȘȞ ȜĮȕİ߿Ȟ ʌĮȡ‫ ޟ‬IJȠࠎ ܼȖȓȠȣ ȖȑȡȠȞIJȠȢ IJާ IJȠࠎ ȝȠȞȐȗȠȞIJȠȢ ıȤ߱ȝĮ, IJࠜ Į‫ރ‬IJࠜ IJȡȩʌ࠙ țĮ‫ޥ‬ Į‫ރ‬IJ߲ IJĮ߿Ȣ ʌȡȠıȚȠȪıĮȚȢ Į‫ރ‬IJ߲ ‫ݏ‬ȤİȚȞ ʌĮȡȑȤȠȣıĮ …».37 «… țĮ‫ޔ ޥ‬ıʌİȡ ‫ݸ‬ ‫ݸ‬ıȚȫIJĮIJȠȢ ǺĮıȚĮȞާȢ ȝİIJ‫ ޟ‬ʌȠȜީȞ ȤȡȩȞȠȞ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ȝİIJ‫ ޟ‬ʌȠȜȜ߱Ȣ IJ߱Ȣ įȠțȚȝĮıȓĮȢ ‫݋‬ʌİIJȓșİȚ Ȥİ߿ȡĮ Ƞ‫ݮ‬Ȣ ‫݋‬ʌİIJȓșİȚ, Ƞ‫ވ‬IJȦȢ țĮ‫ ݘ ޥ‬ȝĮțĮȡȓĮ ȂĮIJȡࠛȞĮ, İ‫ ݧ‬ȝ‫ ޣ‬IJާȞ ȤȡȩȞȠȞ ‫݋‬įȑȟĮIJȠ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȠࠎȞIJĮ IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ ʌȡȠĮȓȡİıȚȞ IJ߱Ȣ ʌȡȠıİȜșȠȪıȘȢ Ƞ‫ރ‬ țĮIJİįȑȤİIJȠ Į‫ރ‬IJ߲ įȠࠎȞĮȚ ıȤ߱ȝĮ …».38 ਺ ȝİIJȐįȠıȘ IJȠ૨ ıȤȒȝĮIJȠȢ ıIJ੿Ȣ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ Į੝IJ੻Ȣ ੖ȝȦȢ ਷IJĮȞ ʌȡȐȟȘ ʌȠઃ į੻Ȟ İੇȤİ ıȤȑıȘ ȝ੻ IJઁ șȣıȚĮıIJȒȡȚȠ, įȘȜ. į੻Ȟ ȖȚȞȩIJĮȞ ıȣȞĮij૵Ȣ ȝ੻ IJ੽ ș. ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮ, țĮ੿ ȝʌȠȡȠ૨ıİ Ȟ੹ IJİȜİıșİ૙ ੒ʌȠȣįȒʌȠIJİ, ı੻ ਪȞĮ ȝȠȞĮıIJȒȡȚ ਲ਼ ı੻ ਪȞĮ ıʌȓIJȚ, ıIJ੽Ȟ ਩ȡȘȝȠ ਲ਼ ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌȩȜȘ, ਕʌઁ ȝȠȞĮȤઁ ਲ਼ ȝȠȞĮȤȒ. ਺ ੂİȡĮIJȚț੽ ੁįȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJોȢ ਲȖȠȣȝȑȞȘȢ ੖ʌȦȢ țĮ੿ IJોȢ įȚĮțȠȞȓııȘȢ țĮ੿ ਲ ıȪȞįİıȒ IJȠȣȢ ȝ੻ IJઁ șȣıȚĮıIJȒȡȚȠ ʌȡȠȧȩȞIJȠȢ IJȠ૨ ȤȡȩȞȠȣ ਕIJȠȞȠ૨Ȟ. ǼੇȞĮȚ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚț੽ ਲ 38Ș ਥȡȫIJȘıȘ IJȠ૨ ȂȐȡțȠȣ ਝȜİȟĮȞįȡİȓĮȢ, ੒ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȢ IJઁȞ 12Ƞ ĮੁȫȞĮ ȗȘIJȠ૨ıİ Ȟ੹ ȝȐșİȚ ʌȠȚઁ ਷IJĮȞ IJઁ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ («ȅ‫ ݨ‬șİ߿ȠȚ țĮȞȩȞİȢ ȝȑȝȞȘȞIJĮȚ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞǜ ȗȘIJȠࠎȝİȞ Ƞ‫މ‬Ȟ ȝĮșİ߿Ȟ ʌȠ߿ȩȞ ‫݋‬ıIJȚ IJާ IJȠȪIJȦȞ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ), ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ਕʌĮȞIJȒıİȚ ੒ ĬİȩįȦȡȠȢ ǺĮȜıĮȝઅȞ ੖IJȚ «ȆȐȜĮȚ ʌȠIJ‫ ޡ‬țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJȐȖȝĮIJĮ IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ IJȠ߿Ȣ țĮȞȩıȚȞ ‫݋‬ʌİȖȚȞȫıțİIJȠ țĮ‫ޥ‬ İ‫ݭ‬ȤȠȞ țĮ‫ ޥ‬Į‫ފ‬IJĮȚ ȕĮșȝާȞ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJࠜ ȕȒȝĮIJȚǜ ‫ ݘ‬į‫ ޡ‬IJࠛȞ ‫݋‬ȝȝȒȞȦȞ țȐțȦıȚȢ IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ ‫ބ‬ʌȘȡİıȓĮȞ IJĮȪIJȘȞ ‫݋‬ț IJȠࠎ șİȓȠȣ țĮ‫ܼ ޥ‬ȖȓȠȣ ȕȒȝĮIJȠȢ ‫݋‬ȟȑȦıİ (੪ı੹Ȟ IJȩIJİ ȝȩȞȠ Ȟ੹ įȚĮʌȚıIJȫșȘțİ Į੝IJ੽ ਲ ijȣıȚȠȜȠȖȚț੽ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮ IJȠ૨ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠȣ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ, ȤȦȡ੿Ȣ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ੒ ǺĮȜıĮȝઅȞ Ȟ੹ ȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ਫ਼ʌȩȥȚȞ IJȠઃȢ ʌȡȠȖİȞȑıIJİȡȠȣȢ ıȤİIJȚțȠઃȢ țĮȞȩȞİȢ țĮ੿ ȞȩȝȠȣȢ, ʌȠઃ ਕȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ ı੻ Į੝IJઁ IJઁ ȖȣȞĮȚțİ૙Ƞ «ʌȐșȠȢ»,39 Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȚ ıȘȝİȚȦIJȑȠȞ į੻Ȟ țȐȞȠȣȞ ੒ʌȠȚĮįȒʌȠIJİ ȞȪȟȘ ʌİȡ੿ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ) ʌĮȡ‫ ޟ‬į‫ ޡ‬IJ߲ ܼȖȚȦIJȐIJ߯ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓߠ IJȠࠎ șȡȩȞȠȣ IJࠛȞ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȚȞȠȣʌȠȜȚIJࠛȞ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȚ ʌȡȠȤİȚȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ, ȝȓĮȞ ȝ‫ޡ‬Ȟ ȝİIJȠȣıȓĮȞ ȝ‫ޣ‬ 37

ǺȓȠȢ ‫ݸ‬ıȓĮȢ ȂĮIJȡȫȞĮȢ, Act. SS, Nov. III, 1910, ı. 812D. ‫ނ‬ʌ.ʌ., ı. 812DE. 39 ǼȜİȣșİȡȓĮȢ ȆĮʌĮȖȚȐȞȞȘ - Ȉʌ. ȉȡȦȚȐȞȠȣ, ȉ੹ ȖȣȞĮȚțİ૙Į ʌȐșȘ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ ȞȠȝȠțĮȞȠȞȚț੻Ȣ ʌȘȖȑȢ, ȆȡĮțIJȚț‫ ޟ‬Ĭǯ ȆĮȞİȜȜȘȞȓȠȣ ‫ݨ‬ıIJȠȡȚțȠࠎ ıȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ (ȂȐȚȠȢ 1988), ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 1988, ıı. 31-46. ȉȦȞ ȚįȓȦȞ, ਺ ȞİĮȡ੹ 17 ȁȑȠȞIJȠȢ IJȠ૨ ȈȠijȠ૨ țĮ੿ ȝȓĮ ਥʌȚIJȠȝȒ IJȘȢ, ǺȣȗĮȞIJȚȞĮ‫ ޥ‬ȂİȜȑIJĮȚ 1 (1988) 32-51. ȉȦȞ ȚįȓȦȞ, Die Kanonischen Antworten des Nikolaos III Grammatikos an den Bishof von Zetounion, Byz. Zeit. 82 (1989) 236. ǺȜ. țĮ੿ Ȇ. ȈȚȝȚȖȚȐIJȠȣ, ੘ ȝİIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ȖȑȞȞȘıȚȞ țĮșĮȡȝઁȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ, īȡȘȖȩȡȚȠȢ ‫ ݸ‬ȆĮȜĮȝߢȢ 45 (1962) 108-118 țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ਕʌȐȞIJȘıȘ ı੻ Į੝IJઁ IJȠ૨ ʌ. ȀȦȞıIJ. ȆĮʌĮȖȚȐȞȞȘ, ੘ ȝİIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ȖȑȞȞȘıȚȞ țĮșĮȡȝઁȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., 46 (1963) 223-229. ȉȠȣ ȚįȓȠȣ, ǹੂ İ੝ȤĮ੿ ਥʌ੿ IJૌ ȖİȞȞȒıİȚ ʌĮȚįȓȠȣ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., 79 (1996) 487504. ǿ. ĭȠȣȞIJȠȪȜȘ, ݃ʌĮȞIJȒıİȚȢ ..., IJ. ǹǯ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 1967, ıı. 147-148. ī. ȆȠȣȜȒ, ǻȩȜȠȢ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ʌȜȐȞȘ ȖȚ‫ ޟ‬IJާȞ ܿįȚțȠ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ IJ߱Ȣ ʌȡȐȟȘȢ ıIJާ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțާ įȓțĮȚȠ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 1984, ı. 27 ਦȟ. 38

194

Chapter Fourteen

‫ݏ‬ȤȠȣıĮȚ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJࠜ ȕȒȝĮIJȚ, ‫݋‬țțȜȘıȚȐȗȠȣıĮȚ į‫ ޡ‬IJ‫ ޟ‬ʌȠȜȜȐ, țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚțȦȞ߿IJȚȞ ‫݋‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțࠛȢ įȚȠȡșȠȪȝİȞĮȚ».40 Ĭ੹ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ਫ਼ʌȠȖȡĮȝȝȚıșİ૙ ʌİȡĮȚIJȑȡȦ ੖IJȚ țĮ੿ IJ੹ ʌȠȜઃ ȝȚțȡ੹ țȠȡȚIJıȐțȚĮ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝ੻ IJઁȞ ʌĮIJȡȚȐȡȤȘ ȁȠȣț઼ ȋȡȣıȠȕȑȡȖȘ, ਕʌȠțȜİȓȠȞIJĮȞ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ İ੅ıȠįȠ ıIJઁ ੂ. ȕોȝĮ, ਕțȩȝĮ țĮ੿ ı੻ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ਥȟĮȚȡİIJȚțોȢ ਕȞȐȖțȘȢ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ IJȠ૨ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȠ૨. «ȉާ ș߱Ȝȣ, ‫ݸ‬ʌȠȓĮȢ ܽȞ İ‫ݫ‬Ș ‫ݘ‬ȜȚțȓĮȢ, IJ߱Ȣ Ƞ‫ݧ‬țİȓĮȢ ijȪıİȦȢ ‫݋‬țıIJ߱ȞĮȚ Ƞ‫ ރ‬įȪȞĮȞIJĮȚǜ ‫݋‬ʌİ‫ ޥ‬Ƞ‫މ‬Ȟ țĮșȩȜȠȣ IJĮ߿Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚȟȓ IJİ IJࠛȞ șİȓȦȞ ܻįȪIJȦȞ ܻʌȠțȑțȜİȚıIJĮȚ, Ƞ‫ރ‬ț İ‫ݧ‬ıİȜİȪıİIJĮȓ IJȚȢ IJȠȪIJȦȞ ‫݋‬ȞIJȩȢ, țܽȞ ʌȐȞȣ İ‫ݫ‬Ș ‫ݘ‬ȜȚțȓߠ ȞİȐȗȠȣıĮǜ İ‫ ݧ‬Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ IJȠࠎIJȠ įȠȓȘȝİȞ, ʌȠȜȜ‫ ޟ‬IJ‫ܿ ޟ‬IJȠʌĮ ‫ݐ‬ȥİIJĮȚǜ IJࠛȞ ȝ‫ޡ‬Ȟ Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ ‫݋‬Ȟ ȖȐȝ࠙ țȦȜȪİıșĮȚ, ‫ބ‬ʌȠʌIJİȣȠȝȑȞȦȞ įȚ‫ ޟ‬IJާȞ ȖȐȝȠȞ Į‫ރ‬IJࠛȞ, țĮ‫ ޥ‬İ‫ ݧ‬IJȠࠎIJȠ, ʌȠࠎ IJާ IJȓȝȚȠȞ Į‫ރ‬IJȠࠎ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJާ IJ߱Ȣ țȠȓIJȘȢ ܻȝȓĮȞIJȠȞ; IJࠛȞ į‫݋ ޡ‬Ȟ ܼȖȞİȓߠ țĮ‫ޥ‬ ıȦijȡȠıȪȞ߯ įȚ‫ ޟ‬IJާ ʌĮȡ‫ ޟ‬IJĮȪIJĮȢ ܻȝijȓȕȠȜȠȞ».41 ǹ੝IJ੻Ȣ Ƞੂ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȘȝĮIJȚț੻Ȣ țĮ੿ ਕʌȩȜȣIJİȢ șȑıİȚȢ, ʌȠઃ ਕȞȐȖȠȣȞ ʌȜȑȠȞ IJ੽Ȟ ਕʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ İੁıȩįȠȣ ıIJઁ șȣıȚĮıIJȒȡȚȠ ıIJ੽ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ ijȪıȘ, ʌȡȠijĮȞ૵Ȣ į੻Ȟ ੅ıȤȣĮȞ, ੖ʌȦȢ İ੅įĮȝİ, ʌĮȜĮȚȩIJİȡĮ. ȅੂ ȜȩȖȠȚ IJોȢ ȞȑĮȢ ıIJȐıİȦȢ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ į੻Ȟ İੇȞĮȚ IJȠ૨ ʌĮȡȩȞIJȠȢ Ȟ੹ ਥȟȘȖȘșȠ૨Ȟ. ਝıijĮȜ૵Ȣ į੻Ȟ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ਕȖȞȠİ૙IJĮȚ ਲ ਥʌȚıȒȝĮȞıȘ IJȠ૨ ʌĮIJȡȚȐȡȤȘ ȁȠȣț઼ ੖IJȚ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ İ੅ıȠįȠ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ਕțȩȝĮ țĮ੿ țȠȡȚIJıȚ૵Ȟ ਥȞIJઁȢ IJȠ૨ ੂ. ȕȒȝĮIJȠȢ «ʌȠȜȜ੹ IJ੹ ਙIJȠʌĮ ਪȥİIJĮȚ». *** ਺ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ, ı੻ ੁįȚĮȓIJİȡİȢ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ʌȠઃ İੇȞĮȚ ਥʌȚȕİȕȜȘȝȑȞȘ ਲ ਥijĮȡȝȠȖ੽ IJ૵Ȟ țĮȞȩȞȦȞ ȠੁțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ, ਫ਼ʌİȡȕĮȓȞİȚ IJ੽Ȟ ਕțȡȓȕİȚĮ, ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ Ȟ੹ įȚĮıijĮȜȓıİȚ IJ੽ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ ʌȚıIJ૵Ȟ. ǼੇȞĮȚ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚț੽ ʌ.Ȥ. ਲ ਙȞİıȘ țĮ੿ ਲ IJȩȜȝȘ ਥijĮȡȝȠȖોȢ IJોȢ ȠੁțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ ʌȠઃ ਥʌȚȜȑȖİȚ țĮ੿ ıȣȞȚıIJ઼ ੒ Ȃ. ĭȫIJȚȠȢ ȖȚ੹ IJ੽ ȝİIJĮijȠȡ੹ ș. İ੝ȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮȢ ਕʌઁ İ੝ȜĮȕİ૙Ȣ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ, ਲ਼ ਕțȩȝĮ țĮ੿ ਕʌઁ ਕȜȜȩʌȚıIJİȢ, ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ȝİIJĮȜȐȕȠȣȞ ȝİȜȜȠșȐȞĮIJȠȚ ĮੁȤȝȐȜȦIJȠȚ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠȓ. «Ȇİȡ੿ įȑ Ȗİ IJ૵Ȟ IJ੽Ȟ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȞ įȚĮțȠȝȚȗȠȣı૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ IJȠ૙Ȣ ȕĮȡȕĮȡȚțȠ૙Ȣ Ƞ੅țȠȚȢ ਥȖțİțȜİȚıȝȑȞȠȚȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠ૙Ȣ, IJȠ૨IJȠ įȚȫȡȚıIJĮȚ, ੪Ȣ 40

ī. ȇȐȜȜȘ - Ȃ. ȆȠIJȜȒ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., IJ. ǻǯ, ı. 477. ੘ ǺĮȜıĮȝઅȞ ȜȑİȚ IJ੹ ੅įȚĮ țĮ੿ ıIJઁ ıȤȩȜȚȩ IJȠȣ ıIJઁȞ țĮȞȩȞĮ 15 IJોȢ ǻǯ ȅੁțȠȣȝİȞȚțોȢ ıȣȞȩįȠȣ. «ȉ੹ IJȠ૨ ʌĮȡȩȞIJȠȢ țĮȞȩȞȠȢ (15Ƞȣ ȆİȞșȑțIJȘȢ) ʌȐȞIJȘ ਥıȤȩȜĮıĮȞǜ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ Ȗ੹ȡ ıȒȝİȡȠȞ Ƞ੝ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞİ૙IJĮȚ, țਗȞ țĮIJĮȤȡȘıIJȚț૵Ȣ IJȚȞĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਕıțȘIJȡȚ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȚ ȜȑȖȠȞIJĮȚǜ ੖IJȚ țĮȞȫȞ ਥıIJȚ įȚȠȡȚȗȩȝİȞȠȢ ȝ੽ İੁıȑȡȤİıșĮȚ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮȢ ਥȞ IJ૶ ȕȒȝĮIJȚ. ਺ ȖȠ૨Ȟ ȝ੽ įȣȞĮȝȑȞȘ ਥȞ IJ૶ ȕȒȝĮIJȚ İੁıİȜșİ૙Ȟ, ʌ૵Ȣ IJ੹ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ ਥȞİȡȖȒıİȚ» (ī. ȇȐȜȜȘ - Ȃ. ȆȠIJȜȒ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., IJ. Ǻǯ, ıı. 255-256). ȆȡȕȜ. țĮȞȩȞĮ 14 ȆİȞșȑțIJȘȢ țĮ੿ IJઁ ıȤȩȜȚȠ IJȠ૨ ੁįȓȠȣ (੖ʌ.ʌ., ıı. 337-338). 41 ǹ. ȃ. Almazov, Neizdannye Kanonitcheskie otvêty Konstantinopol’skago patriarkha Luki Khisoverga i metropoleta Rodosskago Nila, ੗įȘııઁȢ 1903, ıı. 24-25.

Deaconesses and Women in the Public Worship of God

195

İ੝ıȤȒȝȠȞĮȢ İੇȞĮȚ Ȥȡ੽ IJĮȪIJĮȢ, țĮ੿ ȠੈĮȚ į’ ਗȞ ਥȞ ʌĮȡșİȞȓ઺ ਲ਼ ıİȝȞ૶ ȖȒȡ઺ țȠıȝȠȪȝİȞĮȚ, țĮ੿ ਙȟȚĮȚ İੁȢ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȞ țĮ੿ İੁȢ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ ʌĮȡĮįİȤșોȞĮȚ ȕĮșȝȩȞ. Ǽ‫ ݧ‬į‫ ޡ‬IJȠȚȠȪIJȦȞ ܻʌȠȡȓĮ İ‫ݭ‬ȞĮȚ įȠțİ߿, ȝȘį‫ ޡ‬IJ‫ޟ‬Ȣ ʌȓıIJİȦȢ ܻȜȜȠIJȡȓĮȢ ȕȠȣȜȠȝȑȞĮȢ İ‫ރ‬ʌȠȚİ߿Ȟ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠ߿Ȣ ܻįİȜijȠ߿Ȣ țĮ੿ ਥʌ੿ IJȠıȠ૨IJȠȞ Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣ IJİșĮȡȡȘțȑȞĮȚ țĮ੿ ʌȡȠıĮȞĮIJİșોȞĮȚ, ȝȘį’ Į‫ރ‬IJ‫ޟ‬Ȣ ‫݋‬țİȓȞĮȢ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡİ߿ıșĮȚǜ ܻȜȜ‫ ޟ‬țĮ‫ ޥ‬įȚ’ Į‫ރ‬IJࠛȞ İ‫ݧ‬ıțȠȝȓȗİȚȞ IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ IJȠࠎ ܼȖȚĮıȝȠࠎ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȞ IJȠ૙Ȣ ȝȘį’ ਫ਼ʌ’ Į੝IJોȢ IJોȢ IJȣȡĮȞȞȓįȠȢ IJોȢ İੁȢ ȋȡȚıIJઁȞ țĮIJȦȜȚȖȠȡȘțȩıȚ ʌȓıIJİȦȢǜ Ƞ‫ރ‬įȑʌȠIJİ Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ țȠȚȞȠࠎIJĮȚ IJާ ݀ȖȚȠȞ, ȝ઼ȜȜȠȞ į੻ ਖȖȚȐȗİȚ țĮ੿ IJȠઃȢ țİțȠȚȞȦȝȑȞȠȣȢǜ İੁ ȝ੽ ੢ʌȠʌIJȐ IJȚȞĮ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ, țĮIJĮʌĮȓȗİȚȞ ıȣȞȒșȦȢ ਩ȤȠȞIJĮ IJ૵Ȟ șİȓȦȞ, IJĮ૨IJĮ ਥȖȤİȚȡȚıșોȞĮȚ ʌȡȠijĮıȓȗȠȚȞIJȠ».42 ǹ੝IJઁ țĮ੿ ȝȩȞȠ IJઁ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ ijĮȞİȡȫȞİȚ IJ੽ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȠઃ İੇȤĮȞ Ƞੂ ʌĮIJȑȡİȢ Ȟ੹ ਫ਼ʌİȡȕĮȓȞȠȣȞ IJઁ ȞȩȝȠ, ੖IJĮȞ Ƞੂ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚț੻Ȣ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੻Ȣ ਕȞȐȖțİȢ IJઁ ਕʌĮȚIJȠ૨ıĮȞ. *** ȈIJઁ corpus IJ૵Ȟ ੂ. țĮȞȩȞȦȞ į੻Ȟ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ ਩ȝȝİıȘ ਲ਼ ਙȝİıȘ ਕʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ ȖȚ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ ਕʌઁ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ. ਺ ȆİȞșȑțIJȘ ȅੁțȠȣȝİȞȚț੽ ıȪȞȠįȠȢ ı੻ ਪȞĮ ʌȜȑȖȝĮ țĮȞȩȞȦȞ ʌȠઃ ਕȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJ੽ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ȞĮઁ43 ਥțįȓįİȚ țĮȞȩȞĮ (੒ 70ȩȢ), ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ਕʌĮȖȠȡİȪıİȚ IJ੽Ȟ ੒ȝȚȜȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ੮ȡĮ IJોȢ ș. ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ. ਺ ਕʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ ਕȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ਕʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚț੹ ı੻ Į੝IJ੽ IJ੽Ȟ ਕIJĮȟȓĮ (IJ੽ «ijȜȣĮȡȓĮ» ੖ʌȦȢ IJ੽Ȟ ੑȞȠȝȐȗİȚ ੒ ੉ȦȐȞȞȘȢ ੒ ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȢ44 țĮ੿ ੒ ੉ıȓįȦȡȠȢ ȆȘȜȠȣıȚȫIJȘȢ ıIJઁ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ʌĮȡĮIJȚșȑȝİȞȠ ȤȦȡȓȠ) țĮ੿ Ƞ੝įİȝȓĮ ıȤȑıȘ ਩ȤİȚ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ ਕʌઁ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ, ੖ʌȦȢ İ੅įĮȝİ, ਷IJĮȞ ʌȡȐȟȘ ਕȡțİIJ੹ įȚĮįİįȠȝȑȞȘ, ੁįȓȦȢ ਕʌઁ IJઁȞ 4Ƞ ȝȑȤȡȚ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ 6Ƞ ĮੁȫȞĮ, țĮ੿ ਕʌȠįİțIJ੽ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ.45 ਫȟȐȜȜȠȣ ਥ੹Ȟ ਫ਼ʌોȡȤİ ʌȡȩșİıȘ ȝȓĮȢ 42

‫ݑ‬ʌȚıIJȠȜ‫ ޣ‬ȁȑȠȞIJȚ ȀĮȜĮȕȡȓĮȢ, PG 102, 780- 781 [= B. Laourdas țĮ੿ L. G. Westerink (ਥțį.), Ǽpistolae et Amphilochiae, IJ. ǿǿǿ, ȁİȚȥȓĮ 1985, ı. 166]. ǺȜ. ıȤİIJ. ǿİȡȫȞȣȝȠȣ ǿ. ȀȠIJıȫȞȘ, ੉įȚȐȗȠȣıĮ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțોȢ ȠੁțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ. ਺ șİȓĮ İ੝ȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮ ȝİIJĮijİȡȠȝȑȞȘ ਫ਼ʌઁ ȝ੽ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ, ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ 27 (1956) 3-24ǜ ǻȘȝȘIJȡȓȠȣ ȉȗȑȡʌȠȣ, ‫ݑ‬ijȩįȚȠȞ ȗȦ߱Ȣ. ‫ ݠ‬ȝİIJȐįȠıȘ IJ߱Ȣ Ĭ. ȀȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ ıIJȠީȢ ܻıșİȞİ߿Ȣ ʌȠީ ܻȞIJȚȝİIJȦʌȓȗȠȣȞ țȓȞįȣȞȠ șĮȞȐIJȠȣ. ȈȣȝȕȠȜ‫ ޣ‬ıIJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ ȆȠȚȝĮȞIJȚț‫ ޣ‬ȁİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ, ਝșȒȞĮ 2001, ıı. 86-87ǜ Ȅ. ȆĮʌĮȤĮȡĮȜȐȝʌȠȣȢ, ੜȡȠȚ țĮ੿ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑıİȚȢ įȚ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤ੽Ȟ İੁȢ IJ੽Ȟ șİȓĮȞ İ੝ȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮȞ ਥȟ ਥʌȩȥİȦȢ ੗ȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ, ‫ݑ‬ʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚț‫ޣ‬ ‫ݑ‬ʌİIJȘȡ‫ޥ‬Ȣ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚț߱Ȣ ȈȤȠȜ߱Ȣ ݃șȘȞࠛȞ 28 (1989) 699 ਦȟ. 43 ǺȜ. ıȤİIJȚț੹ ī. ȋ. īțĮȕĮȡįȓȞĮ, ‫ ݠ‬ȆİȞșȑțIJȘ Ƞ‫ݧ‬țȠȣȝİȞȚț‫ ޣ‬ıȪȞȠįȠȢ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJާ ȞȠȝȠșİIJȚțȩ IJȘȢ ‫ݏ‬ȡȖȠ, ȀĮIJİȡȓȞȘ 1998, ı. 223 ਦȟ. īȚ੹ IJઁ șȑȝĮ IJોȢ İੁıȩįȠȣ țIJȒȞȠȣȢ ı੻ ȞĮઁ țĮIJ੹ IJઁȞ țĮȞȩȞĮ 88 IJોȢ ȆİȞșȑțIJȘȢ ȕȜ. ǼȚȡȒȞȘȢ Ȇ. ȋȡȚıIJȚȞȐțȘ, ȉާ ‫݋‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțާ ‫ݏ‬ȖțȜȘȝĮ IJ߱Ȣ İ‫ݧ‬ıĮȖȦȖ߱Ȣ țIJȒȞȠȣȢ ı‫ݨ ޡ‬İȡާ ȞĮȩ, ਝșȒȞĮ 2002. 44 ‫ݾ‬ȝȚȜȓĮ 9 İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ Ǻǯ ȉȚȝ., PG 62, 543. ǺȜ. țĮ੿ PG 86, 361D. 45 īȚ੹ IJ੽ ıIJȩȤİȣıȘ IJȠ૨ țĮȞȠȞȚțȠ૨ ȞȠȝȠșȑIJȘ ȕȜ. IJ੿Ȣ șȑıİȚȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਦȡȝȘȞİȣIJ૵Ȟ ǽȦȞĮȡ઼ țĮ੿ ǺĮȜıĮȝ૵ȞȠȢ, ī. ȇȐȜȜȘ - Ȃ. ȆȠIJȜȒ, ‫ݼ‬ʌ.ʌ., IJ. Ǻǯ, ıı. 468-469. ȆȡȕȜ.

196

Chapter Fourteen

IJȑIJȠȚĮȢ ਕʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘȢ ș੹ İੇȤİ țĮIJĮȖȡĮijİ૙ ıIJઁȞ ad hoc 75Ƞ țĮȞȩȞĮ IJોȢ ੁįȓĮȢ ıȣȞȩįȠȣ, ੒ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȢ țĮIJĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ țĮIJ੹ IJ૵Ȟ «ਕIJȐțIJȦȞ ȕȠ૵Ȟ» țȐʌȠȚȦȞ ȥĮȜIJ૵Ȟ, șȑIJȠȞIJĮȢ ੪Ȣ ਕȡȤ੽ ਲ įȠȟȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨ Ȟ੹ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ «ȝİIJ੹ ʌȠȜȜોȢ ʌȡȠıȠȤોȢ țĮ੿ țĮIJĮȞȪȟİȦȢ».46 ȈțȠʌઁȢ IJȠ૨ țĮȞȠȞȚțȠ૨ ȞȠȝȠșȑIJȘ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ʌİȡȚijȡȠȪȡȘıȘ IJોȢ ਕȜȘșȚȞોȢ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮȢ, ʌȠઃ ʌȡȠȐȖİȚ ʌȡઁȢ IJઁȞ Ĭİȩ. ੜIJĮȞ ਲ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ʌȡȩıțȠȝȝĮ, įȘȜ. ੖IJĮȞ ਲ ਥȝȝİȜ੽Ȣ ਥțijȠȡ੹ IJȠ૨ ȜȩȖȠȣ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ Į੝IJȠıțȠʌȩȢ, ੒ ȞȠ૨Ȣ IJȠ૨ ʌȡȠıİȣȤȠȝȑȞȠȣ ਥȖțȜȦȕȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJ੹ ȖȒȚȞĮ țĮ੿ ȤȐȞİȚ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȞĮijȠȡ੹ ʌȡઁȢ IJઁȞ Ĭİȩ. ੘ ȝȞȘȝȠȞİȣșİ੿Ȣ ȃİ૙ȜȠȢ ȈȚȞĮǸIJȘȢ, ਥțijȡȐȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJ੽Ȟ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJ૵Ȟ ਥȡȘȝȚIJ૵Ȟ, ਫ਼ʌȠıIJȘȡȓȗİȚ ੖IJȚ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ ਲ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ į੻Ȟ ੩ijİȜİ૙ IJȠઃȢ ȝȠȞĮȤȠȪȢ, țĮșȩıȠȞ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ Ȟ੹ įȚĮıʌ઼ IJઁȞ ʌȡȠıİȣȤȩȝİȞȠ ȞȠ૨ IJȠ૨ ਲıȣȤĮıIJો. ȆĮȡ੹ IJĮ૨IJĮ Ƞੂ ੢ȝȞȠȚ İੇȞĮȚ «ਲ ıIJȠȜ੽ țĮ੿ ਲ įȩȟĮ» IJોȢ țĮșȠȜȚțોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, (įȘȜ. IJોȢ ਥȞȠȡȓĮȢ), ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ıȣıIJȘȝĮIJȚț੹ țĮȜȜȚȑȡȖȘıİ țĮ੿ ਕȞȑʌIJȣȟİ IJઁ ȜİȖȩȝİȞȠ ݃ıȝĮIJȚțާ IJȣʌȚțȩ.47 «ȉઁ Ȗ੹ȡ ઍıȝĮ țĮ੿ IJ੹ ʌİȡ੿ IJ૵Ȟ IJȡȠʌĮȡȓȦȞ ... Ƞ੝ IJȠıȠ૨IJȠȞ ੩ijİȜȠ૨ıȚ IJȠઃȢ ȝȠȞȐȗȠȞIJĮȢ, ੖ıȠȞ ȕȜȐʌIJȠȣıȚǜ IJઁ Ȗ੹ȡ ઍıȝĮ țĮ੿ IJ੹ IJȡȠʌȐȡȚĮ Ƞ੝ ȜȣıȚIJİȜȠ૨ıȚ IJȠ૙Ȣ ȝȠȞȐȗȠȣıȚ. ȉĮ૨IJĮ Ȗ੹ȡ Ƞ੝ț ਩ıIJȚ IJ૵Ȟ ȝȠȞĮȤ૵Ȟ ਕȜȜ੹ IJ૵Ȟ țȠıȝȚț૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ıIJȠȜ੽ țĮ੿ įȩȟĮ IJોȢ țĮșȠȜȚțોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢǜ įȚ‫ ޟ‬Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ IJާ ޳ıȝĮ țĮ‫ ݸ ޥ‬ȜĮާȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJĮ߿Ȣ ‫݋‬țțȜȘıȓĮȚȢ ıȣȞĮșȡȠȓȗİIJĮȚ».48 ਺ ʌĮȚįĮȖȦȖȚț੽ ਕȟȓĮ IJોȢ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮȢ ਥʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ਕʌઁ IJઁȞ įȚĮțȡȚIJȚțઁ țĮ੿ ʌȚıIJઁ ıIJ੽Ȟ țĮȞȠȞȚț੽ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ਕıțȘIJ੽ ȃİ૙ȜȠ. ȉઁ ਛıȝĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖİ૙ ੪Ȣ țĮ੿ ȆȘįȐȜȚȠȞ, ı. 282, ਫ਼ʌȠı. 1, ੖ʌȠȣ ਲ ਕʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ ıȤİIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝ੻ IJ੽ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ਕʌઁ ʌȜİȣȡ઼Ȣ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ਥȞIJઁȢ IJȠ૨ ȞĮȠ૨. 46 ī. ȇȐȜȜȘ - Ȃ. ȆȠIJȜȒ, ‫ݼ‬ʌ.ʌ., ı. 478. ȅੂ «ਙIJĮțIJİȢ ȕȠ੻Ȣ» IJ૵Ȟ ȥĮȜIJ૵Ȟ, țĮIJ੹ IJઁȞ ǺĮȜıĮȝȫȞĮ, țĮIJĮțȡȓșȘțĮȞ ıȣȞȠįȚț੹ ਕʌઁ ʌĮIJȡȚȐȡȤİȢ: «ਫʌİ੿ į੻ ʌĮȡ੹ įȚĮijȩȡȠȚȢ ਖȖȚȦIJȐIJȠȚȢ ʌĮIJȡȚȐȡȤĮȚȢ ਥȜĮȜȒșȘ, ȝ੽ ȝȩȞȠȞ ਥȞ IJĮ૙Ȣ ਦȠȡIJĮ૙Ȣ ȖȓȞİıșĮȚ IJȠȚĮ૨IJĮ ʌĮȡ੹ IJ૵Ȟ ȥĮȜIJ૵Ȟ, ਕȜȜ੹ țĮ੿ ਥȞ ʌĮȞȞȣȤȓıȚ țĮ੿ ȝȞȘȝȠıȪȞȠȚȢ IJİșȞİȫIJȦȞ, ȖİȖȩȞĮıȚ įȚȐijȠȡĮ ıȘȝİȚȫȝĮIJĮ ıȣȞȠįȚț੹ ਕijȠȡȚıȝ૶ țĮșȣʌȠȕȐȜȜȠȞIJĮ IJȠઃȢ IJȠȚĮ૨IJĮ ʌȠȚȠ૨ȞIJĮȢ țĮ੿ ਲ਼ įȚ੹ ȥĮȜȝȦįȘȝȐIJȦȞ țĮ੿ ਕȜȜȘȜȠȣĮȡȓȦȞ ȜȚIJ૵Ȟ, ȥĮȜȜȠȝȑȞȦȞ țĮIJ੹ IJઁ șİȝȑȜȚȠȞ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ਥțʌȜȘȡȠ૨ȞIJİȢ IJ੽Ȟ ʌĮȞȞȪȤȚȠȞ ȥĮȜȝ૳įȓĮȞ» (੖ʌ.ʌ., ı. 480). 47 īȚ੹ IJઁ ਝıȝĮIJȚțઁ IJȣʌȚțઁ ȕȜ. ਥȞįİȚțIJȚțȐ: ǻ. Ȁ. ȂʌĮȜĮȖİȫȡȖȠȣ, ‫ ݠ‬ȥĮȜIJȚț‫ޣ‬ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJࠛȞ ܻțȠȜȠȣșȚࠛȞ IJȠࠎ ȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞȠࠎ țȠıȝȚțȠࠎ IJȣʌȚțȠࠎ, ਥțįȓįİȚ ੒ īȡ. Ĭ. ȈIJȐșȘȢ, ਝșȒȞĮ 2001. 48 ǻ. ȉıȐȝȘ, ȉާ ȖİȡȠȞIJȚțާȞ IJȠࠎ ȈȚȞߢ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ı. 474. ȆȡȕȜ. ȉȠȣ ǿįȓȠȣ, ȌĮȜȝȦįȓĮ țĮ‫ ޥ‬țĮIJȐȞȣȟȘ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 1990. ਫʌȓıȘȢ ʌȡȕȜ. Ȇ. Ȁ. ȋȡȒıIJȠȣ, ȉઁ ਛıȝĮ țĮȚȞઁȞ țĮIJ੹ ȀȜȒȝİȞIJĮ ਝȜİȟĮȞįȡȑĮ, ĬİȠȜȠȖȚț‫ ޟ‬ȝİȜİIJȒȝĮIJĮ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ıı. 107-117. ȆİȡȚııȩIJİȡĮ ȖȚ੹ IJ੽Ȟ IJȐȟȘ ʌȡȠıİȣȤોȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਕıțȘIJ૵Ȟ ȕȜ. IJ੽ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚț੽ ȝȠȞȠȖȡĮijȓĮ (੖ʌȠȣ țĮ੿ ਥțIJİȞȑıIJĮIJȠ ਕȞșȠȜȩȖȚȠ țİȚȝȑȞȦȞ) IJȠ૨ ıȣȞĮįȑȜijȠȣ ʌ. ȃȚțȠįȒȝȠȣ ȈțȡȑIJIJĮ, ‫ ݠ‬ȞȠİȡ‫ ޟ‬ʌȡȠıİȣȤȒ, ‫ݏ‬țijȡĮıȘ ܻȜȘșȠࠎȢ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮȢ IJȠࠎ ĬİȠࠎ. ȂİIJ‫ޟ‬ ıȣȞĮȖȦȖ߱Ȣ țİȚȝȑȞȦȞ ʌĮȜĮȚࠛȞ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ȞȑȦȞ ȖİȡȩȞIJȦȞ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2006.

Deaconesses and Women in the Public Worship of God

197

ʌȩȜȠȢ ਪȜȟİȦȢ țĮ੿ ıȣȞĮșȡȠȓȗİȚ IJȠઃȢ ʌȚıIJȠઃȢ ıIJઁȞ ȞĮȩ. ਬʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ ਲ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ੑijİȓȜİȚ Ȟ੹ IJઁ ʌȡȠıIJĮIJİȪİȚ țĮ੿ Ȟ੹ įȚĮıijĮȜȓȗİȚ IJ੿Ȣ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑıİȚȢ IJોȢ șİȠijȚȜȠ૨Ȣ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮȢ. ǹ੝IJઁ ਥȟȐȜȜȠȣ IJȠȞȓȗȠȣȞ ੖ȜȠȚ Ƞੂ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚȠȜȩȖȠȚ ʌĮIJȑȡİȢ. ਯIJıȚ, ș੹ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ੑȡȖĮȞȫȞȠȞIJĮȚ ȤȠȡȠ੿ ȥĮȜIJ૵Ȟ, Ȟ੹ įȚĮįȓįİIJĮȚ ਲ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț੽ ȝȠȣıȚțȒ, Ȟ੹ IJȘȡȠ૨ȞIJĮȚ Ƞੂ țĮȞȩȞİȢ țĮ੿ ਲ IJȐȟȘ ʌȠઃ șȑIJȠȣȞ Ƞੂ ıȣȞIJȐțIJİȢ IJ૵Ȟ IJȣʌȚț૵Ȟ. ȈIJઁ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJોȢ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțોȢ ȝȑȡȚȝȞĮȢ ș੹ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ʌȡȠijĮȞ૵Ȣ Ȟ੹ ਕȟȚȠʌȠȚȠ૨ȞIJĮȚ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ İ੝ıİȕİ૙Ȣ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ, ੁįȓȦȢ ıIJ੿Ȣ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ਕįȣȞĮȝȓĮȢ ਥȟİȣȡȑıİȦȢ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ ȥĮȜIJ૵Ȟ, ʌȠઃ ıȣȤȞ੹ ıȣȝȕĮȓȞİȚ țĮIJ੹ IJ੿Ȣ țĮșȘȝİȡȚȞ੻Ȣ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚț੻Ȣ ıȣȞȐȟİȚȢ. ȂʌȠȡȠ૨ȝİ Ȟ੹ șȣȝȘșȠ૨ȝİ ȖȚ੹ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ ੖ıĮ ıȤİIJȚț੹ ੒ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮțȩIJĮIJȠȢ ਝȜȑȟĮȞįȡȠȢ ȆĮʌĮįȚĮȝȐȞIJȘȢ ਕȞĮijȑȡİȚ ȖȚ੹ IJ੿Ȣ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ʌȠઃ ਩ȥĮȜȜĮȞ, įȚĮțȠȞȫȞIJĮȢ ਖʌȜȠȧțȠઃȢ ȜİȣǸIJİȢ ıIJ੽ ȈțȚȐșȠ.49 ȆĮȡȐȜȜȘȜĮ, į੻Ȟ ș੹ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ įȚĮijİȪȖİȚ IJોȢ ʌȡȠıȠȤોȢ ȝĮȢ ਲ ੁıȤȣȡ੽ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJ૵Ȟ ıȜĮȕȚț૵Ȟ ਫțțȜȘıȚ૵Ȟ Ȟ੹ ȥȐȜȜȠȣȞ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ țĮIJ੹ IJ੿Ȣ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚț੻Ȣ ıȣȞȐȟİȚȢ. ਺ ʌȡȠıİȣȤ੽ İੇȞĮȚ ਫ਼ʌȠȤȡȑȦıȘ ੖ȜȦȞ IJ૵Ȟ ȝİȜ૵Ȟ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. «ȉĮࠎIJĮ (įȘȜ. Ƞੂ ʌȠȚțȓȜİȢ ਥțijȐȞıİȚȢ IJોȢ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮȢ) Ƞ‫ ރ‬ȝȩȞȠȞ ȝȠȞĮȤȠ߿Ȣ țĮ‫ޥ‬ țȠıȝȚțȠ߿Ȣ ܻȜȜ‫ ޟ‬țĮ‫ ޥ‬ȖȣȞĮȚȟ‫ ޥ‬ʌȚıIJĮ߿Ȣ țĮ‫ ޥ‬İ‫ރ‬ȜĮȕȑıȚ ʌȡȑʌȠȞ țĮ‫ ޥ‬Ƞ‫ރ‬įİ‫ޥ‬Ȣ ‫ݸ‬ țȦȜȪȦȞ»,50 ȜȑİȚ ੒ ਕȕȕ઼Ȣ ȃİ૙ȜȠȢ. *** ਫȞ țĮIJĮțȜİ૙įȚ ਫ਼ʌઁ ȝȠȡij੽ ıȣȝʌİȡĮıȝȐIJȦȞ ȝʌȠȡȠ૨Ȟ Ȟ੹ įȚĮIJȣʌȦșȠ૨Ȟ IJ੹ ਦȟોȢ: 1. ȈIJ੽ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੽ ʌȡȐȟȘ ਫ਼ʌોȡȟĮȞ, ੁįȓȦȢ ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ ʌȡ੿Ȟ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ İੁțȠȞȠȝĮȤȓĮ, țĮ੿ ȤȠȡȠ੿ ȥĮȜIJȡȚ૵Ȟ, Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȚ ıȣıIJȒșȘțĮȞ țĮ੿ țȐʌȠȚİȢ ijȠȡ੻Ȣ įȚİȣșȪȞșȘțĮȞ ਕʌઁ ʌĮIJȑȡİȢ țĮ੿ ਖȖȓȠȣȢ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. 2. ȅੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ਩ȥĮȜȜĮȞ, İ੅IJİ ı੻ ȝȚțIJȠઃȢ ȤȠȡȠઃȢ İ੅IJİ ıȣȞȘșȑıIJİȡĮ ıȣȖțȡȠIJȠ૨ıİȢ Į੝IJ੻Ȣ ȟİȤȦȡȚıIJઁ ȤȠȡȩ, ıIJ੽Ȟ țĮșȘȝİȡȚȞ੽ IJĮțIJȚț੽ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ țĮ੿ ı੻ ʌİȡȚıIJĮıȚĮț੻Ȣ ਕțȠȜȠȣșȓİȢ. 3. ਺ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ ਕʌઁ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ȖȚȞȩIJĮȞ țĮ੿ ıIJ੽ įȘȝȩıȚĮ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ ੕ȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ ıIJ੿Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțİ૙İȢ ȝȠȞȑȢ. 4. ǻ੻Ȟ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ ਕʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ ıIJȠઃȢ ਕʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȠȪȢ, ıȣȞȠįȚțȠઃȢ țĮ੿ ʌĮIJİȡȚțȠઃȢ țĮȞȩȞİȢ ȖȚ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ȥĮȜȝȦįȓĮ ਕʌઁ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ. 5. Ȉ੻ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ਕȞȐȖțȘȢ ਥijĮȡȝȠȖોȢ ȠੁțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ ਲ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚĮȗȩIJĮȞ ਕʌȠijĮıȚıIJȚț੽ țĮ੿ IJȠȜȝȘȡȒ. 49

ǺȜ. ǹȞ. ȀİıİȜȩʌȠȣȜȠȣ, ‫ ݠ‬ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț‫ ޣ‬ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ȆĮʌĮįȚĮȝȐȞIJȘ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2000, ı. 75 ਦȟ. 50 ǻ. ȉıȐȝȘ, ȉާ ȖİȡȠȞIJȚțާȞ IJȠࠎ ȈȚȞߢ, ੖ʌ.ʌ., ı. 472.

ıIJާȞ

݃ȜȑȟĮȞįȡȠ

198

Chapter Fourteen

6. Ȃ੻ ȕȐıȘ IJ੽Ȟ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ, ਩IJıȚ ੖ʌȦȢ ਥțijȡȐıIJȘțİ ਕʌઁ IJȠઃȢ ʌĮIJȑȡİȢ, ȝʌȠȡȠ૨Ȟ țĮ੿ ıȒȝİȡĮ Ƞੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ Ȟ੹ ȥȐȜȜȠȣȞ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ, ੁįȓȦȢ ı੻ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ਕįȣȞĮȝȓĮȢ ਥȟİȣȡȑıİȦȢ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ, ਫ਼ʌઁ IJȠઃȢ ੖ȡȠȣȢ ʌȠઃ ਥIJȑșȘıĮȞ ਕʌઁ IJ੹ ਖȡȝȩįȚĮ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț੹ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ țĮ੿ ੕ȡȖĮȞĮ, IJોȢ ȝ੽ ʌȡȠțȜȒıİȦȢ ıțĮȞįȐȜȦȞ, ਲ਼ IJઁ ȤİȚȡȩIJİȡȠȞ ʌIJȫıİȦȢ ı੻ ਕșȑȝȚIJİȢ ʌȡȐȟİȚȢ. 7. ਺ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ȖȚ੹ ʌȠȜȜȠઃȢ Įੁ૵ȞİȢ į੻Ȟ ਕʌȑțȜİȚİ IJ੽Ȟ İ੅ıȠįȠ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ıIJઁ șȣıȚĮıIJȒȡȚȠ, İ੅IJİ ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ İ੅IJİ ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJ૵Ȟ ȕĮıȚȜȚıı૵Ȟ, Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙İȢ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȠ૨ıĮȞ ਥȞIJઁȢ IJȠ૨ ੂ. ȕȒȝĮIJȠȢ, ੖ʌȦȢ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ Į੝IJȠțȡȐIJȠȡİȢ. 8. ਝȜȜĮȖȒ, ੖ıȠȞ ਕijȠȡ઼ ıIJ੽ șȑıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJ੽ įȘȝȩıȚĮ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ, ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡİ૙IJĮȚ țȣȡȓȦȢ ȝİIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ İੁțȠȞȠȝĮȤȓĮ țĮ੿ ਥʌȘȡİȐȗİȚ ਩țIJȠIJİ ʌȠȚțȚȜȠIJȡȩʌȦȢ IJ੽Ȟ ਥȞ ȖȑȞİȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੽ IJȐȟȘ, ਕțȩȝĮ țĮ੿ IJઁ Ǽ‫ރ‬ȤȠȜȩȖȚȠȞ. Ȇ.Ȥ. ਲ ȝ੽ İੁıĮȖȦȖ੽ ȕȡİij૵Ȟ-țȠȡȚIJıȚ૵Ȟ ıIJઁ ੂ. ȕોȝĮ țĮIJ੹ IJઁȞ ıĮȡĮȞIJȚıȝȩ IJȠȣȢ İੇȞĮȚ ʌȡȐȟȘ ʌȠઃ ȝĮȡIJȣȡİ૙IJĮȚ ȝİIJ੹ IJઁȞ 11Ƞ ĮੁȫȞĮ.

CHAPTER FIFTEEN THE RELIGIO-HISTORICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL TYPOLOGY OF WOMEN’S SUBMISSION TO MEN: THE ECCLESIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN CHRISTOPHOROS ARVANITIS

Abstract: The Orthodox Church’s denial concerning the issue of the admission of women into the priesthood, is founded exclusively on the invocation of her tradition in everyday life. This is an approach to tradition which systematically reverses the social beliefs about women in theological arguments. The texts, especially those of Paul, are understood de facto and therefore a priori, outside of the cultural contiguity of the era in which they were written, and don’t take into consideration the religious and philosophical background of Paul himself. The Pauline typology of woman is structured as an example of the type of ChristChurch relationship, and offers a number of wrong approaches to the modern demands of the female priesthood. Considering the priesthood as the exclusive right of men, it takes a one sex, male-dominated approach to Jesus’ sex, dangerously enmeshing the biological factor with ontology, lapsing into a conservative and reactive ecclesiology. What is required is a modern redefining of the relationship between the institutional structure of the Church and women as subjects of another, non-male-dominated culture; a relationship that accepts women as people and bearers of diversity, seeking peaceful co-existence with men, based on understanding and the acceptance of difference.

1.1. ਺ ਕijİIJȘȡȓĮ IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖોȢ ਺ țȚȞȘIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ, țĮIJȐ IJȒȞ ਥʌȠȤȒ IJોȢ ȞİȦIJİȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ, ȖȪȡȦ ਕʌȩ șȑȝĮIJĮ țĮȓ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȪ ਚʌIJȠȞIJĮȚ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȦʌȓȞȦȞ įȚțĮȚȦȝȐIJȦȞ, ਥʌİȟȘȖİ૙ IJȒȞ ਕȞĮȖțĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ਕʌȠțȜİȚıȝȠ૨ ੒ʌȠȚȦȞįȒʌȠIJİ ʌȡĮțIJȚț૵Ȟ,

200

Chapter Fifteen

ʌȠȪ ਥʌȚIJȡȑʌȠȣȞ ਥijĮȡȝȠȖȑȢ ਕȞȚıȠIJȒIJȦȞ țĮȓ įȚĮțȡȓıİȦȞ țĮȓ ʌȡȠıȕȐȜȜȠȣȞ IJȒȞ ਥȜİȪșİȡȘ ੢ʌĮȡȟȘ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȦʌȓȞȠȣ ੕ȞIJȠȢ. ਝȞȐȝİıĮ ıȑ ੖ȜİȢ Į੝IJȑȢ IJȓȢ įȚĮțȡȓıİȚȢ țĮȓ ਕȞȚıȩIJȘIJİȢ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ ȝȚȐ ȕĮıȚțȒ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ʌȡȠțĮȜİ૙ ੁıȤȣȡȑȢ ਕȞIJȚȡȡȒıİȚȢ țĮȓ įȚĮȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ. ǼȓȞĮȚ Į੝IJȒ IJોȢ įȚȐțȡȚıȘȢ IJ૵Ȟ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ ıIJȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ, țȣȡȓȦȢ, IJોȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțોȢ IJȠȣȢ ਕȞĮȖȞȫȡȚıȘȢ țĮȓ IJ૵Ȟ įȚțĮȚȦȝȐIJȦȞ ʌȠȪ ਕʌȠȡȡȑȠȣȞ ਕʌȩ Į੝IJȒȞ. ȀĮȚ ĮȣIJȩ ȖȚĮIJȓ ਲ ੁıȩIJȘIJĮ IJ૵Ȟ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ, ʌĮȡȩIJȚ țĮIJȐ IJȓȢ ȝȑȡİȢ ȝĮȢ, İੇȞĮȚ ȞȠȝȚțȐ țĮȓ ȞȠȝȠșİIJȚțȐ ਕȞĮȖȞȦȡȚıȝȑȞȘ ਕʌȩ IJȩ ıȪȞȠȜȠ IJ૵Ȟ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȦȞ țȡĮIJ૵Ȟ, ਲ ਥijĮȡȝȠȖȒ IJȘȢ ıİ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȩ İʌȓʌİįȠ ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ IJȠ ȝİȖȐȜȠ ȗȘIJȠȪȝİȞȠ, țĮșȫȢ Ș ȝİIJȐȕĮıȘ ıȑ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȩ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ ıȣȞĮȞIJȐ ʌȐȡĮ ʌȠȜȜȐ İȝʌȩįȚĮ. ǹȢ įȠȪȝİ İȞ ıȣȞIJȠȝȓĮ IJȚȢ ĮijİIJȘȡȓİȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ įȚȐțȡȚıȘȢ. 1ȠȞ. ਝʌȩ IJȒȞ ਕȡȤĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȩȞ 18Ƞ Įੁ. ਥȝijĮȞȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ਕȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙İȢ įȑȞ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚȠ૨Ȟ IJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȐ, ʌĮȡȐ ȝȩȞȠ ıIJȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ੖IJȚ ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ įȑȞ İੇȞĮȚ ʌĮȡȐ ਪȞĮȢ ਙȞįȡĮȢ ȝȑ ȝȒ įȚĮȝȠȡijȦȝȑȞĮ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ ਕȞįȡȚțȐ ȖİȞȞȘIJȚțȐ-ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȐ ੕ȡȖĮȞĮ. 2ȠȞ. ȈIJȒȞ ਝȞĮȖȑȞȞȘıȘ, țĮIJȐ IJȩȞ ੂıIJȠȡȚțȩ Burckhardt: «Ƞੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ਷IJĮȞ ਕʌȩȜȣIJĮ ੅ıİȢ ȝȑ IJȠȪȢ ਙȞįȡİȢ... ȅੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞȦIJȑȡȦȞ IJȐȟİȦȞ ȝȠȡijȫȞȠȞIJĮȞ ȕĮıȚțȐ ıIJȩ ੅įȚȠ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ ȝȑ IJȠȪȢ ਙȞįȡİȢ... ਕȞȑʌIJȣııĮȞ IJȒȞ ਕIJȠȝȚțȩIJȘIJȐ IJȠȣȢ, ੖ʌȦȢ ਕțȡȚȕ૵Ȣ țĮȓ Ƞੂ ਙȞįȡİȢ... ਺ ȝȠȡijȦȝȑȞȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ੖ʌȦȢ țĮȓ ੒ ਙȞįȡĮȢ, ਕȞĮȗȘIJȠ૨ıİ, țĮșȫȢ ਷IJĮȞ ijȣıȚțȩ, IJȒ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȒ țĮȓ ʌȜȒȡȘ ਕIJȠȝȚțȩIJȘIJȐ IJȘȢ».1 ȈIJȩ įȑ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȩ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ, Į੝IJȒ ਲ ਕȞĮȕȐșȝȚıȘ IJȠ૨ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠ૨ ȖȠȒIJȡȠȣ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ਥțįȘȜȫȞİIJĮȚ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒ ȂĮȡȚȠȜĮIJȡİȓĮ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ, ʌĮȡȐ IJȒ ȜĮȧțȒ įȚȐıIJĮıȘ, ʌȠȪ İੇȤİ ȜȐȕİȚ, ਥțijȡȐıIJȘțİ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ ਩ȡȖĮ ਕȞİʌĮȞȐȜȘʌIJȘȢ ੑȝȠȡijȚ઼Ȣ ȖȚȐ IJȩ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJોȢ ȆĮȡșȑȞȠȣ ȂĮȡȓĮȢ. ਺ ȂȩȞĮ ȁȓȗĮ, ਲ ȆĮȡșȑȞȠȢ, IJȩ ǺȡȑijȠȢ țĮȓ ਲ ਞȖȓĮ ਡȞȞĮ IJȠ૨ Leonardo da Vinci, ੒ įȚșȪȡĮȝȕȠȢ IJȠ૨ ǻȐȞIJȘ ıIJȒȞ ȆĮȡșȑȞȠ ȂĮȡȓĮ, İੇȞĮȚ ਩ȡȖĮ ਥȞįİȚțIJȚțȐ IJોȢ ਥʌȠȤોȢ țĮȓ IJȠ૨ țȜȓȝĮIJȠȢ ʌȠȪ ਥʌȚțȡĮIJȠ૨ıİ. ਺ ਝȞĮȖȑȞȞȘıȘ, ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ਕʌİȜİȣșȑȡȦıȘ IJȠ૨ ਕIJȩȝȠȣ, ਕʌİȜİȣșİȡȫȞİȚ ੪Ȣ ਪȞĮ ȕĮșȝȩ țĮȓ IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ਕʌȩ IJȩȞ ʌȡȠțĮșȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠ ȖİȞİIJȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ țĮȓ ȝİIJĮȝȠȡijȫȞİȚ IJȩ ȡȩȜȠ IJȘȢ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȩ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ ı૵ȝĮ, ʌĮȡ’੖IJȚ ʌȠȜȜȠȓ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ੑȝȐįĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȅ੝ȝĮȞȚıIJ૵Ȟ, ੖ʌȦȢ ੒ ȆİIJȡȐȡȤȘȢ, IJȒ ȕȜȑʌȠȣȞ İ੅IJİ ੪Ȣ ı૵ȝĮ ʌȡȩȢ ੂțĮȞȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJોȢ ਕȞįȡȚțોȢ ȜĮȖȞİȓĮȢ İ੅IJİ ੪Ȣ ਥȞıȐȡțȦıȘ IJોȢ ĮੁȫȞȚĮȢ Ǽ੡ĮȢ.2 3ȠȞ. ਝȞIJȓșİIJĮ, ıIJȒȞ ʌȡȓȞ ਕʌȩ IJȩ ǻȚĮijȦIJȚıȝȩ ਥʌȠȤȒ, IJȩ țȠȚȞȦȞȚț૵Ȣ ʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠ ij૨ȜȠ țĮIJĮȞȠİ૙IJĮȚ ੪Ȣ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩ țĮȓ IJȩ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ਵ ȖİȞİIJȒıȚȠ ੪Ȣ ਥʌȚijĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠ. ȉȩ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ ij૨ȜȠ ਩ȤİȚ ਕȡțİIJȐ ȕĮȡȪȞȠȣıĮ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ, țĮșȫȢ İੇȞĮȚ Į੝IJȩ IJȩ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ țĮșȠȡȓȗİȚ țĮIJȐ ʌȠȜȪ IJȒȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ IJȐȟȘ, IJȩȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩ. ȉȩ ij૨ȜȠ țĮșȠȡȓȗİȚ IJȒȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ șȑıȘ, 1

The civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, London, 1951, pp. 240-241. Lamy E., La femme de demain, Paris, Ȥ.Ȥ., pp. 89-90.

2

Typology of Women’s Submission to Men

201

ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ਪȞĮ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ, țĮIJĮȞȠİ૙IJĮȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, įȘȜ ਕȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȚțȐ, țĮȓ ੕ȤȚ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ. ȀĮIJȐ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ Ƞੂ ੖ʌȠȚİȢ įȚĮțȡȓıİȚȢ Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙İȢ ıIJȘȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ıȑ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ įȚĮijȠȡȑȢ ਕʌȠIJİȜȠ૨Ȟ țĮIJ’Ƞ੝ıȓĮȞ ijȣȜȠIJȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ įȚĮțȡȓıİȚȢ ʌȠȪ ਩ȤȠȣȞ ੪Ȣ ʌȡȦIJĮȡȤȚțȩ ıțȠʌȩ ȞȐ țĮșȠȡȓıȠȣȞ ıȤȑıİȚȢ ਥȟȠȣıȓĮȢ ਕȞȐȝİıȐ IJȠȣȢ.3 4ȠȞ. ਝʌȩ IJȩȞ 18Ƞ Įੁ. țĮȓ ȝİIJȐ Ƞੂ ਕȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ ȑȡȤȠȞIJĮȚ ȞĮ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚȒıȠȣȞ IJȐ įȪȠ ijȪȜĮ ਥȡȦIJȚțȐ, ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ «ਥȞİȡȖȘIJȚțȩ» țĮȓ IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ «ʌĮșȘIJȚțȒ».4 ǹ੝IJȒ ਲ IJĮȪIJȚıȘ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȩ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩ țĮȓ ਥȡȦIJȚțȩ įȚĮȤȫȡȚıİ IJȩ ਥȡȦIJȚțȩ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Ƞ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ਕȞĮʌĮȡĮȖȦȖȒ, ਫ਼ʌİȡIJȠȞȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJȩ ȖȣȞĮȚțİ૙Ƞ ıȣȞĮȚıșȘȝĮIJȚıȝȩ ਕʌȩ IJȒ ȝȚȐ țĮȓ IJȒȞ ਥȞİȡȖȘIJȚțȒ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ਙȜȜȘ. Ȉİ ĮȣIJȒ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ȩȝȦȢ, ıIJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ įȘȜ ʌȠȣ ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȠʌȠȚȘșİ૙ ਥȞİȡȖȘIJȚțȐ, IJȩIJİ Į੝IJȩ șİȦȡİ૙IJĮȚ ੪Ȣ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ ਕȞĮIJȡȠʌોȢ IJȠ૨ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȠ૨ ijȣıȚțȠ૨ țĮȓ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠ૨ įȚĮȤȦȡȚıȝȠ૨ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ țĮȓ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ. ǹȣIJȒ ȩȝȦȢ ʌȜȑȠȞ ijȣȜȠIJȚțȒ įȚĮijȠȡȐ ਫ਼ʌȠįȘȜȫȞİIJĮȚ, țȣȡȓȦȢ, ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ ıȤȑıİȚȢ ਥȟȠȣıȓĮȢ, Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙İȢ įȑȞ ȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ ਫ਼ʌ’੕ȥȚȞ IJȠȣȢ IJȩ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ijȪȜȠ, ਕȜȜȐ IJȒ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ IJȠȣȢ șȑıȘ. Ȉȑ Į੝IJȒȞ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ IJȒȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ਲ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȒ ıIJȒȡȚȟȘ țȡȓȞİIJĮȚ ਕȞĮȖțĮȓĮ țĮȓ ਥʌȚIJȣȖȤȐȞİIJĮȚ ȝȑ IJȒȞ ਕȞĮȖȦȖȒ IJોȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțોȢ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȓȘıȘȢ ıIJȒ șİȧțȒ IJȐȟȘ, țĮșȫȢ ੒ ĬİȩȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİ૙ ʌȡ૵IJĮ IJȩȞ ਞįȐȝ țĮȓ ȝİIJȐ IJȒȞ Ǽ੡Į ਕʌȩ IJȩ ʌȜİȣȡȩ IJȠ૨ ਞįȐȝ. ȀĮȓ ıİ ĮȣIJȒ ȩȝȦȢ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȩ ȗȘIJȠȪȝİȞȠ IJોȢ ੁıȩIJȘIJĮȢ įȑȞ țĮIJĮȞȠİ૙IJĮȚ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ਕȜȜȐ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ȝȑ ਥʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ IJȐ ੒ʌȠ૙Į ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȚ ਕʌȩ IJȩ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȩ Ȥ૵ȡȠ. ਯIJıȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ੒ ʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȚıȝȩȢ IJȠ૨ ijȪȜȠȣ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ȝȑ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȐ țȡȚIJȒȡȚĮ, IJȐ ੒ʌȠ૙Į ਥʌȚIJȡȑʌȠȣȞ ੂİȡĮȡȤȚțȑȢ țĮȓ ਥȟȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȑȢ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚȒıİȚȢ, ਕȜȜȐ țĮȓ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȠȪȢ ijȣȜȠIJȚțȠȪȢ ਕʌȠțȜİȚıȝȠȪȢ. ȈIJȒȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ, ਕʌȩ IJȒ ıIJȚȖȝȒ ʌȠȪ IJȓșİIJĮȚ IJȩ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJોȢ įȚȐțȡȚıȘȢ IJ૵Ȟ ijȪȜȦȞ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȩȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩ, IJȓșİIJĮȚ ȖȚȐ ȞȐ ਫ਼ʌȠȖȡĮȝȝȚıșİ૙ ਲ ʌȡȦIJȠIJȣʌȓĮ IJોȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțોȢ ıȣȝʌİȡȚijȠȡ઼Ȣ ı’ Į੝IJȩ IJȩ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ. ਯIJıȚ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİIJĮȚ ȝȚȐ İੁțȩȞĮ ਕȡțİIJȐ ੁįȚȩIJȣʌȘ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ਥʌȚȤİȚȡİ૙ ȞȐ įȚĮȤȦȡȓıİȚ șİȦȡȫȞIJĮȢ ਕıȪȝȕĮIJȘ țĮȓ ਕȞIJȚijĮIJȚțȒ IJȒ ȗȦȒ țĮȓ IJȩ ȕȜȑȝȝĮ IJોȢ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ ȝȑ IJȒ ȗȦȒ țĮȓ IJȩ ȕȓȦȝĮ Į੝IJȠ૨ ʌȠȪ ਥʌȚșȣȝİ૙ ȞȐ ȗİ૙ ıIJȒ șİȓĮ ȗȦȒ. ȀĮȝȚȐ ਙȜȜȘ ਕȟȓĮ IJોȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ੢ʌĮȡȟȘȢ įȑȞ ਕʌȠʌȑȝijșȘțİ ȝȑ IJȩıȠ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȘȝĮIJȚțȩ IJȡȩʌȠ ੖ıȠ ਲ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ਕʌȩ IJȒ șİȓĮ ȗȦȒ.5 ੜȝȦȢ, ਕȡțİ૙ ȞȐ ਥʌȚțĮȜİıșİ૙ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ ੖ȜȘ IJȒ 3

ibid., pp.40-41. ȈIJȒȞ ʌĮIJİȡȚțȒ ıțȑȥȘ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ ʌȐȞIJȦȢ IJȑIJȠȚİȢ ਕʌȩȥİȚȢ ਵįȘ ਕʌȩ IJȩ 4Ƞ Įੁ. ıIJȩȞ ǺĮıȓȜİȚȠ ਝȖțȪȡĮȢ, «ĬİȩȢ țĮȓ ਪȜȟȘ ıIJȐ įȪȠ ijȪȜĮ» țĮȓ ıIJȩȞ ਝȝijȚȜȩȤȚȠ ੉țȠȞȓȠȣ «īȐȝȠȢ țĮȓ ʌȠȡȞİȓĮ» ıIJȩ ȀȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ‫ݒ‬ȜȜȒȞȦȞ ȆĮIJȑȡȦȞ, ਝʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ǻȚĮțȠȞȓĮ, 1998, pp.125-127, 344-346. 5 J-M. Pohier, “Recherches sur les fondements de la morale sexuelle chrétienne” in 4

202

Chapter Fifteen

ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȖȚȐ ȞȐ įȚĮțȡȓȞİȚ IJȒȞ ਥȟĮȚȡİIJȚțȒ șȑıȘ ʌȠȪ țĮIJȑȤİȚ ਲ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ੪Ȣ «ȝȠȞIJȑȜȠ» ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘȢ IJȠ૨ șİȓȠȣ, ੕ȤȚ ȕȑȕĮȚĮ ੪Ȣ ȝȚȐ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJȐ IJȠȣ, ਕȜȜȐ ੪Ȣ ȝȚȐ ıȤȑıȘ IJȠ૨ șİȓȠȣ ȝȑ IJȒȞ ਕȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ. īȚȐ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ ıIJȒȞ Ȇ.ǻ. țĮȓ țȣȡȓȦȢ ıIJȩ ਤıȝĮ ਞıȝȐIJȦȞ ਲ ıȣȗȣȖȚțȒ ਕȖȐʌȘ ıȣȝȕȠȜȓȗİȚ IJȒ ıȤȑıȘ, IJȒ įȚĮșȒțȘ țĮȓ IJȒȞ ਦȞȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨ ȝȑ IJȩȞ ȜĮȩ IJȠȣ. ȅੂ ʌȡȠijોIJİȢ, ੖ȜȦȢ ੁįȚĮȚIJȑȡȦȢ, ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijȠȣȞ Į੝IJȒ IJȒȞ ਦȞȩIJȘIJĮ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ İੁțȩȞĮ IJોȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ਕȖȐʌȘȢ ੪Ȣ ੒ȜȠțȜȒȡȦıȘ, ੪Ȣ ਕʌȠIJȣȤȓĮ, ੪Ȣ ȝİIJĮȕȠȜȒ țĮȓ ȝİIJĮıIJȡȠijȒ, ੪Ȣ ਥʌĮȞȐȜȘȥȘ țĮȓ ੪Ȣ ıȣȖȤȫȡİıȘ. ੜȝȦȢ, IJȩ ਣıȝĮ ਝıȝȐIJȦȞ, ੖ʌȠȣ ਲ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJોȢ ıȤȑıȘȢ IJ૵Ȟ ijȪȜȦȞ İੇȞĮȚ țȐIJȚ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ਕʌȩ ਥȝijĮȞȒȢ, ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖȝȑȞȠ ı’Į੝IJȒ IJȒ įȚĮȜİțIJȚțȒ ıȪȖțȡȠȣıȘ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȒȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȓ IJȒ șİȓĮ ȗȦȒ, ਥȟȠȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ਕʌȩ IJȒ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȠ૨ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȠ૨.6 ੜıȠȞ ਕijȠȡ઼ įȑ ıIJȒȞ Ȁ.ǻ, ʌȠȜȣȐȡȚșȝȘ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ȤȡȒıȘ IJોȢ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ ȖȚȐ ȞȐ țĮIJĮįİȚȤșİ૙ țĮȓ ȞȐ ȖȓȞİȚ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ țĮIJĮȞȠȘIJȒ ਲ șȑıȘ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ਩ȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠ૨ șİȓȠȣ. ȉȣʌȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ʌȐȞIJȦȢ, Į੝IJȩȢ ੒ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȢ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚİ૙ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ Į੝IJȒ IJȒ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ İੇȞĮȚ ੒ ȆĮ૨ȜȠȢ.

1.2. ਺ ʌĮȪȜİȚĮ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖોȢ ȈIJȒ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ਲ ਕȜȜȘȖȠȡȚțȒ ਦȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ ਩ȤİȚ ੪Ȣ ıțȠʌȩ ȞȐ ʌȡȠİIJȠȚȝȐıİȚ IJȩȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠ ȞȐ ਫ਼ʌȠįİȤșİ૙ IJȒ ȞȑĮ ਕʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨. ਺ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘ IJȠ૨ ıȤİįȓȠȣ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ ȞȐ ȖȓȞİȚ ʌȚȩ İ੡țȠȜȘ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȩ ʌȑȡĮıȝĮ Įʌȩ ȝȠȞIJȑȜĮ țĮȓ IJȪʌȠȣȢ ıȑ ȖİȖȠȞȩIJĮ țĮȓ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞİȢ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJİȢ Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙İȢ İੇȞĮȚ țĮIJĮȞȠȘIJȑȢ ਕʌȩ ੖ȜȠȣȢ. ਯIJıȚ İੇȞĮȚ ʌȠȜȪ ijȣıȚțȩ ȞȐ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚİ૙IJĮȚ ਲ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ıIJȒȞ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘȢ Į੝IJȠ૨ IJȠ૨ ȡȩȜȠȣ, țĮȓ țȣȡȓȦȢ įȑ, ੖IJĮȞ ਕțȩȝȘ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ IJȩ ȕȚȕȜȚțȩ țİȓȝİȞȠ IJોȢ īİȞ. 1,26-28: «țĮ੿ İੇʌİȞ ੒ ĬİંȢǜ ʌȠȚ੾ıȦȝİȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȞ țĮIJૅ İੁțંȞĮ ਲȝİIJ੼ȡĮȞ țĮ੿ țĮșૅ ੒ȝȠ઀ȦıȚȞ… 27 țĮ੿ ਥʌȠ઀ȘıİȞ ੒ ĬİઁȢ IJઁȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȞ, țĮIJૅ İੁțંȞĮ ĬİȠ૨ ਥʌȠ઀ȘıİȞ Į੝IJંȞ, ਙȡıİȞ țĮ੿ șોȜȣ ਥʌȠ઀ȘıİȞ Į੝IJȠ઄Ȣ. 28 țĮ੿ İ੝ȜંȖȘıİȞ Į੝IJȠઃȢ ੒ ĬİંȢ, Ȝ੼ȖȦȞǜ Į੝ȟ੺Ȟİıșİ țĮ੿ ʌȜȘș઄Ȟİıșİ țĮ੿ ʌȜȘȡઆıĮIJİ IJ੽Ȟ ȖોȞ țĮ੿ țĮIJĮțȣȡȚİ઄ıĮIJİ Į੝IJોȢ…» ਕʌȠįȑȤİIJĮȚ IJȒ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȒ įȣĮįȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ੕ȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ ੪Ȣ įȘȝȚȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨, ਕȜȜȐ țĮȓ ੪Ȣ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Ƞ IJોȢ ʌȠȡİȓĮȢ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ʌȡȩȢ IJȩ țĮș’੒ȝȠȓȦıȚȞ. ਺ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ਥțIJȚȝ઼IJĮȚ ȕĮșȪIJĮIJĮ ੪Ȣ ȝȘIJȑȡĮ, ȕȡȓıțİIJĮȚ, ੖ȝȦȢ, ıȑ ਫ਼ʌȠįİȑıIJİȡȘ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ਙȞįȡĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ șȑıȘ. ǻȚĮįȡĮȝĮIJȓȗİȚ ıʌȠȣįĮȓȠȣȢ ȡȩȜȠȣȢ ıIJȒȞ ਕȡȤȑȖȠȞȘ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮ, ʌȡȠIJȡȑʌİIJĮȚ, ੖ȝȦȢ, ıȑ ਸ਼ıȣȤȘ ȗȦȒ țĮȓ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖȒ ıIJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ. ȉȩ țİȓȝİȞȠ IJોȢ ǹ ȆȡȩȢ ȀȠȡ.11,3: «ș੼ȜȦ į੻ ਫ਼ȝ઼Ȣ Rev. des Sciences Philos. et Théol. t.54, 1970, p.10. 6 ǺȜ. īȚĮȞȞĮȡ઼ ȋȡȓıIJȠȣ, ȈȤȩȜȚȠ ıIJȩ ݉ıȝĮ ݃ıȝȐIJȦȞ, ǻȩȝȠȢ, ਝșȒȞĮ, 1990.

Typology of Women’s Submission to Men

203

İੁį੼ȞĮȚ ੖IJȚ ʌĮȞIJઁȢ ਕȞįȡઁȢ ਲ țİijĮȜ੽ ੒ ȋȡȚıIJંȢ ਥıIJȚ, țİijĮȜ੽ į੻ ȖȣȞĮȚțઁȢ ੒ ਕȞ੾ȡ, țİijĮȜ੽ į੻ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨ ੒ ĬİંȢ» ȝȚȜ઼ ıĮijȑıIJĮIJĮ ȖȚȐ țĮIJ’ İੁțȩȞĮ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ, ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗİȚ įȑ IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ੪Ȣ IJȒ ȝȩȞȘ ਕȞIJȐȟȚĮ ȕȠȘșȩ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ ıȑ ıȪȖțȡȚıȘ ȝȑ IJȐ ਙȜȜĮ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȒȝĮIJĮ. ȂȚȜ઼ ȖȚȐ ਕȞȦIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ ਕʌȩ IJȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ੖IJȚ ਕʌȩ Į੝IJȩȞ ʌȡȠȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮȓ ਩IJıȚ ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİ૙IJĮȚ, ȖȚȐ ȞȐ ਫ਼ʌȘȡİIJİ૙ IJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ ıIJȩȞ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ ੑijİȓȜİȚ ȞȐ ਫ਼ʌȠIJȐııİIJĮȚ. ȀĮIJĮȜȒȖİȚ ıȑ ȝȚȐ ੒ȜȠțȜȘȡȦȝȑȞȘ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖોȢ ੖ʌȠȣ ੒ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ İੇȞĮȚ țİijĮȜȒ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ țĮȓ ੒ ਙȞįȡĮȢ țİijĮȜȒ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ țĮȓ ıȑ ȝȚȐ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚțȒ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖોȢ, ੖ʌȠȣ IJȩ țȐȜȣȝȝĮ IJોȢ țİijĮȜોȢ ıȣȝȕȠȜȓȗİȚ IJȒȞ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖȒ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ: «ʌ઼ıĮ į੻ ȖȣȞ੽ ʌȡȠıİȣȤȠȝ੼ȞȘ ਲ਼ ʌȡȠijȘIJİ઄ȠȣıĮ ਕțĮIJĮțĮȜ઄ʌIJ૳ IJૌ țİijĮȜૌ țĮIJĮȚıȤ઄ȞİȚ IJ੽Ȟ țİijĮȜ੽Ȟ ਦĮȣIJોȢǜ ਨȞ Ȗ੺ȡ ਥıIJȚ țĮ੿ IJઁ Į੝IJઁ IJૌ ਥȟȣȡȘȝ੼Ȟૉ. 6 İੁ Ȗ੹ȡ Ƞ੝ țĮIJĮțĮȜ઄ʌIJİIJĮȚ ȖȣȞ੾, țĮ੿ țİȚȡ੺ıșȦǜ İੁ į੻ ĮੁıȤȡઁȞ ȖȣȞĮȚț੿ IJઁ țİ઀ȡĮıșĮȚ ਲ਼ ȟȣȡ઼ıșĮȚ, țĮIJĮțĮȜȣʌIJ੼ıșȦ. 7 ਕȞ੽ȡ ȝ੻Ȟ Ȗ੹ȡ Ƞ੝ț ੑijİ઀ȜİȚ țĮIJĮțĮȜ઄ʌIJİıșĮȚ IJ੽Ȟ țİijĮȜ੾Ȟ, İੁțઅȞ țĮ੿ įંȟĮ ĬİȠ૨ ਫ਼ʌ੺ȡȤȦȞǜ ਲ ȖȣȞ੽ į੻ įંȟĮ ਕȞįȡંȢ ਥıIJȚȞ. 8 Ƞ੝ Ȗ੺ȡ ਥıIJȚȞ ਕȞ੽ȡ ਥț ȖȣȞĮȚțંȢ, ਕȜȜ੹ ȖȣȞ੽ ਥȟ ਕȞįȡંȢǜ 9 țĮ੿ Ȗ੹ȡ Ƞ੝ț ਥțIJ઀ıșȘ ਕȞ੽ȡ įȚ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ, ਕȜȜ੹ ȖȣȞ੽ įȚ੹ IJઁȞ ਙȞįȡĮ». ȈIJȒȞ ʌĮȪȜİȚĮ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ʌĮȡ’੖IJȚ ıIJȩ īĮȜ. 3,28 IJȩ «Ƞ੝ț ਙȡıİȞ țĮȓ șોȜȣǯ ʌȐȞIJİȢ ȖȐȡ ਫ਼ȝİ૙Ȣ İੈȢ ਥıIJİ ਥȞ ȋȡȚıIJ૶ ੉ȘıȠ૨» ਲ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ਕȞįȡȩȢ țĮȓ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ țĮIJĮȜȪİIJĮȚ ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚțȐ, Į੝IJȒ ਲ țĮIJȐȜȣıȘ ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ İੇȞĮȚ țĮșĮȡ૵Ȣ ਥıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮȓ țĮIJȐ țȐʌȠȚȠ IJȡȩʌȠ ੁįİĮIJȒ7 ıȑ țĮȝȓĮ 7

ĬȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ʌȐȞIJȦȢ ਥį૵ ȝȑ ਕijȠȡȝȒ IJȩ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ ȤȦȡȓȠ IJȠ૨ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ, țĮȓ IJȩ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ ਕȞȐȖİȚ IJȒȞ ੢ʌĮȡȟȒ IJȠȣ ਥȞ ȝȑȡİȚ ıIJȠȪȢ ȈIJȦȧțȠȪȢ, ȞȐ İੁʌȦșİ૙ ੖IJȚ IJȐ țİȓȝİȞĮ įȑȞ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞȐ ਕʌȠȜȣIJȠʌȠȚȠ૨ȞIJĮȚ țĮȓ ȞȐ ȖİȞȚțİȪȠȞIJĮȚ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȫȞIJĮȢ ਥȞIJȣʌȫıİȚȢ șİIJȚțȑȢ ȝȑȞ, ȝȒ ਕȞIJȚțİȚȝİȞȚțȑȢ įȑ. ੘ ȆĮ૨ȜȠȢ ıIJȩ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ ȤȦȡȓȠ İੁıȐȖİȚ ȝȚȐ ȞȑĮ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ ਥȞȐȞIJȚĮ ıȑ țȐșİ ȝȠȡijȒ įȚȐıʌĮıȘȢ, ਫ਼ʌȠȞȠȫȞIJĮȢ ੖IJȚ IJȩ ਥȞ ȋȡȚıIJ૶ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ ȞȐ ੒įȘȖȒıİȚ ıIJȒȞ ਦȞȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȓ IJȒȞ țĮșȠȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ, ıIJȒȞ ੁıȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȓ ıIJȒȞ ਥȜİȣșİȡȓĮ. ǹ੝IJȩ IJȩ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ șȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞȐ țĮIJĮȞȠȘșİ૙, țĮIJ’ਕȡȤȐȢ, Į੝ıIJȘȡȐ įȣȞȘIJȚț૵Ȣ țĮȓ ੕ȤȚ ੪Ȣ țȐIJȚ IJȩ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ ਫ਼ijȓıIJĮIJĮȚ ਵįȘ ıIJȒȞ ʌȡȐȟȘ ȖȚȐ țȐʌȠȚȠȞ ੒ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȢ ਩ȤİȚ ȖȓȞİȚ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȩȢ. ਯIJıȚ ȝȚȐ IJȑIJȠȚĮ ੁıȩIJȘIJĮ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ IJȩȞ ıțȠʌȩ ਦȞȩȢ ıȣȞİȤȠ૨Ȣ ਕȖȫȞĮ IJȠ૨ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠ૨ ਥȞȐȞIJȚĮ ıȑ ਥțİ૙ȞİȢ IJȓȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ įȠȝȑȢ ʌȠȪ ਕȜȜȠȚȫȞȠȣȞ IJȩ ȝȒȞȣȝȐ IJȠȣ. ȈIJȒȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȒ ıȣȞȪʌĮȡȟȘ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ੪Ȣ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ țĮȓ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ੒ ʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȚıȝȩȢ țĮȓ țĮșȠȡȚıȝȩȢ IJોȢ ੁıȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ ijȪȜȦȞ ȝȑ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȩ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ (IJȩ ਥȞ ȋȡȚıIJ૶) įȑȞ ਥȞįȚĮijȑȡİȚ țĮȓ IJȩıȠ, ʌĮȡȐ ȝȩȞȠ Į੝IJȠȪȢ ʌȠȪ IJȠȪȢ ਥțijȡȐȗİȚ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȐ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȫȞIJĮȢ IJȠȣȢ țĮȓ IJȓȢ ਕȞȐȜȠȖİȢ ਫ਼ʌȠȤȡİȫıİȚȢ, ਕȜȜȐ ਥȞįȚĮijȑȡİȚ ȠੁțȠȣȝİȞȚțȐ ੪Ȣ ʌĮȞĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ਕȟȓĮ. ਫʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİIJĮȚ Į੝IJȒ ਲ įȚȐıIJĮıȘ, ȖȚĮIJȓ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ijȠȡȑȢ ıIJȒ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ਕȞȐȜȣıȘ ਲ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ İੇȞĮȚ IJİȜİȓȦȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ਕʌ’੖IJȚ șȐ șȑȜĮȝİ ȞȐ İੇȞĮȚ įİȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ. ǻİȣIJİȡİȣȩȞIJȦȢ, ਥȐȞ IJȩ ਥȞ ȋȡȚıIJ૶ țĮIJĮȞȠȘșİ૙ ੪Ȣ ʌȡȠȨʌȩșİıȘ ȖȚȐ ੖ȜȠȣȢ IJȠȪȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢ IJȩIJİ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİ૙ ਕijİIJȘȡȓĮ ȖȚȐ IJȒȞ ੢ʌĮȡȟȘ țȠȚȞȦȞȚț૵Ȟ ਕʌȠțȜİȚıȝ૵Ȟ ȝȑ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȩ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ IJȩ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ ਕȞIJȚȕĮȓȞİȚ ıIJȒȞ țĮșȠȜȚțȒ ıȣȞȪʌĮȡȟȘ

204

Chapter Fifteen

ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ įȑȞ İੇȞĮȚ ੂıIJȠȡȚțȒ țĮȓ șİıȝȚțȒ. ȈIJȩ țİȓȝİȞȠ IJોȢ ʌȡȩȢ ਫijİııȓȠȣȢ ਥʌȚıIJȠȜોȢ8 ੒ ȆĮ૨ȜȠȢ ਕȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıIJȒ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJોȢ ıȤȑıȘȢ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȩ ȋȡȚıIJȩ țĮȓ ıIJȒȞ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ, įȚĮțȡȓȞȠȞIJĮȢ įȪȠ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȐ ਥʌȓʌİįĮ: ǹ. ȈIJȩ ʌȡ૵IJȠ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ ੒ ȆĮ૨ȜȠȢ ਕȞĮʌIJȪııİȚ ਪȞĮ ıȤોȝĮ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ ਥʌİȟȘȖȘȝĮIJȚțȩ, Į੝IJȩ IJોȢ ਕȞIJȓșİıȘȢ țİijĮȜોȢ-ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ ȝȑ Į੝IJȩ IJોȢ ıȤȑıȘȢ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ-ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ. ੘ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ-ਙȞįȡĮȢ İੇȞĮȚ ȖȚȐ IJȩȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠ-ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ੖,IJȚ IJȩ țİijȐȜȚ ȖȚȐ IJȩ ı૵ȝĮ. ȋȦȡȓȢ ȞȐ ȜȘıȝȠȞİ૙ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ ੖IJȚ ਲ ıȪȜȜȘȥȘ IJȠ૨ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ ıIJȩȞ ȆĮ૨ȜȠ İੇȞĮȚ ਕȡțİIJȐ ıȪȞșİIJȘ, ੑijİȓȜȠȣȝİ ȞȐ ȜȐȕȠȣȝİ ıȠȕĮȡȐ ਫ਼ʌ’੕ȥȚȞ IJȒ ȖȚĮȤȕȚıIJȚțȒ įȚȒȖȘıȘ IJોȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ਥʌȘȡİȐȗİIJĮȚ țĮIJȐ ʌȠȜȪ ਕʌȩ IJȩ ʌĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțȩ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȩ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞ țĮȓ IJȩ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ ੪Ȣ įȚȒȖȘıȘ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ IJȒ ȕȐıȘ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞIJȚȜȒȥİȦȞ IJȠ૨ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ ȖȚȐ IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ੖ʌȦȢ Į੝IJȒ țĮIJĮȖȡȐijİIJĮȚ ıIJȒȞ ǹ ȆȡȩȢ ȀȠȡ.9 ǹ੝IJȒ ਲ ੅įȚĮ ਲ ਙʌȠȥȘ IJોȢ țİijĮȜોȢ ਥijĮȡȝȠıȝȑȞȘȢ ıIJȩȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠ-ਙȞįȡĮ ਫ਼ʌȠįȘȜȫȞİȚ ਙȜȜȦıIJİ ੖IJȚ ੒ ਙȞįȡĮȢ ਕʌȩ ȝȩȞȠȢ IJȠȣ İੇȞĮȚ Į੝IJȩȢ ʌȠȪ įȚİȣșȪȞİȚ țĮȓ țĮIJİȣșȪȞİȚ IJȩ ı૵ȝĮ.10 Ǻ. ȈIJȩ įİȪIJİȡȠ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ, ਲ ıȤȑıȘ ਕȞįȡȩȢ-ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ ਥijĮȡȝȩȗİIJĮȚ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ıIJȒ ıȤȑıȘ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨-ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝȑ IJȒ ıȤȑıȘ ʌȠȪ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐıIJȘțİ ıȑ ʌȡ૵IJȠ ȕĮșȝȩ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȩ țİijȐȜȚ țĮȓ IJȩ ı૵ȝĮ.11 ਺ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓĮ șİȦȡİ૙IJĮȚ ਕȞĮȖțĮȓĮ țĮȓ ਕʌĮȡĮȓIJȘIJȘ ȖȚĮIJȓ ਩IJıȚ șİȝİȜȚȫȞİIJĮȚ ਲ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤȠȣıĮ ȕĮșİȚȐ ਕȞȚıȩIJȘIJĮ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȠȪȢ ੖ȡȠȣȢ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ-ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ, țĮșȫȢ țĮIJĮȣIJȩ IJȩȞ IJȡȩʌȠ įȑȞ șİȝİȜȚȫȞİIJĮȚ ȝȚȐ ਖʌȜȒ ıȤȑıȘ ਕȖȐʌȘȢ, ਕȜȜȐ ȝȚȐ ıȤȑıȘ ȡȚȗȚțોȢ ਕȞȚıȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ȈIJȒȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ੒ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ İੇȞĮȚ ੒ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ȝȑ ੁıȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȓ ੁıȠIJȚȝȓĮ ਕȞİȟĮȡIJȒIJȦȢ ijȣȜોȢ țĮȓ ijȪȜȠȣ. ǺȜ. ȆȑIJȡȠȣ ੉ȦȐȞȞȘ, «਺ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȘ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȓ IJȩ ȖȣȞĮȚțİ૙Ƞ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ», ıIJȩ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȓ șȡȘıțİȓĮ, ੍ȞįȚțIJȠȢ, 2004, pp. 143-160. 8 5, 22-23. 9 ǺȜ. H. Schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser, Düsseldorf, 1958, pp. 90-98. E. Schweizer, “Sarx” et “Soma” dans le Theol. Wört, z. Neuen Test. de G. Kittel, t.VII, p.109 țĮȓ ਦȟોȢ țĮȓ 1077 țĮȓ ਦȟોȢ. H-D Wendland, “Die Briefe an die Korinther” in Das Neue Testament Deutsch. vol.7, 12e éd. Göttinden, 1968, p.91: “Paulus bedient sich hier zweifellos einer traditionnellen Auslegung der Schöpfungsgeschichte, die mit faktischen, durchgehenden Unterordnung der Frau in Kultischer und rechtlicher Hinsicht zusammentrifft, welche die antike Welt beherrschte.” 10 ȀȠȪțȠȣȡĮ ǹ. ǻȘȝ. «਺ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ» ıIJȒȞ Ǽ.Ǽ.Ĭ.Ȉ. IJȝ. ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, IJȠȝ.13, 2003, pp. 153-170. 11 ਺ ੅įȚĮ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ıȤȑıȘȢ ਕȞįȡȩȢ țĮȓ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ ੪Ȣ IJ૨ʌȠȢ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨-ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ țĮȓ ıIJȒȞ «ਕʌȩțȡȣijȘ» ǻİȪIJİȡȘ ਫʌȚıIJȠȜȒ IJȠ૨ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ ʌȡȩȢ IJȩȞ ਢȖȚȠ ȀȜȒȝȘ IJોȢ ȇȫȝȘȢ: «੘ ĬİȩȢ įȘȝȚȠȪȡȖȘıİ IJȩ ਕȡıİȞȚțȩ țĮȓ IJȩ șȘȜȣțȩǯ IJȩ ਕȡıİȞȚțȩ İੇȞĮȚ ੒ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ țĮȓ IJȩ șȘȜȣțȩ ਲ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ». Zimmerman-Cervantes, Marriage and the Family. Chicago, 1956, p. 486, ıIJȩ Riencourt, p. 280.

Typology of Women’s Submission to Men

205

ĬİȩȢ, ਲ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ਕȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȓ Į੝IJȩ, țȣȡȓȦȢ, ੖IJĮȞ IJȠʌȠșİIJİ૙IJĮȚ ਕʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȐ ıIJȒȞ țĮșĮȡȒ ʌȡȠȑȜİȣıȒ IJȘȢ țĮȓ ੢ʌĮȡȟȒ IJȘȢ. ਺ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮ įȑȞ ਫ਼ijȓıIJĮIJĮȚ ʌĮȡȐ ȝȩȞȠ ȤȐȡȚȢ ıIJȒȞ ੢ʌĮȡȟȘ țĮȓ IJȒ șȑȜȘıȘ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨, įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİ૙IJĮȚ ਕʌȩ IJȩȞ Ĭİȩ. ȀĮIJȐ įȑ IJȒ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȓ IJȩȞ ĬȦȝȐ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘ, ੖ʌȦȢ ਲ Ǽ੡Į ʌȡȠȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ਕʌȩ IJȩ ʌȜİȣȡȩ IJȠ૨ ਞįȐȝ, ਩IJıȚ țĮȓ ਲ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ʌȡȠȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ਕʌȩ IJȩ IJȡĮ૨ȝĮ ıIJȩ ʌȜİȣȡȩ IJȠ૨ ਫıIJĮȣȡȦȝȑȞȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨.12 ȂȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒ ıȪȖțȡȚıȘ IJોȢ ʌĮȪȜİȚĮȢ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ įȪȠ ਥʌȚʌȑįȦȞ, ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ਕȞIJȚȜȘʌIJȒ ਲ ਕȞȚıȩIJȘIJĮ IJોȢ ıȤȑıȘȢ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ țĮȓ IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, șİȦȡȫȞIJĮȢ ੖IJȚ ੒ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ İੇȞĮȚ IJȣʌȚțȐ ਫ਼ʌȠįİȑıIJİȡȠȢ. ਺ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖȒ țĮȓ ਲ ਥȟȐȡIJȘıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ਕʌȩ IJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ, țĮIJȐ IJȩ ıȤોȝĮ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ-ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ, ਥʌȚțȣȡȫȞİIJĮȚ ਕʌȩ IJȩȞ IJ૨ʌȠ IJોȢ ıȤȑıȘȢ IJȠ૨ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ ȝȑ IJȒȞ țİijĮȜȒ, țĮșȫȢ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ ਲ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ ੖IJȚ ਕțȩȝȘ țĮȓ ਲ ȗȦȒ įȓȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȩ ı૵ȝĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ țİijĮȜȒ. ਺ ਦȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ ਕʌȑįİȚȟİ ੖IJȚ ਲ ੖ȜȘ ıȤȑıȘ, ੖ʌȦȢ ਥȝijĮȞȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJȒȞ ʌĮȪȜİȚĮ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ įȑȞ İੇȞĮȚ IJȓʌȠIJİ ਙȜȜȠ ਕʌȩ ȝȚȐ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȝİIJĮijȠȡȐ.13 ੜȜȘ Į੝IJȒ ਲ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJોȢ ʌĮȪȜİȚĮȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ȕȡોțİ Ƞ੝ıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ਥijĮȡȝȠȖȒ țĮȓ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ ıIJȓȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȑȢ ıȣȞșોțİȢ IJોȢ ਥʌȠȤોȢ, țĮșȫȢ, ਕȞĮȜȪȠȞIJĮȢ IJȒȞ ਩ȞȞȠȚĮ IJȠ૨ ıȣȝȕȩȜȠȣ, Į੝IJȒ ਲ ਥijĮȡȝȠȖȒ ਕȞIJĮʌȠțȡȓȞİIJĮȚ ıȑ ȝȚȐ ȜȠȖȚțȒ ਕȞĮȖțĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ. ȉȩ ıȪȝȕȠȜȠ, ȖȚȐ ȞȐ İੇȞĮȚ țĮIJĮȞȠȘIJȩ, ੑijİȓȜİȚ ȞȐ ਕȞȐȖİIJĮȚ ıȑ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞİȢ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJİȢ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȓȢ ੒ʌȠ૙İȢ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ ਲ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȚțȐ ȞȐ ȖȓȞİȚ ʌȚȩ İ੡țȠȜĮ țĮIJĮȞȠȘIJȩ ਲ ʌȡȩıȜȘȥȘ IJȠ૨ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨. ਝʌȩ IJȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ ੖IJȚ ਲ İੁțȩȞĮ IJોȢ ıȣȗȣȖȚțોȢ ıȣȞȪʌĮȡȟȘȢ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ țĮȓ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȩȞ ȆĮ૨ȜȠ İੇȞĮȚ ਥʌȘȡİĮıȝȑȞȘ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ʌĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțȒ ਥʌȠȤȒ, ਲ ıȣȗȣȖȚțȒ ਕȖȐʌȘ įȑȞ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ ʌĮȡȐ ȝȩȞȠ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ įȠȝȒ țĮȓ ਥijĮȡȝȠȖȒ IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖોȢ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ IJȘȢ. īȚȐ IJȩȞ ȆĮ૨ȜȠ, ȝȚȐ IJȑIJȠȚĮ įȠȝȚțȒ ıȣȗȣȖȚțȐ ਕȞȚıȩIJȘIJĮ, ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ਕȞĮȞIJȓȡȡȘIJȘ, țĮșȫȢ ıȣȞįȑİIJĮȚ ȝȑ IJȒ ijȣıȚțȒ IJȐȟȘ țĮȓ IJȒ ıİȚȡȐ IJ૵Ȟ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ țĮȓ ਦʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ ਷IJĮȞ ʌȠȜȪ ijȣıȚțȩ ȞȐ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚȘșİ૙, ȖȚȐ ȞȐ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐȥİȚ IJȒȞ ਙȞȚıȘ ıȤȑıȘ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȩȞ ȋȡȚıIJȩ țĮȓ IJȒȞ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ. ȂȩȞȠ ʌȠȪ ਕȞȐȖȠȞIJĮȢ IJȩ ijȣıȚțȩ IJ૵Ȟ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ ıIJȒ ıijĮ૙ȡĮ IJȠ૨ șİȓȠȣ ਲ ıȤȑıȘ ਕʌȠȜȣIJȠʌȠȚİ૙IJĮȚ țĮȓ ȝİIJĮIJȡȑʌİIJĮȚ ıȑ ıȤȑıȘ įȠIJȒ ਕʌȩ IJȩȞ Ĭİȩ. ǹ੝IJȒ ਲ ਙȞȚıȘ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ įȠȝȒ 12

Somme Théologique I, qu.92, art.3. ǻȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ, ੑijİȓȜȦ ȞȐ ਕȞĮijȑȡȦ ਥį૵, İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ਦȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ ʌȠȪ țȐȞİȚ ਲ ȀĮ ਞįĮȝIJȗȓȜȠȖȜȠȣ Ǽ੝ĮȞșȓĮ ıIJȩ țİȓȝİȞȠ IJોȢ ȆȡȩȢ ਫijİııȓȠȣȢ ȖȚȐ IJȒ șȑıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, țĮșȫȢ «ਥȖțĮIJĮȜİȓʌȠȞIJĮȢ» IJȩ ȡİĮȜȚıȝȩ IJȠ૨ țİȚȝȑȞȠȣ țĮȓ «ਕȞĮȗȘIJȫȞIJĮȢ» IJȩ «țİȞȦIJȚțȩ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ IJȠ૨ ਕȞįȡȚțȠ૨ ʌȡȦIJİȓȠȣ» įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİ૙ ȞȑĮ ਕȞĮʌȐȞIJȘIJĮ ਥȡȦIJȒȝĮIJĮ ȖȚȐ IJȒ șȑıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, ‫ ݠ‬ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȒ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠࠎ ݃ʌ. ȆĮȪȜȠȣ, ‫ݒ‬ȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ ܻȞȐȜȣıȘ IJȠࠎ ǹ ȀȠȡ. 11,2-16, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ, 1989, p. 300. 13

206

Chapter Fifteen

IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖોȢ ʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ਥʌĮțȡȚȕ૵Ȣ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȩ țİȓȝİȞȠ IJોȢ ʌȡȩȢ ਫijİıȓȠȣȢ ਥʌȚıIJȠȜોȢ: «Ƞੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ȞȐ ਫ਼ʌȠIJȐııİıșİ...». ȉȩ țİȓȝİȞȠ Į੝IJȩ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ ਪȞĮ ʌȠȜȪ țĮȜȩ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțોȢ ʌȡȠȑȜİȣıȘȢ ਥʌȚʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȚıȝȠ૨ (surdétermination) ȝȚ઼Ȣ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțોȢ įȠȝોȢ, IJોȢ ੒ʌȠȓĮȢ ਲ ਕʌȩȜȣIJȘ ਕȟȓĮ ਕȞȐȖİIJĮȚ ıȑ ȝȚȐ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮțȒ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ ȖȚȐ IJȒȞ ȠੁțȠȖİȞİȚĮțȒ ੂİȡĮȡȤȓĮ. ǹ੝IJȒ ਲ ੅įȚĮ IJȐıȘ ਫ਼ijȓıIJĮIJĮȚ țĮȓ ıIJȩȞ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮțȩ IJȡȩʌȠ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘȢ ȖȚȐ IJȒȞ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ.

1.3. ਺ ijȣȜȠIJȚțȒ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖોȢ ǼੇȞĮȚ, ȕȑȕĮȚȠ ȩIJȚ ȝȚĮ IJȑIJȠȚĮ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚİȓIJĮȚ, ȖȚȐ ȞȐ ȞȠȝȚȝȠʌȠȚȒıİȚ IJȒ įȠȝȒ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, țĮșȫȢ ੪Ȣ șİıȝȚțȒ ਩țijȡĮıȘ IJȠ૨ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȠ૨ ȞȠȝȚȝȠʌȠȚİ૙ IJȒȞ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȓĮ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ ʌȐȞȦ ıIJȓȢ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ, ਥʌȚIJȡȑʌİȚ IJȒȞ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȓĮ ȕĮșȑȦȞ ਕȞIJȚijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚț૵Ȟ ਕʌȩȥİȦȞ ıIJȓȢ IJȐȟİȚȢ IJȠ૨ țȜȒȡȠȣ țĮȚ șİȝİȜȚȫȞİȚ ȝȚȐ ȠੁțȠȖİȞİȚĮțȒ ਱șȚțȒ ȝȑ ʌĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțȑȢ ਕȟȓİȢ.14 ਡȞ ȝȚȐ IJȑIJȠȚĮ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ șİȝİȜȚȫȞİIJĮȚ IJȩıȠ įȣȞĮȝȚțȐ ʌȐȞȦ ıIJȩ șİıȝȩ IJોȢ ȠੁțȠȖȑȞİȚĮȢ, ਙȝİıȘ ıȣȞȑʌİȚȐ IJȘȢ șȐ ਷IJĮȞ ȞȐ ਕțȠȜȠȣșȒıİȚ IJȒȞ ੅įȚĮ ȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮȓ ıIJȒ șİȝİȜȓȦıȘ IJોȢ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJȘȢ.15 ਫȐȞ ਲ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ıȪȗȣȖȠȢ IJȠ૨ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨, IJȩIJİ įȑȞ ਕʌȠȝȑȞİȚ ıȑ Į੝IJȒȞ țĮIJȐ IJȒȞ ੂıIJȠȡȚțȒ IJȘȢ ʌȠȡİȓĮ ਥʌȓ IJોȢ ȖોȢ, ʌĮȡȐ ȞȐ ਫ਼ȜȠʌȠȚİ૙ Į੝IJȒ IJȒ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȐ țĮȓ șİıȝȚțȐ. ਯIJıȚ, ਥȝijĮȞȓıIJȘțİ ʌȐȡĮ ʌȠȜȪ ȖȡȒȖȠȡĮ ıIJȩ Ȥ૵ȡȠ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȝȓĮ ȞȑĮ ਥijĮȡȝȠȖȒ IJોȢ ʌĮȪȜİȚĮȢ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, Į੝IJȒ IJȒ ijȠȡȐ ıȑ ਪȞĮ IJȡȓIJȠ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ ıȑ ıȤȑıȘ ȝȑ IJȐ įȪȠ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȪȝİȞĮ. Ȃȑ ਙȜȜĮ ȜȩȖȚĮ, ȝȑ įİįȠȝȑȞȠ ੖IJȚ ਲ țİijĮȜȒ (੒ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ) įȑȞ İੇȞĮȚ ʌȜȑȠȞ ੒ȡĮIJȒ, șȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ਥț IJ૵Ȟ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ ȞȐ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȟİȚ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ ੒ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȢ șȐ ਕȞIJĮʌȠțȡȚșİ૙ țĮȓ șȐ ਥȖȖȣȘșİ૙ IJȒ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮ IJȠ૨ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ țĮIJȐ IJȡȩʌȠ ȡİĮȜȚıIJȚțȩ. ਯIJıȚ ਲ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ įȑȞ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ ȞȐ ʌĮȡĮȝİȓȞİȚ ıȑ țĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ IJİȜİȓȦȢ ਕʌȩȜȣIJȘ țĮȓ ıȣȝȕĮIJȒ ȝȑ IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJોȢ ıȣȗȪȖȠȣ. ੗ijİȓȜİȚ Į੝IJȒ ਲ ੅įȚĮ, țĮș’ਦĮȣIJȒ, ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒ șİıȝȚțȒ IJȘȢ įȠȝȒ ȞȐ ਥʌĮȞĮʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȓıİȚ IJȒ įȚĮȜİțIJȚțȒ țİijĮȜોȢıȫȝĮIJȠȢ ȝȑ ਪȞĮ ੖ȝȦȢ ੖ȜȠ ੁįȚĮȓIJİȡȠ IJȡȩʌȠ: ੕ȤȚ ʌȜȑȠȞ ıIJȩ ੁįİĮIJȩ IJોȢ ȝȑșİȟȘȢ ȝȑ IJȩ șİ૙Ƞ, ਕȜȜȐ ıIJȩ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ țĮȓ șİıȝȚțȩ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ, ੪Ȣ ਪȞĮ İੇįȠȢ ਥʌĮȞĮIJȠʌȠșȑIJȘıȘȢ IJȠ૨ ੁįȓȠȣ șİȝİȜȚȫįȠȣȢ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȚțȠ૨ ıȤȒȝĮIJȠȢ. ȈIJȒ șİıȝȚțȒ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ įȠȝȒ IJોȢ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, įȚĮȝȠȡijȫȞİIJĮȚ ʌȜȑȠȞ ȝȚȐ ਕʌȩȜȣIJȘ ੂİȡĮȡȤȓĮ țĮȓ Į੝IJȩȢ ʌȠȪ ʌĮȓȡȞİȚ IJȒ șȑıȘ IJોȢ țİijĮȜોȢ İੇȞĮȚ ੒ ਙȞįȡĮȢ ੂİȡȑĮȢ ੪Ȣ ਥʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ, ʌȡİıȕȪIJİȡȠȢ ਵ įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ. Grosso modo, ਲ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ੂİȡĮȡȤȓĮ ਕȞĮȕĮșȝȓȗİȚ IJȩ ȡȩȜȠ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ ʌȜȑȠȞ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȒȞ 14

Bourdieu P., La domination masculine, Paris, Seuil, 1998, pp.92-93. F. Menne, “L’ éthique sexuelle dans l’ Eglise et les rôles des sexes dans l’ Eglise” in Concilium, 154, 1981, pp.23-36. 15

Typology of Women’s Submission to Men

207

ਥțțȜȘıȓĮ, ੒ȡȓȗȠȞIJȐȢ IJȠȞ șİıȝȚțȐ ੪Ȣ IJȒȞ țİijĮȜȒ IJȠ૨ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ IJોȢ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ǹ੝IJȒ ਲ IJȡȓIJȘ ਥijĮȡȝȠȖȒ IJોȢ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țİijĮȜȒ-ı૵ȝĮ, ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ țĮȚ ıȑ șİıȝȚțȩ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ, įȚĮȝȠȡijȫȞİȚ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓİȢ ੖ʌȦȢ: ੂİȡĮȡȤȓĮ-ʌȚıIJȠȓ, țȜોȡȠȢ-ȜĮȩȢ țĮȓ ıȣȞİȤȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJȒȞ ਕʌȠȜȣIJȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJોȢ ʌĮȪȜİȚĮȢ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, ੒įȘȖİ૙IJĮȚ ਕȞȐıIJȡȠijĮ țĮȓ ıIJȩ ıȤોȝĮ ਙȞįȡĮȢ-ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ.16 ਫį૵ ਕțȡȚȕ૵Ȣ ȕȡȓıțİIJĮȚ țĮȓ ੒ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚıȝȩȢ IJȠ૨ ਕʌȠțȜİȚıȝȠ૨ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ, țĮșȫȢ Į੝IJȩȢ ʌȠȪ ਲȖİ૙IJĮȚ IJોȢ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮȓ țĮIJȑȤİȚ IJȒ șİıȝȚțȒ IJȘȢ ਥȟȠȣıȓĮ İੇȞĮȚ ੒ ਙȞįȡĮȢ-ੂİȡȑĮȢ. ੘ ȆĮ૨ȜȠȢ ਕʌȠȜȣIJȠʌȠȚİ૙ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ਩ȞȞȠȚĮ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȦʌȓȞȠȣ ȗİȪȖȠȣȢ ੖ȜȘ IJȒ įȠȝȒ IJોȢ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțોȢ ੂİȡĮȡȤȓĮȢ, ੪Ȣ ਕʌȩȡȡȠȚĮ IJોȢ ੅įȚĮȢ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤȠȣıĮȢ ੂİȡĮȡȤȓĮȢ, țĮIJȐ IJȒ ȝȣıIJȚțȒ ਪȞȦıȘ IJȠ૨ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨ țĮȓ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, țĮșȫȢ Ƞੂ ʌȚıIJȠȓ ਵ Ƞੂ ȜĮȧțȠȓ ȖİȞȚțȐ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ੖ȜȘ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖȒ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȒȞ ੂİȡĮȡȤȓĮ, ੖ʌȦȢ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤĮ Ƞੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ıIJȠȪȢ ıȣȗȪȖȠȣȢ IJȠȣȢ. ਺ ਕȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȚțȒ ਕʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚț૵Ȣ įȠȝȒ IJોȢ ੂİȡĮȡȤȓĮȢ, țĮIJĮįİȚțȞȪİȚ ȝȑ IJȡȩʌȠ ਕʌȠȜȪIJȦȢ ੒ȡĮIJȩ țĮȓ țĮIJĮȞȠȘIJȩ, Į੝IJȒ IJȒȞ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖȒ țĮȓ Į੝IJȒ IJȒȞ ਫ਼ʌĮțȠȒ. ਰȞĮȢ ਙȜȜȠȢ, ਥʌȓıȘȢ, ȜȩȖȠȢ ʌȠȪ ıȣȤȞȐ ʌȡȠıIJȓșİIJĮȚ, ȖȚȐ ȞȐ įȚțĮȚȠȜȠȖȒıİȚ Į੝IJȒ IJȒȞ ਦȞȩIJȘIJĮ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ-ੂİȡȑĮ țĮȓ IJȒȞ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ, İੇȞĮȚ ੖IJȚ ੒ ੂİȡȑĮȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȫȞIJĮȢ IJȒ șİȓĮ İ੝ȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮ ıȣȝȕȠȜȓȗİȚ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȩ ʌȡȩıȦʌȩ IJȠȣ IJȩȞ ȋȡȚıIJȩ, ੒ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȢ ੪Ȣ țİijĮȜȒ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȠʌȠȚİ૙ IJȒȞ țĮșȠȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȓ IJȒȞ ਦȞȩIJȘIJĮ IJોȢ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮȓ ਙȡĮ șȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ, ȖȚȐ ȞȐ İੇȞĮȚ ੒ȡĮIJȒ Į੝IJȒ ਲ ıȤȑıȘ, ੒ ੂİȡȑĮȢ ȞȐ İੇȞĮȚ ਙȞįȡĮȢ.17 ȈIJȒ įȑ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ Į੝IJȒ ਲ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ İੇȞĮȚ IJȩıȠ įȠȝȚțȒ ʌȠȪ ਥțijȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ȝȑ IJȒȞ ʌȜȒȡȘ ਕȖĮȝȓĮ IJȠ૨ țȜȒȡȠȣ, ਕʌȠțȜİȓȠȞIJĮȢ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ IJȒȞ ੢ʌĮȡȟȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȒ ȗȦȒ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ-ੂİȡȑĮ. ਺ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ ੪Ȣ ਕʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȩ įȚțĮȓȦȝĮ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ țĮȓ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȖȐȝȦȞ ȝİIJĮȕȐȜȜİIJĮȚ țĮIJ’Į੝IJȩ IJȩȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ıȑ ʌȘȖȒ ਖȖȚȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ȈȣȝʌİȡĮıȝĮIJȚțȐ, ਲ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJ૵Ȟ ijȪȜȦȞ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ ȞȐ ʌİȡȚȖȡĮijİ૙ ੪Ȣ ਥȟોȢ: Į. 1Ƞ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ: ਲ ıȤȑıȘ țİijĮȜોȢ-ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ ੪Ȣ ıȤȑıȘ ਕȞįȡȩȢ-ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ. ȕ. 2Ƞ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ: ਲ ıȤȑıȘ ਕȞįȡȩȢ-ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ ੪Ȣ ıȤȑıȘ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨-ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. Ȗ. 3Ƞ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ: ਲ ıȤȑıȘ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨-ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ੪Ȣ ıȤȑıȘ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțોȢ ਕȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȠȪȝİȞȘȢ ੂİȡĮȡȤȓĮȢ ȝȑ IJȠȪȢ ʌȚıIJȠȪȢ-ȜĮȧțȠȪȢ, țĮȓ ੁįȚĮȚIJȑȡȦȢ ȝȑ IJȓȢ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ.

16

L. Boff, “La distinction entre “Ecclesia docens” et “Ecclesia discens” est-elle justifiée?” in Conciliun, 158, 1981, pp.85-92. 17 ȈțĮȜIJı઼ ī., «ȉȩ ਙijȣȜȠ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨ țĮȓ ਲ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ» ıIJȩ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȓ șȡȘıțİȓĮ, ੍ȞįȚțIJȠȢ, 2004, pp.87-141.

208

Chapter Fifteen

ȈȪȖȤȡȠȞĮ ʌĮȡĮįİȓȖȝĮIJĮ, ਥʌȚȕİȕĮȚȫȞȠȣȞ ȝȑ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȩ IJȡȩʌȠ, Į੝IJȒ IJȒȞ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ įȠȝȒ IJોȢ ਕȞIJȓșİıȘȢ țİijĮȜોȢ-ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ, ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒ ijȣȜȠIJȚțȒ, ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȒ ȞȠȘȝĮIJȠįȩIJȘıȘ. ȅੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ıȒȝİȡĮ įȑȞ ਥʌȚIJȡȑʌİIJĮȚ Ƞ੡IJİ ȞȐ ȕȠȘșȠ૨Ȟ IJȩȞ ਖʌȜȩ țĮȓ ਩ȖȖĮȝȠ ੂİȡȑĮ IJોȢ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮIJȐ IJȒȞ ੮ȡĮ IJોȢ IJȑȜİıȘȢ IJોȢ șİȓĮȢ İ੝ȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮȢ, ʌĮȡȐ IJȒȞ ʌȡȫIJȘ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ IJોȢ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȩ șİıȝȩ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ țĮȓ ਩IJıȚ ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ ȝȚȐ IJȑIJȠȚĮ įȚĮȜİțIJȚțȒ ȝİIJĮIJȡȑʌİIJĮȚ ıȑ ıȣȞȫȞȣȝȠ IJોȢ ȝȒ-ਥȟȠȣıȓĮȢ.18 ǹ੝IJȒ ਲ ਙȡȞȘıȘ IJોȢ șȘȜȣțȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮș’ਦĮȣIJોȢ ਥȝijĮȞȓȗİIJĮȚ ȕȑȕĮȚĮ ıȑ ʌȠȜȜĮʌȜȐ ਥʌȓʌİįĮ, ਕȜȜȐ, țȣȡȓȦȢ, țĮIJȐ IJȩȞ ȝİıĮȓȦȞĮ ੖ʌȠȣ ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ șİȦȡİ૙IJĮȚ țĮȓ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ੪Ȣ ȝȚȐ ਥțįȠȤȒ IJȠ૨ ȝȒ ੕ȞIJȠȢ. ਺ ੢ʌĮȡȟȒ IJȘȢ țĮșȠȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ʌȐȞIJĮ ıȑ ıȤȑıȘ ȝȑ IJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ ਕʌ’੕ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠȑȡȤİIJaȚ țĮȓ ਲ ȖȞȦıIJȒ ijȡȐıȘ ȖȚȐ IJȩȞ ʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȚıȝȩ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ੪Ȣ «mas occasionatus».19 ਝȞȐȜȠȖİȢ İੇȞĮȚ țĮȓ Ƞੂ IJȠʌȠșİIJȒıİȚȢ IJȠ૨ ੉ȦȐȞȞȘ ȋȡȣıȠıIJȩȝȠȣ, ੒ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȢ șİȦȡİ૙ ੖IJȚ ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İੇȞĮȚ țĮIJ’İੁțȩȞĮ ĬİȠ૨ ȝȑıȦ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ țĮȓ ȝȑıȦ IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖોȢ IJȘȢ ıIJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ.20 ਺ șȘȜȣțȩIJȘIJĮ ıȑ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȓ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ Ƞ੝ıȚĮıIJȚțȐ įȑȞ ਫ਼ijȓıIJĮIJĮȚ.21 ǹ੝IJȒ ਲ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ IJȠ૨ ȝȒ-੕ȞIJȠȢ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, ਕʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİIJĮȚ ıIJȒ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ ੂıIJȠȡȚțȐ țĮȓ ijșȐȞİȚ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȒȞ ਥʌȠȤȒ IJોȢ ȞİȦIJİȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȩ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩ ਕțȩȝȘ țĮȓ IJȒ ıIJȚȖȝȒ IJોȢ ਥțțȠıȝȓțİȣıȒȢ IJȠȣ.22 ਺ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıȪȗȣȖȠȢ įȑȞ ਩ȤİȚ țĮȞȑȞĮ įȚțĮȓȦȝĮ Ƞ੡IJİ țਙȞ IJȠ૨ ੑȞȩȝĮIJȩȢ IJȘȢ, țĮșȫȢ ȝȑȤȡȚ ʌȡȩIJȚȞȠȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȐ ȤȐȞİȚ IJȩ ਥʌȓșİIJȩ IJȘȢ țĮȓ ʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ਕȞĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȩ ıȪȗȣȖȩ IJȘȢ ੪Ȣ ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ IJȠ૨ IJȐįİ. ਺ ਕȞȐȜȣıȘ Į੝IJોȢ IJોȢ įȚĮȜİțIJȚțોȢ ਕʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİȚ ਪȞĮ ਕțȩȝȘ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ: ȖȞȦȡȓȗȠȣȝİ ੖IJȚ ੒ țȚȞȘIJȒȡȚȠȢ ȝȠȤȜȩȢ ȝȚ઼Ȣ IJȑIJȠȚĮȢ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚțોȢ ਥʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, ਕʌȩ IJȩȞ ȆĮ૨ȜȠ țĮȓ IJȒȞ ੁȠȣįĮȧțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ, ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ IJİȜȚțȐ IJȒȞ ਩țijȡĮıȘ ȝȚ઼Ȣ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțોȢ įȠȝોȢ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ਩șİIJİ IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ਥțIJȩȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ, İ੅IJİ ੁȠȣįĮȧțોȢ İ੅IJİ ਕȡȤĮȚȠİȜȜȘȞȚțોȢ. īȞȦȡȓȗȠȣȝİ, ਥʌȓıȘȢ, ੖IJȚ ੒ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȢ țȩıȝȠȢ ʌȡȠȠįİȣIJȚțȐ ਕʌȠțȐȜȣȥİ ੖IJȚ ੒ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮȢ ȝȚ઼Ȣ IJȑIJȠȚĮȢ įȠȝોȢ ਕȞȒțİȚ ıIJȩ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞ țĮȓ ȖȚ’Į੝IJȩ ਲ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ੑijİȓȜİȚ ȞȐ įİ૙ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ੑʌIJȚțȒ IJȠ૨ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȣ țȩıȝȠȣ, IJȒȞ șȑıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ țĮȓ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ਝʌȩ IJȒ ıIJȚȖȝȒ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ʌȠȪ ਪȞĮȢ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚıȝȩȢ ȤȐȞİȚ țȐșİ ਩ȞȞȠȚĮ țĮȓ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ, ȖȚĮIJȓ ਥțijȡȐȗİȚ ȝȚȐ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȪȝİȞȘ ੂıIJȠȡȚțȒ țĮȓ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȒ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ, 18 R. Gryson, Le ministère des femmes dans l’ Eglise ancienne, Gembloux, 1972, pp. 27-29. 19 J-M. Aubert, ibid., ch. IV. 20 ǼੁȢ IJȒȞ īȑȞİıȚȞ, Ǻ, P.G 54, 589. 21 ȈțĮȜIJı઼ ī., ibid., p.117. 22 ȃIJȩȞIJȠȢ ȃȓțȠȢ, «ȉȩ ijȪȜȠ ੪Ȣ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ țĮIJĮıțİȣȒ țĮȓ ਲ ਥıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ IJȠȣ ਫ਼ʌȑȡȕĮıȘ» ıIJȩ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȓ ĬȡȘıțİȓĮ, ibid., pp.43-65.

Typology of Women’s Submission to Men

209

ਕʌȩ IJȒ ıIJȚȖȝȒ Į੝IJȒ țĮȓ ȝİIJȐ İੇȞĮȚ ijȪıİȚ ਕįȪȞĮIJȠȞ ȞȐ įȚțĮȚȠȜȠȖȒıİȚ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȪȝİȞİȢ įȠȝȚțȑȢ țĮȓ șİıȝȚțȑȢ ਥʌȚȜȠȖȑȢ ਕʌĮȖȠȡİȪıİȦȞ țĮȓ ਕʌȠțȜİȚıȝ૵Ȟ. ਺ ਕȞĮȖȞȦȡȚıȝȑȞȘ ıIJȩ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠ țȩıȝȠ, ਩ıIJȦ țĮȓ ıȑ ȞȠȝȠșİIJȚțȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ, ੁıȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȓ ੁıȠIJȚȝȓĮ ਕȞįȡȩȢ țĮȓ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ, ਥȞıĮȡțȫȞİIJĮȚ ʌȜȑȠȞ țĮȓ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ ȝȚȐ ੁıȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȓ ੁıȠIJȚȝȓĮ ıȑ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ șİıȝ૵Ȟ. Ȉȑ Į੝IJȩ IJȩ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ, ʌȜȑȠȞ, ੖ıȠȞ ਕijȠȡ઼ ıIJȒ șİıȝȚțȒ țĮȓ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȒ șȑıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ਥȞIJȩȢ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ਲ țȡȚIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ਕȞȐȜȣıȘ ੑijİȓȜİȚ ȞȐ țĮȜȑıİȚ ıȑ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȩ țĮȓ țĮȞȠȞȚțȩ ʌȜȑȠȞ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ, IJȒȞ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ਕȡȤȒ ȞȐ ʌȐȡİȚ ਕʌȠijȐıİȚȢ ʌȠȪ ȞȐ ਕʌȠțĮșȚıIJȠ૨Ȟ IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ੪Ȣ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ țĮIJ’İੁțȩȞĮ țĮȓ țĮș’ ੒ȝȠȓȦıȚȞ ĬİȠ૨.

2. ȅੂ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ıȣȞȑʌİȚİȢ ਺ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ਫ਼ʌȩ IJȒ ȝȠȡijȒ ਥȡȦIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ ʌȠȪ IJȓșİIJĮȚ ੪Ȣ ਥʌȚȜȠȖȒ țĮIJȐıIJĮıȘȢ țĮȓ ıȤȑıȘȢ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȒȞ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ ਵ IJȒȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ ʌȚșĮȞȩIJĮIJĮ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ʌȠȪ ਥțijȡȐȗİȚ IJȓȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȑȢ ਥʌȚșȣȝȓİȢ țȐʌȠȚȦȞ, ੕ȤȚ, ੖ȝȦȢ, țĮȓ IJȒȞ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJોȢ ੑȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ țȚȞİ૙IJĮȚ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȩ ਙțIJȚıIJȠ țĮȓ ıIJȩ țIJȚıIJȩ, ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȢ țĮȓ ਦȞȠʌȠȚȫȞIJĮȢ țĮȓ IJȐ įȪȠ ȝȑıȦ IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌȠıIJĮIJȚțોȢ ਪȞȦıȘȢ ıIJȩ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȠ૨ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨. ਡȞ ਲ ੑȡșȩįȠȟȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țȜȓȞİȚ ʌȡȩȢ IJȩ ȞȐ ਕʌȠįİȤșİ૙ ȝȚȐ IJȑIJȠȚĮ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ, IJȩIJİ İੇȞĮȚ ȕȑȕĮȚȠ ʌȫȢ ȖȚȐ ਙȜȜȘ ȝȓĮ ijȠȡȐ, ਲ țĮș’ਲȝ઼Ȣ ਕȞĮIJȠȜȒ șȐ ੑȜȚıșȒıİȚ ਕʌȩ ਪȞĮ ʌĮȡİȜșȠȞIJȚțȩ ȝȠȞȠijȣıȚIJȚıȝȩ ıȑ ਪȞĮ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȝȠȞȠijȣȜȠIJȚıȝȩ, șİȦȡȫȞIJĮȢ ੖IJȚ ਲ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ țȚȞİ૙IJĮȚ țĮȓ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ țȐIJȚ IJȩ IJİȜİȓȦȢ țĮȓ ਕʌȠȜȪIJȦȢ ਕȞİȟȐȡIJȘIJȠ IJȠ૨ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠ૨ ȖȓȖȞİıșĮȚ. ȂȚȐ IJȑIJȠȚĮ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ ʌĮȡĮșİȦȡİ૙ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ IJȒȞ ਩ȞȞȠȚĮ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ਥʌȓ IJોȢ Ƞ੝ıȓĮȢ țĮȓ ੕ȤȚ ਥʌȓ IJȠ૨ ʌĮȡĮįİȓȖȝĮIJȠȢ, ੪Ȣ ı૵ȝĮ IJȩ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ ਕȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıIJȩ ı૵ȝĮ IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌȠıIJĮIJȚțોȢ ਪȞȦıȘȢ ıIJȩ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȠ૨ șİĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, IJȩ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ įȑȞ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ ȞȐ İੇȞĮȚ IJȓʌȠIJİ ਙȜȜȠ ʌĮȡȐ ੖ȜȠȢ ĬİȩȢ țĮȓ ੖ȜȠȢ ਡȞșȡȦʌȠȢ țĮȓ ੖ȜȠȢ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ įȑȞ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ ʌĮȡȐ ȞȐ İੇȞĮȚ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ʌĮȡȐ ਙȡıİȞ țĮȓ șોȜȣ. ȆĮȡĮșİȦȡİ૙, ਥʌȓıȘȢ, țĮȓ IJȒȞ ਩ȞȞȠȚĮ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ੪Ȣ ȜĮȩ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨, ਥȞ ʌȠȡİȓĮ ʌȡȠijȘIJȚțȒ, ȝȑıĮ ıIJȩȞ țȩıȝȠ, ȝȑ ıIJȩȤȠ IJȒȞ ਥıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ੒ȜȠțȜȒȡȦıȘ IJોȢ ǺĮıȚȜİȓĮȢ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨. ǹ੝IJȒ ਲ ʌȠȡİȓĮ įȑȞ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ ਖʌȜȒ șİȦȡȘIJȚțȒ įȚĮȞȠȘIJȚțȒ ıȪȜȜȘȥȘ, ਕȜȜȐ ਥțijȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ıȣȞİȤ૵Ȣ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ ıȣȖțȡȠȪıİȚȢ, ਫ਼ʌȠȤȦȡȒıİȚȢ, ਫ਼ʌĮȞĮȤȦȡȒıİȚȢ, ıȣȞșȑıİȚȢ, Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙İȢ ȞĮȓ ȝȑȞ ıȣıIJȘȝĮIJȚțȠʌȠȓȘıĮȞ IJȐ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȐ IJȘȢ ੖ȡȚĮ țĮȓ țĮșȩȡȚıĮȞ IJȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȠ૨ ȁȩȖȠȣ, įȑȞ țĮIJȩȡșȦıĮȞ, ੖ȝȦȢ, ıȑ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ȞȐ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠʌȠȚȒıȠȣȞ Į੝IJȒ IJȒȞ ਕȜȒșİȚĮ țĮȓ ਩IJıȚ, ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ijȠȡȑȢ, ȜȘıȝȩȞȘıĮȞ IJȒȞ ਕȜȒșİȚĮ țĮȓ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠʌȠȓȘıĮȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ ȞȩȡȝİȢ, ਥȝijĮȞ૵Ȣ ਕȞIJȓșİIJİȢ ȝȑ IJȩ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȩ IJȘȢ ਵ ਕțȩȝȘ ȤİȚȡȩIJİȡĮ țȐȜȣȥĮȞ ȝȑ «șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ» ਕȞĮijȠȡȑȢ ਕʌĮȡȐįİțIJİȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ ਕȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ, țĮșȚıIJȫȞIJĮȢ IJȒ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ıțȑȥȘ ȤȡȘıIJȚțȩ ਥȡȖĮȜİ૙Ƞ ıȣȞIJȘȡȘIJȚț૵Ȟ țĮȓ ਕȞIJȚįȡĮıIJȚț૵Ȟ

210

Chapter Fifteen

ਕʌȩȥİȦȞ. ȉȩ ʌȚȩ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȩ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ ȝȚ઼Ȣ IJȑIJȠȚĮȢ ʌȡȩıȜȘȥȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțોȢ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘȢ, ਕȞIJȓșİIJȘȢ ȝȑ IJȒ ੒ȡȚȠșİIJȘȝȑȞȘ ਕȜȒșİȚĮ, İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJોȢ șȑıȘȢ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȒȞ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȓ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȒ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ. ਺ ıȣȞİȚįȘIJȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJોȢ IJȡĮȖȚțોȢ Į੝IJોȢ țĮIJȐıIJĮıȘȢ ੒įȒȖȘıİ ıȑ ਪȞĮ įȚȐȜȠȖȠ țȣȡȓȦȢ ਥȞįȠșİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȝȑ ਥȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȣıİȢ ʌĮȡİȝȕȐıİȚȢ ਕʌȩ IJȩȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȩ Ȥ૵ȡȠ țĮȓ ਦȜȐȤȚıIJĮ ਥȞįȠİțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩ țĮșȫȢ ȠȚ șİıȝȚțȑȢ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟİȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓİȢ IJĮȜĮȞȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ਕʌȩ IJȩ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ IJ૵Ȟ ਥșȞȚț૵Ȟ ਥțțȜȘıȚ૵Ȟ IJોȢ įȚĮıʌȠȡ઼Ȣ. ੘ įȚȐȜȠȖȠȢ ਕʌİțȐȜȣȥİ ੖IJȚ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ įȣıIJȣȤ૵Ȣ ıȪȖȤȣıȘ (ıȣȞİȚįȘIJȒ ਵ ਕıȣȞİȓįȘIJȘ) țȣȡȓȦȢ ıIJȠȪȢ ੖ȡȠȣȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ, ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ, țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ țĮȓ ਙȖȞȠȚĮ IJȠ૨ IJȡȩʌȠȣ ȝȑ IJȩȞ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ ʌȡȠıİȖȖȓȗİȚ ੒ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȢ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ IJȐ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȪ IJȩȞ ਕijȠȡȠ૨Ȟ. ȀȐIJȚ IJȑIJȠȚȠ ȕĮıĮȞȓȗİȚ, țĮIJȐ ʌȠȜȪ, IJȠȪȢ įȚĮȜİȖȩȝİȞȠȣȢ, ȖȚĮIJȓ ȟĮijȞȚțȐ țĮșȓıIJĮIJĮȚ ijĮȞİȡȩ ੖IJȚ ʌȡ૵IJĮ șȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ੖ȜȠȚ ȞȐ ıȣȝijȦȞȒıȠȣȞ ıȑ ȝȚȐ țȠȚȞȒ ȤȡȒıȘ țĮȓ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘ IJ૵Ȟ ੖ȡȦȞ. ǹ੝IJȩ, ੖ȝȦȢ, ੒įȘȖİ૙ ıȑ ਕIJȑȡȝȠȞİȢ ıȣȗȘIJȒıİȚȢ, ȝȑ ਕʌȠIJȑȜİıȝĮ ȞȐ ȤȐȞİIJĮȚ ਲ Ƞ੝ıȓĮ IJȠ૨ ʌȡȠȕȜȒȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȓ ਩IJıȚ ȞȐ įȚĮȚȦȞȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝȚȐ ਕʌĮȡȐįİțIJȘ țĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ. ਺ ʌȡȠIJİȚȞȩȝİȞȘ, ȝȑȤȡȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ, ਕȞĮȖțĮȓĮ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ȖȚȐ IJȒ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘ IJોȢ ਕʌȠțĮȜȠȪȝİȞȘȢ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțોȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ıIJȩȞ İ੝ȡȦʌĮȧțȩ Ȥ૵ȡȠ, șȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞȐ ਥȟİIJȐıİȚ IJȩ ȖȣȞĮȚțİ૙Ƞ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ țĮȓ țĮIJ’ਥʌȑțIJĮıȘ IJȒ șȑıȘ IJોȢ ੅įȚĮȢ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȩȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩ țĮȓ İੁįȚțȩIJİȡĮ ıIJȒȞ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȘ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ਫ਼ʌȩ IJȩ ʌȡȓıȝĮ IJȡȚ૵Ȟ įȚĮıIJȐıİȦȞ: IJȒȞ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ, IJȒȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮȓ IJȒ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȚȐıIJĮıȘ. ĬȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ įȘȜ. ਥʌȚIJĮțIJȚțȐ ȞȐ ਕʌĮȞIJȘșİ૙ IJȩ ਥȡȫIJȘȝĮ țĮIJȐ ʌȩıȠ ਲ șȑıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȒȞ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ਥȟİIJȐȗİIJĮȚ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ਫ਼ʌȩ IJȒȞ ਩ȞȞȠȚĮ ȝȚ઼Ȣ țĮșĮȡIJȚțોȢ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțોȢ ਕȞIJȚȝİIJȫʌȚıȒȢ IJȘȢ ʌȠȪ ਥʌȚijȑȡİȚ ȖȚ’Į੝IJȒȞ ȝȚȐ ijȣȜȠIJȚțȒ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ਫ਼ʌȠȕȐșȝȚıȒȢ IJȘȢ, ıȑ ıȤȑıȘ ȝȑ IJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ ਵ țĮIJȐ ʌȩıȠ ਥȟİIJȐȗİIJĮȚ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ਕʌȠįȑȤİIJĮȚ įȘȜ. IJȒȞ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ੁıȩIJȘIJȐ IJȘȢ țĮȓ ਦʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ IJȒȞ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮȓ ਕȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ਥțʌȡȠıȫʌȘıȒ IJȘȢ ਕʌȩ IJȩȞ ੉ȘıȠ૨, țĮșȫȢ ਥȞ ȋȡȚıIJ૵ ੉ȘıȠ૨ IJȩ «Ƞ੝ț ਩ȞȚ ਙȡıİȞ țĮȓ șોȜȣ», Į੝IJȠțĮIJĮȡȖİ૙ IJȒ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ IJ૵Ȟ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ țĮIJȐ IJȩȞ ਙȡıİȞ țĮȓ șોȜȣ ਥʌȠȓȘıİȞ Į੝IJȠȪȢ. ȅੂ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡİȢ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚİȢ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘȢ IJોȢ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțોȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ਵ țĮIJĮȖȖȑȜȜȠȣȞ ਕȝȒȤĮȞĮ, ਕȜȜȐ ʌȐȞIJȦȢ İ੝ȖİȞȚțȐ, IJȓȢ ੒ʌȠȚİıįȒʌȠIJİ șȑıİȚȢ ਫ਼ʌȑȡ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ੪Ȣ ਥțțȠıȝȚțİȣȝȑȞİȢ ਕʌȩȥİȚȢ (ਫ਼ʌȠȞȠȫȞIJĮȢ ੖IJȚ țȐșİ IJȚ IJȩ ਥțțȠıȝȚțİȣȝȑȞȠ İੇȞĮȚ țĮIJ’ਥʌȑțIJĮıȚȞ țĮȓ ȝȒ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ) ਵ ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ ਕȡȤȑȢ țĮȓ șȑıİȚȢ Į੝IJોȢ IJોȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, ਥʌȚȤİȚȡȫȞIJĮȢ ȞȐ țĮIJĮįİȓȟȠȣȞ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJȑȢ ıIJȘȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ıȑ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ਕʌȩȥİȚȢ ȕȚȕȜȚț૵Ȣ IJİțȝȘȡȚȦȝȑȞİȢ țĮȓ șİȝİȜȚȦȝȑȞİȢ. ȅੂ țĮIJĮȖȖȑȜȜȠȞIJİȢ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗȠȣȞ Į੝IJȒ IJȒ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ ੪Ȣ ਥʌȓįȡĮıȘ IJોȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțોȢ ıțȑȥȘȢ ıIJȩ Ȥ૵ȡȠ IJોȢ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ʌȠȪ ਩ȤİȚ ੪Ȣ ıIJȩȤȠ țĮȓ ȕĮıȚțȒ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ IJȒȞ ੒ȜȠțȜȘȡȦIJȚțȒ

Typology of Women’s Submission to Men

211

ਕȝijȚıȕȒIJȘıȘ IJોȢ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȫȡĮ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțોȢ țĮȓ șİȠȜȠȖȚțોȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ.23 ȊʌȠȞȠİ૙IJĮȚ ijȣıȚțȐ ਥį૵ țĮȓ țȣȡȚĮȡȤİ૙ ȝȚȐ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ ʌȠȪ ਕȡȞİ૙IJĮȚ, ȤȦȡȓȢ ȞȐ IJȩ ȜȑİȚ, (țĮȓ ʌ૵Ȣ ȕȑȕĮȚĮ ȞȐ IJȩ ʌİ૙, ਥțIJȩȢ țĮȓ ਙȞ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ țȐʌȠȚȠ ȞȑȠ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ țĮȓ ਕȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȝİIJȑȦȡȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ țĮȓ įȑȞ IJȩ ȖȞȦȡȓȗȦ) IJȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ੖IJȚ ੒ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ȀİȞȫȞİIJĮȚ ਥȞ IJȩʌ૳ țĮȓ ਥȞ ȤȡȩȞ૳, ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȢ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, țĮȓ ੕ȤȚ ijĮȚȞȠȝİȞȚțȐ, ʌȜȒȡȦȢ IJȒȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ijȪıȘ. ੘ ੖ȜȠȢ ĬİȩȢ, ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ IJȩȞ ੖ȜȠ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠ ȖİȞȩȝİȞȠȢ ਥȞ IJ૶ ʌȡȠıȫʌ૳ IJȠ૨ ੉ȘıȠ૨ ੖ȜȠȢ ĬİȩȢ țĮȓ ੖ȜȠȢ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ, ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȢ IJȒȞ ੖ȜȘ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ijȪıȘ.24 ਝʌȩ IJȒ ıIJȚȖȝȒ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ ʌȠȪ ੒ ੉ȘıȠ૨Ȣ ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚț૵Ȣ IJȒȞ ੖ȜȘ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ijȪıȘ, ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ IJȩȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠ ੪Ȣ ਙȡıİȞ țĮȓ șોȜȣ țĮȓ ਦʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ ਲ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ ੪Ȣ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȝİIJĮijȠȡȐ IJોȢ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ IJȠ૨ ੉ȘıȠ૨ ʌȡȩȢ IJȩȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠ İੇȞĮȚ įȚțĮȓȦȝĮ ʌȠȪ ਕȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ țĮȓ ıIJȐ įȪȠ ijȪȜĮ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ. ਺ ਥȞĮȞșȡȫʌȚıȘ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨ ȁȩȖȠȣ ਥț ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ ਞȖȓȠȣ țĮȓ ȂĮȡȓĮȢ IJોȢ ȆĮȡșȑȞȠȣ țĮIJĮȡȖİ૙ Ƞ੝ıȚĮıIJȚțȐ IJȒȞ ੢ʌĮȡȟȘ IJȠ૨ ijȪȜȠȣ ੪Ȣ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ੁįȚĮȚIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ țĮȓ ੖ʌȦȢ ਥʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ੒ țȠȢ ȀȦȞ/ȞȠȢ īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘȢ, ੖IJĮȞ Ƞੂ ȆĮIJȑȡİȢ ਕȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȒȞ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ijȪıȘ IJȠ૨ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚȠ૨Ȟ IJȠȪȢ ੖ȡȠȣȢ ıȐȡȟ, ı૵ȝĮ, ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ, ਕȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ, ȤȦȡȓȢ ȞȐ țȐȞȠȣȞ țĮȝȓĮ ਕȞĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȩ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ IJȠȣ ਙȡȡİȞ ijȪȜȠ.25 ੜIJĮȞ įȑ ੒ ੉ȦȐȞȞȘȢ ǻĮȝĮıțȘȞȩȢ ȝȚȜ઼ ȖȚȐ IJȩ ਕȞįȡȚțȩ ijȪȜȠ IJȠ૨ ੉ȘıȠ૨, IJȩ ਕȞĮijȑȡİȚ ȜȑȖȠȞIJĮȢ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJȩ ਩ȤİȚ țȣȡȓȦȢ ıȘȝİȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ: «੆ȞĮ ȝİȓȞૉ ਲ ੁįȚȩIJȘȢ ਕțȓȞȘIJȠȢ, ȊੂȩȢ ੭Ȟ ȖȐȡ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨ ȣੂȩȢ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ȖȑȖȠȞİȞ... țĮȓ Ƞ੝ț ਩ȟİıIJȚȞ IJોȢ ȠੁțİȓĮȢ ੁįȚȩIJȘIJȠȢ».26 ਺ ੒ʌȠȚĮįȒʌȠIJİ ıȣıȤȑIJȚıȘ țĮIJȐ IJȒȞ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚț૵Ȟ țĮȓ ijȣȜȠIJȚț૵Ȟ ʌĮȡĮȝȑIJȡȦȞ ʌȠȪ ʌȘȖȐȗȠȣȞ ਕʌȩ IJȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ੖IJȚ ੒ ੉ȘıȠ૨Ȣ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İੇȞĮȚ ਙȞįȡĮȢ șȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞȐ șİȦȡȘșȠ૨Ȟ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ ਪȞĮ ʌȡȓıȝĮ ıțȠʌȚȝȠIJȒIJȦȞ Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙İȢ ਥʌȚșȣȝȠ૨Ȟ ȞȐ įȚĮȚȦȞȓȗȠȣȞ ȝȚȐ ȕĮșȚȐ ਕȞIJȚșİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮȓ ਕȞIJȚ-ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮțȒ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ ıIJȩ Ȥ૵ȡȠ IJોȢ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮȢ. Ǽ੅IJİ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ȖȓȞİȚ ਲ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJોȢ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ İ੅IJİ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, IJȩ ਕʌȠIJȑȜİıȝĮ įȑȞ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ ʌĮȡȐ ȞȐ İੇȞĮȚ ਪȞĮ țĮȓ IJȩ Į੝IJȩ. ǻȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȓȘıȘ ਫ਼ijȓıIJĮIJĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ ਕʌȩ IJȒ ıIJȚȖȝȒ ʌȠȪ IJȩ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ țĮȓ 23

īȚĮȖțȐȗȠȖȜȠȣ ȈIJ., «ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȓ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ-ȂȚȐ ਥțțȠıȝȚțİȣȝȑȞȘ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ» ıIJȩ ǹȃǹȁȅīǿȅȃ, IJ.4, 2003, ıȢ. 112-131. ȉȩ ੅įȚȠ ਙȡșȡȠ ıIJȩ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȓ șȡȘıțİȓĮ, ibid., pp.243-271. ǺȜ. ਥʌȓıȘȢ, ȂĮȖȖȚȫȡȠȣ ȃ., «਺ ਥʌȓįȡĮıȘ IJોȢ ȆĮȪȜİȚĮȢ ʌİȡȓ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ıIJȩ «ȆȘįȐȜȚȠ» IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȆȡĮțIJȚțȐ ǻȚİșȞȠ૨Ȣ ਫʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȠ૨ ȈȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ «‫ݠ‬ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮIJȐ IJȩȞ ݃ʌ. ȆĮࠎȜȠ», ǺȑȡȠȚĮ, 2003, p.234. 24 ੉. ǻĮȝĮıțȘȞȠ૨, ਯțįȠıȚȢ ਕțȡȚȕȒȢ IJોȢ ੗ȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ȆȓıIJİȦȢ, 3,12, P.G 94,1029A. 25 ĭȪȜȠ țĮȓ șȡȘıțİȓĮ, ibid., p.306. 26 ਯțįȠıȚȢ ਕțȡȚȕȒȢ IJોȢ ੗ȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ȆȓıIJİȦȢ, 44, P.G 94,1108A.

212

Chapter Fifteen

țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ įȑȞ ıȣȝʌȓʌIJİȚ ȝȑ IJȩ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ, ਕȜȜȐ ȝȑ IJȩ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ. ǹ੝IJȩȝĮIJĮ, ȝȚȐ IJȑIJȠȚĮ ਦȡȝȘȞİȓĮ įȑȞ țĮIJĮȞȠİ૙ IJȒȞ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ਕȜȜȐ IJȒȞ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȚȠʌȠȚİ૙ İੁıȐȖȠȞIJĮȢ ı’Į੝IJȒȞ įȚĮțȡȓıİȚȢ Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙İȢ įȑȞ ਩ȤȠȣȞ țĮȝȚȐ ıȤȑıȘ ȝȑ IJȒȞ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ ੪Ȣ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ țĮȓ ʌȡȠıijȠȡȐ ȉȩ įİȪIJİȡȠ ਥȡȫIJȘȝĮ ʌȠȪ IJȓșİIJĮȚ, İੇȞĮȚ țĮIJȐ ʌȩıȠ Į੝IJȒ ਲ ijȠȕȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ ȞȐ ਥʌȚțĮȜİ૙IJĮȚ IJȒȞ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ ਕȞĮȕȐșȝȚıȘȢ IJȠ૨ ȡȩȜȠȣ țĮȓ IJોȢ șȑıȘȢ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȒȞ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮ, IJȒ ıIJȚȖȝȒ ʌȠȪ ਲ ੅įȚĮ İੁıȐȖİȚ ਪȞĮȞ ੁįȚȩIJȣʌȠ ਕȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȝȠȞȠijȣȜȠIJȚıȝȩ. ȉȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ੖IJȚ ਲ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮ, IJȩıȠȣȢ ĮੁȫȞİȢ, įȑȞ ȝʌȩȡİıİ ȞȐ ਕȞĮIJȡȑȥİȚ IJȒȞ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤȠȣıĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ șȑıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȒȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ȖȚĮIJȓ țȣȡȓȦȢ ʌȡȠıȑȜĮȕİ ਕʌȩȥİȚȢ IJȠ૨ țȩıȝȠȣ țĮȓ IJોȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ ȖȚ’Į੝IJȒȞ, ਕįȣȞĮIJȫȞIJĮȢ ȞȐ IJȓȢ ਫ਼ʌİȡȕİ૙ țĮȓ ȞȐ IJȓȢ ȝİIJĮȝȠȡijȫıİȚ, įȑȞ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ ਥʌȠȣįİȞȓ țĮȓ ȝȑ țĮȞȑȞĮ IJȡȩʌȠ ȞȐ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ țĮȓ ȞȐ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ੪Ȣ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮȓ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ.27 ĬȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞȐ ȖȓȞİȚ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ țĮIJĮȞȠȘIJȒ țĮȓ ਕʌȠįİțIJȒ ਲ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ੖IJȚ ੒ ੉ȘıȠ૨Ȣ ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ țĮȓ ਕȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȐ IJȒȞ ੖ȜȘ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ijȪıȘ țĮȓ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ IJȩ ਕȞįȡȚțȩ ij૨ȜȠ. ȆĮȡĮțȠȜȠȣșȫȞIJĮȢ, țȣȡȓȦȢ, IJȓȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ țĮIJĮșȑıİȚȢ, ੖ıȠȞ ਕijȠȡ઼ ıIJȩ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJોȢ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ IJȠ૨ Alexander Schmeman țĮȓ IJȠ૨ Paul Evdokimov, șȐ ਩ȜİȖĮ ੖IJȚ ਲ IJİțȝȘȡȓȦıȒ IJȠȣȢ ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ıIJȘȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ ਕij’ਦȞȩȢ ıIJȒ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮȓ ਕij’ਦIJȑȡȠȣ ıIJȒȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ, ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ IJȒȞ ʌȡȠĮȞĮijİȡșİȓıĮ ıIJȩ ʌȡ૵IJȠȢ ȝȑȡȠȢ ʌĮȪȜİȚĮ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ. Ȃȑ ਙȜȜĮ ȜȩȖȚĮ ਲ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣȢ ʌİȡȓ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ İੇȞĮȚ ijȣȜȠIJȚțȒ țĮȓ ੕ȤȚ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ. ੜȝȦȢ, ਲ ਩ȞȞȠȚĮ «ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ» ੪Ȣ ıȣȜȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮȓ įȘȜȦIJȚțȒ IJોȢ ȝȚ઼Ȣ İੁțȩȞĮȢ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨ įȑȞ ਕijȒȞİȚ ʌİȡȚșȫȡȚĮ ijȣȜȠIJȚț૵Ȟ, ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚț૵Ȟ, țĮȓ ੕ȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ, įȚĮțȡȓıİȦȞ. ੘ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ ੪Ȣ ਫ਼ʌȠțİȓȝİȞȠ IJોȢ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ țĮIJĮȞȠİ૙IJĮȚ ੪Ȣ ਙȡıİȞ țĮȓ șોȜȣ, įȑȞ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ țȐʌȠȚĮ İੁįȚțȒ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȓĮ įȚȩIJȚ ਲ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮ IJȠȣ İੇȞĮȚ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȒ țĮȓ ੪Ȣ ਥț IJȠȪIJȠȣ ਕȡȞİ૙IJĮȚ ȝȠȡijȑȢ įȚĮȓȡİıȘȢ ijȣȜȠIJȚț૵Ȟ țĮȓ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚț૵Ȟ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚț૵Ȟ. ੜIJĮȞ ıIJȩ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJોȢ ਥıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțોȢ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮȢ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨ İੁıȐȖȠȞIJĮȚ ijȣȜȠIJȚțȑȢ įȚĮțȡȓıİȚȢ IJȩIJİ șȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ੖ȜȠȚ ȞȐ țĮIJĮȞȠȒıȠȣȞ ੖IJȚ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ ਥțIJȡȠʌȑȢ țĮȓ įȚĮıIJȡİȕȜȫıİȚȢ ʌȠȪ įȑȞ ਥʌȚIJȡȑʌȠȣȞ ıIJȩȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠ Ȟਕ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ țĮȓ ȞȐ ıȣȞȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ੪Ȣ ਙȞįȡĮȢ țĮȓ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮIJȐ IJȩ «ਕȝijȩIJİȡȠȚ İੁțȫȞ ȝȓĮ, ȞȩȝȠȢ İੈȢ, ਕȞȐıIJĮıȚȢ ȝȓĮ».28 ǼੇȞĮȚ ijĮȞİȡȩ ੖IJȚ ੒ʌȠȚĮįȒʌȠIJİ ਕȞĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȒȞ ੑȡșȩįȠȟȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȖȚȐ IJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ țĮȓ IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ੪Ȣ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ ʌȠȪ ਕʌȠȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ ੁıȩIJȚȝĮ IJȩ țĮIJ’İੁțȩȞĮ țĮȓ țĮș’੒ȝȠȓȦıȚȞ, ੒įȘȖİ૙ ʌȐȞIJĮ ıIJȒȞ ੅įȚĮ ਕʌȠȡȓĮ. ਡȞ ʌȡȐȖȝĮIJȚ IJȐ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ įİįȠȝȑȞĮ İੇȞĮȚ ਩IJıȚ, IJȩIJİ ȖȚĮIJȓ Į੝IJȒ ਲ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ 27

ǺȜ. Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, Le mistère de la femme dans l’ Eglise, Paris, Cerf, 1987. 28 īȡȘȖȠȡȓȠȣ ĬİȠȜȩȖȠȣ, ȁȩȖȠȢ 37, 6 P.G 36, 289Ǻ.

Typology of Women’s Submission to Men

213

੖ıȠȞ ਕijȠȡ઼ ıIJȩ șȑȝĮ IJોȢ İੁįȚțોȢ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ; ਝʌȩȥİȚȢ ʌȠȪ șİȦȡȠ૨Ȟ ੖IJȚ ਲ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ įȑȞ ਕȞȒțİȚ ıIJȐ ȤĮȡȓıȝĮIJĮ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ țȡȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ ਥʌȚİȚț૵Ȣ ੪Ȣ ਕʌĮȡȐįİțIJİȢ. ਝʌĮȡȐįİțIJİȢ, ȖȚĮIJȓ ਥʌĮȞĮijȑȡȠȣȞ țĮȓ ȝİIJĮijȑȡȠȣȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ țĮȓ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ įȚĮțȡȓıİȚȢ, ਕȞIJȚȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ țĮȓ ਙȡĮ ਕȞIJȚıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ĮʌȩȥİȚȢ, țĮșȫȢ IJĮȣIJȓȗȠȣȞ IJȒȞ ਥȖțȣȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJોȢ șİȓĮȢ ȤȐȡȘȢ ȝȑıȦ IJȠ૨ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȝȑ ਥȟȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȑȢ ਕȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȚțȑȢ ਕȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ. ਺ ıȪȖȤȣıȘ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ਕțȩȝȘ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘ, ੖IJĮȞ ıȣȖȤȑİIJĮȚ IJȩ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȩ ȝȑ IJȩ șİıȝȚțȩ țĮȓ ਥȟȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȩ. ੜIJĮȞ ਲ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ țĮIJĮȞȠİ૙IJĮȚ ੪Ȣ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ਙıțȘıȘȢ ਥȟȠȣıȓĮȢ IJȩIJİ İੇȞĮȚ Į੝IJȠȞȩȘIJȠ ੖IJȚ ıȑ ȝȚȐ ਕȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȠȪȝİȞȘ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ਲ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ IJĮȣIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝȑ ʌĮȡĮȤȫȡȘıȘ ਥȟȠȣıȚ૵Ȟ ਕʌȩ IJȩ ਕȞįȡȚțȩ ıIJȩ ȖȣȞĮȚțİ૙Ƞ ij૨ȜȠ. ੲȢ ਥʌȦįȩȢ ȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ਲ «șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ» ȞȐ ıIJȘȡȓȟİȚ ȝȑ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ țĮȓ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ਥʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ Į੝IJȒ IJȒȞ ਙʌȠȥȘ, ȤȦȡȓȢ, ੖ȝȦȢ, ȞȐ įȚĮțȡȓȞİȚ IJȩ ʌȡ૵IJȠ țĮȓ ȕĮıȚțȩ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Ƞ: IJȒȞ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ ੪Ȣ ਥȟȠȣıȓĮ. ȈIJȒȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ, ੖ȝȦȢ, ʌȠȪ ਲ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ țĮIJĮȞȠȘșİ૙ ੪Ȣ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ਙıțȘıȘȢ ਕȖȐʌȘȢ țĮȓ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ, IJȩIJİ IJȐ «șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ» ਥʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ ıIJȒȡȚȟȘȢ IJોȢ ਕȞįȡȚțોȢ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ ȝȑȞȠȣȞ ȝİIJȑȦȡĮ. ǺİȕĮȓȦȢ, ȝȚȐ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ ਕʌĮȜȜĮȖȝȑȞȘ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ਥȟȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ įȚȐıIJĮıȘ șȑIJİȚ ıȑ ȞȑĮ ȕȐıȘ IJȩ ȡȩȜȠ IJȠ૨ ੂİȡȑĮ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȒȞ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮ.29 ĬȑIJİȚ țȣȡȓȦȢ șİıȝȚțȩ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ, IJȩ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ ਩ȤİȚ ȞȐ țȐȞİȚ ȝȑ IJȩ țĮIJȐ ʌȩıȠ ੒ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩȢ șİıȝȩȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖİ૙ įȘȝȠțȡĮIJȚțȐ. ȂİIJĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȢ ʌȡȩȢ IJȐ ਥțİ૙ IJȩ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ, ਲ ਕijİIJȘȡȓĮ IJȠȣ įȑȞ IJȠʌȠșİIJİ૙IJĮȚ ʌȜȑȠȞ ıȑ ijȣȜȠIJȚțȑȢ ਕȞIJȚįȚțȓİȢ, ਕȜȜȐ įȚĮȕȜȑʌİȚ IJȩ șİıȝȚțȩ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ ʌȠȪ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ ਕȞIJȚȜĮȝȕĮȞȠȝȑȞȘ IJȓȢ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ਥʌȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ʌȠȪ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİ૙. ȉȩ ਥȡȫIJȘȝĮ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ Į੝IJȒ IJȒ įȚȐıIJĮıȘ IJȓșİIJĮȚ IJİȜȚțȐ ੪Ȣ ਥȟોȢ: ਕȞĮȗȘIJİ૙IJĮȚ ȝȚȐ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ (țȣȡȓȦȢ ਕʌȩ IJȒ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ), ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ șȐ ਕȞĮʌĮȡȐȖİȚ IJȒȞ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤȠȣıĮ ਥȟȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ ĮੁIJȠȪȝİȞȘ ȝİȡȓįȚȠ ਥȟȠȣıȓĮȢ țĮȓ ȖȚȐ IJȓȢ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ਵ ਥʌȚįȚȫțİIJĮȚ ਲ țĮIJȐșİıȘ ȝȚ઼Ȣ ਙȜȜȘȢ ਙʌȠȥȘȢ țĮȓ ʌȡĮțIJȚțોȢ ȖȚȐ IJȒȞ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ ȝȑ ȕĮșȪIJĮIJİȢ ʌĮȡȐȜȜȘȜİȢ țĮȓ ਥȖțȐȡıȚİȢ IJȠȝȑȢ ıIJȩ ਥıȦIJİȡȚțȩ IJોȢ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȢ; ȈIJȩ ਥȡȫIJȘȝĮ Į੝IJȩ ȝȚȐ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ İੇȞĮȚ ਕȞĮȖțĮȓĮ țĮIJȐ IJȡȩʌȠ ıȣȝʌȜȘȡȦȝĮIJȚțȩ, ȖȚȐ ȞȐ ȖȓȞȠȣȞ ਕȞIJȚȜȘʌIJȑȢ Ƞੂ Ƞ੝ıȚĮıIJȚțȑȢ ʌĮȡȐȝİIJȡȠȚ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȡȓıİȦȞ țĮȓ Ƞੂ ਥʌȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȒȞ ੑȡșȩįȠȟȘ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ. ਺ ਕȡȞȘIJȚțȒ įȚȐșİıȘ țȐʌȠȚȦȞ ਕʌȑȞĮȞIJȚ ıIJȒȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ਦȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ įȑȞ įȚțĮȚȠȜȠȖİ૙ ਥʌȠȣįİȞȓ IJȒȞ ਥț IJ૵Ȟ ʌȡȠIJȑȡȦȞ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚȐ IJȠȣȢ ȞȐ ਕʌȠįİȓȟȠȣȞ ੖IJȚ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ įȑȞ ਫ਼ijȓıIJĮIJĮȚ țĮȝȓĮ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ, ȖȚĮIJȓ ਖʌȜȠȪıIJĮIJĮ ਫ਼ijȓıIJĮIJĮȚ. ਺ țĮIJĮȖİȖȡĮȝȝȑȞȘ ʌȡȐȖȝĮIJȚ ıȚȦʌȒ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ıIJȩȞ ੑȡșȩįȠȟȠ Ȥ૵ȡȠ, ȖȚ’Į੝IJȩ IJȩ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ, șȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞȐ 29

ȀİıİȜȩʌȠȣȜȠȣ ਝȞȑıIJȘ, ȆȡȠIJȐıİȚȢ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚț߱Ȣ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, ȆȠȣȡȞĮȡȐȢ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ, 2003, țİij. ī, «੊İȡĮIJȚțȒ țĮȓ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȒ Į੝IJȠıȣȞİȚįȘıȓĮ», pp.123148.

214

Chapter Fifteen

ਕȞĮȗȘIJȘșİ૙ ıIJȩ ȡȩȜȠ ʌȠȪ ਥʌİijȪȜĮȟĮȞ Ƞੂ țȠȚȞȦȞȓİȢ ȝȑ țȣȡȓĮȡȤȠ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȩ ʌȚıIJİȪȦ IJȩ ੑȡșȩįȠȟȠ įȩȖȝĮ, IJȒȞ ਥʌȠȤȒ IJોȢ ȞİȦIJİȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ǹ੝IJȩȢ ੒ ȡȩȜȠȢ ਩ȤİȚ IJȐ ਥȟોȢ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ : 1. ਺ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȓĮ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ ੪Ȣ ੂıIJȠȡȚțȩ țĮȓ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȓȢ ȝȑȡİȢ ȝĮȢ ıIJȓȢ ੑȡșȩįȠȟİȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓİȢ ਥțįȘȜȫȞİIJĮȚ țĮȓ ıIJȩ Ȥ૵ȡȠ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȤȦȡȓȢ ੖ȝȦȢ Į੝IJȩ ȞȐ ʌȡȠțĮȜİ૙ ȡȚȗȠıʌĮıIJȚțȑȢ ਕȞIJȚįȡȐıİȚȢ ਕʌȩ IJȩ ıȪȞȠȜȠ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ʌȠȪ șȡȘıțİȪȠȣȞ. 2. ਺ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌĮțȠોȢ ਩ȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ İ੅IJİ ੪Ȣ ਕȡİIJȒ İ੅IJİ ੪Ȣ țĮIJĮȞĮȖțĮıȝȩȢ, įȑȞ ਥʌȑIJȡİȥİ IJȒ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ ȝȚ઼Ȣ įȣȞĮȝȚțોȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ įȚİțįȓțȘıȘȢ ıIJȩ Ȥ૵ȡȠ IJોȢ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ਫį૵ șȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞȐ ȜȘijșİ૙ ਫ਼ʌ’੕ȥȚȞ IJȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ੖IJȚ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ਕʌȩ IJȓȢ Ȥ૵ȡİȢ ȝȑ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȘ ੒ȝȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȖȚȐ ਪȞĮ ȝİȖȐȜȠ ȤȡȠȞȚțȩ įȚȐıIJȘȝĮ ਕʌİIJȑȜİıĮȞ ȝȑȡȠȢ IJોȢ ੗șȦȝĮȞȚțોȢ Į੝IJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȓĮȢ țĮȓ ıȣȞȣʌȒȡȟĮȞ ȝȑ ȜĮȠȪȢ ʌȠȪ IJȐ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȐ IJȠȣȢ ʌȚıIJİȪȦ ȜȩȖȠ IJȠ૨ ੉ıȜȐȝ ਫ਼ʌȠȕȐșȝȚȗĮȞ IJȩ ȡȩȜȠ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ. 3. Ȉȑ Ȥ૵ȡİȢ ȝȑ ੑȡșȩįȠȟĮ șȡȘıțİȚȠ-ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȐ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ, IJȩ ʌȑȡĮıȝĮ IJ૵Ȟ țȠȚȞȦȞȚ૵Ȟ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȘ ıIJĮȜȚȞȚțȒ ĮʌĮȞșȡȦʌȓĮ țĮȓ ਲ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ IJોȢ ʌȜȒȡȠȣȢ ਕʌĮȜȜĮȖોȢ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ਕʌȩ IJȩ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȩ ijĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠ ȝȑ țĮIJĮʌȚİıIJȚțȑȢ țĮȓ țĮIJĮȞĮȖțĮıIJȚțȑȢ ȝİșȩįȠȣȢ, įȑȞ ਩įȦıİ IJȒ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ıIJȒ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ıțȑȥȘ ȞȐ ʌȡȠıȜȐȕİȚ IJȐ ȞȑĮ įİįȠȝȑȞĮ țĮȓ Ƞ੝ıȚĮıIJȚțȐ ਥȖțȜȫȕȚıİ IJȒȞ ਥȞįȠİțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ıȣȝʌİȡȚijȠȡȐ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ıȑ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȑȢ ȝȠȡijȑȢ ȜĮȧțોȢ İ੝ıȑȕİȚĮȢ ȝȑ ȞİȠʌĮȖĮȞȚıIJȚțȑȢ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ijȠȡȑȢ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȑȢ. 4. ȅੂ ȇ૵ıȠȚ ੑȡșȩįȠȟȠȚ șİȠȜȩȖȠȚ IJોȢ įȚĮıʌȠȡ઼Ȣ ȝİIJĮijȑȡȠȣȞ țĮȓ Ƞ੝ıȚĮıIJȚțȐ ਥȟȐȖȠȣȞ IJȒ ȡȦıȚțȒ ıȠijȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJોȢ IJıĮȡȚțોȢ ʌİȡȚȩįȠȣ, ਩ȤȠȞIJĮȢ ʌȐȞIJĮ țĮIJȐ ȞȠ૨ Į੝IJȩ ʌȠȪ ʌȡȠȑțȣȥİ ੪Ȣ «ਫ਼ʌĮȡțIJȩ» ȝİIJȐ IJȒ ȡȦıȚțȒ ਥʌĮȞȐıIJĮıȘ. ȆĮȡ’੖IJȚ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ șİȠȜȠȖȠ૨Ȟ ਥʌȘȡİĮıȝȑȞȠȚ ਕʌȩ IJȒ ȡȦıȚțȒ ıȠijȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ șȐ ȝʌȠȡȠ૨ıĮȞ ਥȞ IJȠȪIJȠȚȢ ȞȐ țĮIJĮȞȠȒıȠȣȞ IJȐ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJĮ ȝȑ ȝȚȐ ʌȚȩ țȡȚIJȚțȒ ıțȑȥȘ, țĮșȫȢ ȗȠ૨Ȟ ʌȜȑȠȞ ıȑ ਪȞĮ IJİȜİȓȦȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȩ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞ. ǻȑȞ IJȩȜȝȘıĮȞ Į੝IJȩ IJȩ ʌȑȡĮıȝĮ țĮȓ ਕȞIJȚșȑIJȦȢ ıȣȞȑȤȚıĮȞ ȞȐ șİȠȜȠȖȠ૨Ȟ ȖȚȐ IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ıIJȡĮIJİȣȝȑȞȠȚ ıIJȩ ȞȐ įȚțĮȚȠȜȠȖȒıȠȣȞ IJȒ șȑıȘ ʌȠȪ țĮIJȑȤİȚ ıIJȒȞ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȘ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ. ȂȚȐ İੁȜȚțȡȚȞȒȢ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJોȢ ȡȦıȚțોȢ ıțȑȥȘȢ șȐ ਥʌİıȒȝĮȞİ IJȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ੖IJȚ ਲ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣȢ įȑȞ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ ȝȑȡȠȢ IJȠ૨ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠ૨ țĮȓ ੂıIJȠȡȚțȠ૨ ȖȓȖȞİıșĮȚ. ੲȢ ਥț IJȠȪIJȠȣ įȑȞ ਕȞIJȚȜĮȝȕȐȞİIJĮȚ IJȒȞ ਦȞȩIJȘIJĮ IJ૵Ȟ ੂıIJȠȡȚț૵Ȟ țĮȓ țȠȚȞȦȞȚț૵Ȟ

Typology of Women’s Submission to Men

215

ʌĮȡĮȝȑIJȡȦȞ țĮȓ IJȩ ʌȩıȠ Į੝IJȑȢ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒ ıȤȑıȘ ĮੁIJȓȠȣ țĮȓ ĮੁIJȚĮIJȠ૨ ਥʌȘȡİȐȗȠȣȞ IJȒȞ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ.30 ਺ ਙȡȞȘıȘ ȝȚ઼Ȣ IJȑIJȠȚĮȢ șİȝİȜȚȫįȠȣȢ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘȢ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞĮ țĮȓ ਙȡȞȘıȘ IJોȢ ਕʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘȢ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨ ਥȞ ȋȡȚıIJ૶ ੉ȘıȠ૨ ıIJȩ ੂıIJȠȡȚțȩ țĮȓ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ ȖȓȖȞİıșĮȚ. ȂȚȐ IJȑIJȠȚĮ ਙȡȞȘıȘ İੇȞĮȚ țĮIJ’Ƞ੝ıȓĮȞ ਕȞIJȚȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ, țĮșȫȢ țĮIJĮȡȖİ૙ IJȒȞ ੂıIJȠȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȓ IJȒȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠ૨ ʌȜȒȡȠȣȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ੪Ȣ ਙȡıİȞ țĮȓ șોȜȣ ਥȞ ੑȞȩȝĮIJȚ IJોȢ șİȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȓ ਥȞ ੑȞȩȝĮIJȚ IJȠ૨ ਕȞįȡȩȢ. ȆȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚȐ ȝȚȐ ȝȠȞȠijȣȜȠIJȚțȒ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȚȐıIJĮıȘ ʌȠȪ ʌİȡȚȠȡȓȗİȚ IJȒȞ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ੢ʌĮȡȟȘ IJȠ૨ șİĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ țĮIJȐ IJȩ ij૨ȜȠȞ IJȠ૨ ਕȞįȡȩȢ țĮȓ ਩IJıȚ ਕȜȜȠȚȫȞİȚ IJȒȞ țĮȓ ੖ȜȦȢ ਕȞșȡȦʌȓȞȘ ijȪıȘ IJȠ૨ ਯȞıĮȡțȠȣ ȁȩȖȠȣ. ਯIJıȚ IJȩ īĮȜ. 3,28 ਥȟȣȝȞİ૙IJĮȚ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ țĮȓ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ਕʌȠıȚȦʌ઼IJĮȚ, ੖ȝȦȢ, ੖IJĮȞ ਕȞĮȗȘIJȠ૨ȞIJĮȚ ਥijĮȡȝȠȖȑȢ IJȠȣ ıIJȒȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ țĮȓ ıIJȒȞ șİıȝȚțȒ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮ. ਺ ਕʌȠıȚȫʌȘıȘ ʌȡȠțĮȜİ૙ «ਕʌȠȡȓĮ» ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ, ੖ȝȦȢ, İੇȞĮȚ ıțȩʌȚȝȘ țĮȓ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİȚ IJȒȞ ਕįȣȞĮȝȓĮ IJ૵Ȟ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮȡȤȚț૵Ȟ ȞȐ țĮIJĮȞȠȒıȠȣȞ IJȓȢ ਥʌȚįȡȐıİȚȢ IJ૵Ȟ țȠȚȞȦȞȚț૵Ȟ ਕȞĮȜȪıİȦȞ ıIJȒȞ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ.31 5. ȈIJȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȠ૨ ȠੁțȠȣȝİȞȚțȠ૨ įȚĮȜȩȖȠȣ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJ૵Ȟ ਥțțȜȘıȚ૵Ȟ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Ƞ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȒȞ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȘ țĮȓ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒ ȝȚȐ țĮȓ IJȓȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓİȢ IJોȢ ȂİIJĮȡȡȪșȝȚıȘȢ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ਙȜȜȘ İੇȞĮȚ IJȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ੖IJȚ IJȩ status IJોȢ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ, ıIJȠȪȢ ȝȑȞ țĮȓ ıIJȠȪȢ įȑ, İੇȞĮȚ IJİȜİȓȦȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩ. ȆȡȫIJȘ țĮȓ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ įȚĮijȠȡȐ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ IJȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ੖IJȚ ıIJȠȪȢ ʌȡȫIJȠȣȢ ਲ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ İੇȞĮȚ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ ȝȑ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȑȢ țĮȓ įȚȠȚțȘIJȚțȑȢ ʌȡȠİțIJȐıİȚȢ, ਥȞȫ ıIJȠȪȢ įİȪIJİȡȠȣȢ ʌȡȦIJȓıIJȦȢ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȩ țĮȓ įİȣIJİȡİȣȩȞIJȦȢ įȚȠȚțȘIJȚțȩ ਕȟȓȦȝĮ. ਯIJıȚ ਥȞ૵ ıIJȠȪȢ ȝȑȞ ʌȡȫIJȠȣȢ ਲ ਕȞIJȚȝİIJȫʌȚıȘ İੇȞĮȚ ਦȞȚĮȓĮ, ıIJȠȪȢ įİȪIJİȡȠȣȢ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ ਥȜİȣșİȡȓĮ ਩țijȡĮıȘȢ țĮȓ ʌȡĮțIJȚțોȢ. ȈIJȓȢ Ǽ੝ĮȖȖİȜȚțȑȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓİȢ Ȝ.Ȥ ਲ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ਫ਼ijȓıIJĮIJĮȚ ੪Ȣ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȩ țĮȓ įȚȠȚțȘIJȚțȩ ਕȟȓȦȝĮ ਥȞȫ ਕȞIJȚșȑIJȦȢ ıIJȒȞ ਬȜȜȘȞȚțȒ Ǽ੝ĮȖȖİȜȚțȒ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ įȑȞ ਥʌȚIJȡȑʌİIJĮȚ, ਕțȠȜȠȣșȫȞIJĮȢ ıȤİįȩȞ țĮIJȐ ȖȡȐȝȝĮ IJȓȢ ıȣȞIJȘȡȘIJȚțȑȢ ਕʌȩȥİȚȢ IJોȢ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțોȢ țĮȓ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ʌİȡȓ įȚȐțȡȚıȘȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȟȚȦȝȐIJȦȞ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȐ įȪȠ ijȪȜĮ. ੥ʌİȡIJȠȞȓȗİIJĮȚ IJȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ੖IJȚ ਕʌȩ IJȒ ijȪıȘ IJȘȢ ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ įȑȞ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ ȞȐ ਕıțİ૙ ਥȟȠȣıȓĮ ਥȞIJȩȢ IJોȢ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, IJĮȣIJȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJȒȞ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ șİıȝȚțȐ ੪Ȣ ਙıțȘıȘ 30 ǺĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘ Ȇ., «਺ ijȚȜȠıȠijȚțȒ ਦȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ», ȆȡĮțIJȚțȐ IJોȢ ǹ ĭȚȜȠıȠijȚțોȢ ਺ȝİȡȓįĮȢ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘȢ, 1985, ı. 124. 31 ȆȡȕȜ. ਝȜİȟȐȞįȡȠȣ ȈȝȑȝĮȞ, «਺ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ», ıIJȩ ȈȊȃǹȄǾ IJ.36, pp. 47-52 țĮȓ Paul Evdokimov, La femme et le salut du monde, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1970.

216

Chapter Fifteen

ਥȟȠȣıȓĮȢ țȐIJȚ ıIJȩ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ ਵįȘ ਕȞĮijİȡșȒțĮȝİ șİȦȡȫȞIJĮȢ ੖IJȚ ੪Ȣ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ İੇȞĮȚ ਕʌȩȡȠȚĮ IJȠ૨ ȝİıĮȓȦȞĮ. ੘ʌȠȚĮįȒʌȠIJİ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ ıȣıȤȑIJȚıȘ IJોȢ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ıIJȩȞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȩ Ȥ૵ȡȠ ȝȑ IJȩ Į੅IJȘȝĮ ȖȚȐ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ıIJȒȞ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȓ ıIJȓȢ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟİȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓİȢ İੇȞĮȚ ਥʌȚıijĮȜȒȢ, țĮșȫȢ IJȐ įİįȠȝȑȞĮ ıȑ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ İੇȞĮȚ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȐ. Ȉȑ Į੝IJȩ İੁįȚțȐ IJȩ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ ੑȟȪȞȠȞIJĮȚ Ƞੂ įȚĮijȦȞȓİȢ țĮșȫȢ ਲ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ıIJȒȞ ਝȖȖȜȚțĮȞȚțȒ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȓ ıIJȒ ȆĮȜĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ੒įȒȖȘıİ ıȑ įȚĮțȠʌȒ IJȠ૨ įȚĮȜȩȖȠȣ ıȑ ਥʌȓʌİįȠ ਫțțȜȘıȚ૵Ȟ.

3. īȚȐ ʌȠȚȐ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ȝȚȜ઼ȝİ; ȈȒȝİȡĮ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡİ૙IJĮȚ ੖IJȚ IJȩ ȖȣȞĮȚțİ૙Ƞ țȓȞȘȝĮ ʌȡȠıȕȜȑʌİȚ ıȑ ȝȚȐ ਕʌȩȜȣIJȘ ੁıȩIJȘIJĮ ȝȑ IJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ ıȑ ੖ȜȠȣȢ IJȠȪȢ IJȠȝİ૙Ȣ, ʌȡȠıʌĮșȫȞIJĮȢ ȞȐ ਕʌȠįİȓȟİȚ ੖IJȚ ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İੇȞĮȚ IJȩ ੅įȚȠ ੂțĮȞȒ ȝȑ Į੝IJȩȞ. ਫȖțĮIJĮȜİȓʌİȚ, ੖ȝȦȢ ਵ țĮȓ ਕįȚĮijȠȡİ૙ ȖȚȐ IJȒ įȚĮIJȒȡȘıȘ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȦȞ ਕȟȚ૵Ȟ țĮȓ IJોȢ șȘȜȣțȩIJȘIJĮȢ ੪Ȣ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȦȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚț૵Ȟ. ੘ ਕȖȫȞĮȢ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ੖IJȚ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ȖȚȐ ȞȐ țĮIJĮȜȐȕİȚ ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ IJȓȢ șȑıİȚȢ ਥȟȠȣıȓĮȢ ʌȠȪ țĮIJİ૙Ȥİ ੪Ȣ ıȒȝİȡĮ ੒ ਙȞįȡĮȢ, ਩ȤȠȞIJĮȢ ੪Ȣ ıțȠʌȩ ੕ȤȚ ȞȐ IJȓȢ ȝİIJĮȝȠȡijȫıİȚ, ਕȜȜȐ ȖȚȐ ȞȐ IJȓȢ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȒıİȚ ੪Ȣ țĮș’੖ȝȠȓȦıȚȞ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ. ਫį૵ ȕȡȓıțİIJĮȚ țĮȓ ਲ ıȣȝijȦȞȓĮ ਵ ਕȞIJȚijȦȞȓĮ ੖ıȠȞ ਕijȠȡ઼ ıIJȩ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJોȢ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ.32 ǻȚİțįȚțİ૙IJĮȚ ਲ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ ȝȑ ıțȠʌȩ IJȒ ȝİIJĮȝȩȡijȦıȒ IJȘȢ ıȑ șİıȝȩ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ țĮȓ ʌȡȠıijȠȡ઼Ȣ ਵ ȝȑ ıțȠʌȩ ȞȐ ਕʌȠįİȚȤșİ૙ ੖IJȚ țĮȓ Į੝IJȑȢ ȝʌȠȡȠ૨Ȟ ȞȐ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒıȠȣȞ IJȩ ੅įȚȠ ਥȟȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȐ țĮȓ ੂİȡĮȡȤȚțȐ ੖ʌȦȢ Ƞੂ ਙȞįȡİȢ; ਺ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ʌȑȡĮ ਕʌȩ ਪȞĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ ıȪȝȕȠȜȠ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ țĮȓ ijȠȡȑĮ ȝȚ઼Ȣ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȘȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțોȢ ਕȟȓĮȢ. ਺ ȝʌȠȕȠȣĮȡȚțȒ ȝȓȝȘıȘ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ33 ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ ȖȚȐ IJȩ ȖȣȞĮȚțİ૙Ƞ țȓȞȘȝĮ ȝȚȐ ਖʌȜȒ ıȠȕĮȡȠijȐȞİȚĮ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ਥʌȚȝȑȞİȚ ȞȐ įȚĮIJȘȡİ૙ IJȐ ਥȟȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȐ ਕȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȚțȐ ੁıȤȣȡȐ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ IJȠ૨ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȣ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȠ૨. ਺ įȣȞĮȝȚțȒ IJȘȢ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ șȐ ੕ijİȚȜİ ȞȐ ਕȞĮįİȓȟİȚ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȐ IJȐ ȖȣȞĮȚțİ૙Į ਥțİ૙ȞĮ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ ʌȠȪ șȐ ਕȞȑIJȡİʌĮȞ IJȒȞ ਕȞįȡȚțȒ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȒ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȓĮ. ੘ ijİȝȚȞȚıȝȩȢ, ੪Ȣ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ ıȣȞȠȜȚțȒ țĮȓ țĮșȠȜȚțȒ, ਩ȡȤİIJĮȚ, țĮIJ’ਕȞȐȖțȘȞ, ȞȐ ਕȝijȚıȕȘIJȒıİȚ IJȒȞ «țȣȡȓĮȡȤȘ» ਕȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȚțȒ ıțȑȥȘ, ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ țĮȓ ਥȟȠȣıȓĮ. Ȉ’Į੝IJȩ IJȩ 32 ਺ Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, ਕʌȩ IJȩȞ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȠ Ȥ૵ȡȠ, ȝȚȜ઼ ਕȞȠȚțIJȐ țĮȓ ȟİțȐșĮȡĮ ȖȚȐ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ıIJȒ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȘ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ʌĮȡȐ IJȓȢ įȚĮțȘȡȪȟİȚȢ IJોȢ ਥʌȓıȘȝȘȢ șİıȝȚțોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ੖IJȚ įȑȞ ਫ਼ijȓıIJĮIJĮȚ IJȑIJȠȚȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ ıIJȒȞ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȘ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ, ıIJȩ «L’ ordination des femmes: Un point chaud du Dialoque oecoumenique», Contacts, IJ.195, 2001. 33 ǺȜ. Valerie Bryson, ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ȆȠȜȚIJȚțȒ ĬİȦȡȓĮ, ȂİIJĮȓȤȝȚȠ, 2005, pp. 204216.

Typology of Women’s Submission to Men

217

ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ, İੇȞĮȚ ਕȞIJȚijĮIJȚțȩ ȞȐ ਥʌȚįȚȫțİȚ ਕȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȚțȠ૨ IJȪʌȠȣ ਥȟȠȣıȓİȢ. Ȃȑ įİįȠȝȑȞȠ IJȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ੖IJȚ IJȒȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȒ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİ૙ ੒ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩȢ țĮȓ țĮIJȐ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ įȪȞĮIJĮȚ țĮȓ ȞȐ IJȒ įȚĮȝȠȡijȫȞİȚ, ੒ʌȠȚĮįȒʌȠIJİ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ ʌȠȪ ਖʌȜ૵Ȣ șȑȜİȚ ȞȐ IJȒȞ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijİȚ țĮȓ ȞȐ IJȒȞ țĮIJĮȞȠİ૙ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ ȞȐ ਕʌȠțȜİȓİȚ țĮIJȐ IJȩ įȠțȠ૨Ȟ ıȣȝʌİȡȚijȠȡȑȢ ʌȠȪ įȑȞ ʌȡȠıĮȡȝȩȗȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȐ įİįȠȝȑȞĮ IJȘȢ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȒ Lou Andreas-Salomé IJȩ ਕȞįȡȚțȩ ij૨ȜȠ ਕȞĮʌIJȪııİIJĮȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȐ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ țĮȓ ਫ਼ʌȩ IJȩ țȡȐIJȠȢ IJોȢ ਕȞȐȖțȘȢ ਥʌ’ਙʌİȚȡȠȞ, ਥȞȫ IJȩ șȘȜȣțȩ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞȐ İੇȞĮȚ ਥȖȖİȖȡĮȝȝȑȞȠ ı’ ਪȞĮ țȜİȚıIJȩ ț૨țȜȠ ਕʌȩ IJȩȞ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ ʌȠIJȑ įȑȞ ਥȟȑȡȤİIJĮȚ. ਺ ਥȟȒȖȘıȘ ʌȠȪ įȓȞİIJĮȚ ȖȚ’Į੝IJȩȞ IJȩȞ ਥȖȖİȖȡĮȝȝȑȞȠ țȜİȚıIJȩ ț૨țȜȠ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙ țĮIJȐ IJȒȞ ੅įȚĮ țȐIJȚ IJȩ IJİȜİȓȦȢ ijȣıȚțȩ, ਪȞĮ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȩ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ ੒ȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ਕʌȩ IJȒȞ ੅įȚĮ IJȒ ĭȪıȘ ੪Ȣ ਪȞĮ ʌȡȠıȤȑįȚȠ ȝȚ઼Ȣ ਙșȚțIJȘȢ ਖȡȝȠȞȓĮȢ, ȝȚ઼Ȣ ਫ਼ȥȘȜોȢ IJİȜİȚȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȓ ੒ȜȠțȜȒȡȦıȘȢ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ʌȘȖȐȗİȚ ਕʌȩ IJȒ ıIJİȞȩIJİȡȘ ıȣȞȐijİȚĮ IJȠ૨ șȘȜȣțȠ૨ ȝȑ IJȩ ਙʌİȚȡȠ ੜȜȠȞ.34 īȡȐijİȚ: «ਲ ȝȩȞȘ ȝĮȢ ਥʌȚȜȠȖȒ İੇȞĮȚ ȞȐ įȚĮțȘȡȪIJIJȠȣȝİ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ IJȒȞ ਥȜİȣșİȡȓĮ ȝĮȢ țĮȓ ȝȩȞȠ IJȒȞ ਥȜİȣșİȡȓĮ, ȞȐ țĮIJĮȜȪȠȣȝİ țȐșİ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȩ țĮȓ ȞȐ ıȣȞIJȡȓȕȠȣȝİ țȐșİ IJİȤȞȘIJȩ ਥȝʌȩįȚȠ, ȖȚĮIJȓ İੇȞĮȚ ʌȚȩ ijȡȩȞȚȝȠ ȞȐ ਥȝʌȚıIJİȣȩȝĮıIJİ IJȒ ijȦȞȒ IJોȢ ਥʌȚșȣȝȓĮȢ, ʌȠȪ ȕȖĮȓȞİȚ ਕʌȩ IJȐ ıʌȜȐȤȞĮ IJોȢ ੅įȚĮȢ IJોȢ ੢ʌĮȡȟȘȢ --ਕțȩȝȘ țĮȓ ੖IJĮȞ Į੝IJȒ ਲ ijȦȞȒ ਥȟȦIJİȡȚțİȪİIJĮȚ ȝȑ IJȡȩʌȠ ਩ȝȝİıȠ— ʌĮȡȐ IJȓȢ ʌȡȠțĮIJĮıțİȣĮıȝȑȞİȢ țĮȓ ʌĮȡĮʌȠȚȘȝȑȞİȢ șİȦȡȓİȢ».35 ਺ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȕȡȓıțİIJĮȚ ȝʌȡȠıIJȐ ıȑ ਪȞĮ ਕʌĮIJȘȜȩ įȓȜȘȝȝĮ: ਵ ȞȐ įȚİțįȚțȒıİȚ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒ IJȘȢ ȠȜȠțȜȒȡȦıȘ ਥʌȚȜȑȖȠȞIJĮȢ ȝȚȐ ਥʌĮȖȖİȜȝĮIJȚțȒ ıIJĮįȚȠįȡȠȝȓĮ ਵ ȞȐ ʌĮȡĮȝİȓȞİȚ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖȝȑȞȘ ੪Ȣ ıIJȒȡȚȖȝĮ IJ૵Ȟ ijȚȜȠįȠȟȚ૵Ȟ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ. ȀĮȓ Ƞੂ įȪȠ Į੝IJȑȢ ıȣȝʌİȡȚijȠȡȑȢ, ਕȞĮIJȡȑʌȠȣȞ IJȒ ijȣıȚțȒ ੁıȠȡȡȠʌȓĮ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, țĮșȫȢ IJȒȞ IJȠʌȠșİIJȠ૨Ȟ ਩ȟȦ ਕʌȩ Į੝IJȩ ʌȠȪ İੇȞĮȚ, ıȑ ਪȞĮ ਙȜȜȠ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ ੕Ȟ. ȀĮȓ ਲ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ, ੖ȝȦȢ, IJોȢ ijȪıȘȢ IJોȢ ȝȘIJȡȩIJȘIJĮȢ, įȑȞ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞȐ ʌĮȡĮȖȞȦȡȓȗİȚ IJȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ੖IJȚ ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İੇȞĮȚ ȝȑȡȠȢ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ țĮȓ ੪Ȣ ਥț IJȠȪIJȠȣ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ ਥȞIJİȜ૵Ȣ ਥȜİȪșİȡȠ țĮȓ Į੝IJȩȞȠȝȠ ıIJȒ ȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȠ૨ Į੝IJİȟȠȣıȓȠȣ. ǹ੝IJȒ ਲ ਥȜİȣșİȡȓĮ ıȘȝĮIJȠįȠIJİ૙ ȖȚȐ IJȒ șȘȜȣțȩIJȘIJĮ ȝȚȐ ਕȞȦIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮ, ȝȚȐ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ ıIJȒ ȝȣıIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ IJોȢ ਪȞȦıȘȢ ȝȑ IJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ȟİʌİȡȞ઼ IJȒȞ ਥȟȦIJİȡȚțȒ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ. ਺ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ įȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJોȢ ਥȜİȣșİȡȓĮȢ, ʌĮȡȐ IJȓȢ ʌȡȠțĮIJĮıțİȣĮıȝȑȞİȢ țĮȓ ʌĮȡĮʌȠȚȘȝȑȞİȢ șİȦȡȓİȢ İੇȞĮȚ Į੝IJȒ ʌȠȪ țȡĮIJ઼ IJȩ ਥȡȫIJȘȝĮ ਕȞȠȚțIJȩ țĮȓ ȖȚȐ IJȒȞ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȘ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ. Ȇ૵Ȣ ਕȞIJȚȜĮȝȕȐȞİIJĮȚ IJȒ ıȤȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȝȑ IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, IJȩ ȖȣȞĮȚțİ૙Ƞ ijȪȜȠ, IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ, IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ-ਙȞșȡȦʌȠ, ıȒȝİȡĮ; ȉȩ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ, ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȩ țĮȓ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȩ 34 35

‫ܻ ݠ‬ȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ijȪıȘ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, ȇȠȑȢ, ਝșȒȞĮ, 2005, pp.19-21. ibid., p.58.

218

Chapter Fifteen

IJોȢ ੁıȩIJȘIJĮȢ ਥȞ ਞȖȓȦ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ țĮȓ ਥȞ IJો ਖȖȚȩIJȘIJȚ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚİ૙IJĮȚ țĮȓ ȖȚĮIJȓ ਕʌȩ IJȩ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ țĮȓ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȐ Į੝IJȠȞȩȘIJȠ ਕȜȜȐ ȝȒ ਫ਼ʌĮȡțIJȩ įİįȠȝȑȞȠ IJોȢ ੁıȩIJȘIJĮȢ ਥȞ IJȠ૙Ȣ įȚțĮȚȫȝĮıȚ; Ȃȑ ʌȠȚȐ ȜȠȖȚțȒ, ਲ șȘȜȣțȩIJȘIJĮ ਕʌȠȕȐȜȜİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ țȐʌȠȚİȢ įȚĮıIJȐıİȚȢ IJȘȢ «ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» țĮȓ țȣȡȓȦȢ IJોȢ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȒȢ ʌȡȐȟȘȢ ੪Ȣ ȝȒ ਥȞȠȚțȠ૨ıĮ ıIJȒ ıȣȞȐȞIJȘıȘ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȝȑ IJȒ ijȪıȘ țĮȓ ȝȑ IJȩȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩ; Ȃȑ ȕȐıȘ ʌȠȚȐ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ (੕ȤȚ șİıȝȚțȒ) ਲ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ੪Ȣ ȝȑȡȠȢ IJોȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ șȞȘIJોȢ ıȐȡțĮȢ ıIJȒȞ ਕȞĮʌĮȡĮȖȦȖȒ țĮȓ IJȒ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ IJȠ૨ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠ૨ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȓ IJȠ૨ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȠ૨ ȖİȖȠȞȩIJȠȢ, țĮIJȘȖȠȡȚȠʌȠȚİ૙IJĮȚ țĮȓ įȚĮțȡȓȞİIJĮȚ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ੪Ȣ įȚȐijȠȡȘ țĮȓ ਫ਼ʌȠįİȑıIJİȡȘ IJોȢ ਕȞįȡȚțોȢ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤોȢ; ਺ șİȠȜȩȖȠȢ țĮșȘȖȒIJȡȚĮ ȀĮ ȆȘȖȒ ȀĮȗȜȐȡȘ, ȝȚȜȫȞIJĮȢ ȖȚȐ IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ įȚĮijȠȡȐ țĮȓ IJȒ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ıȣȞȪʌĮȡȟȘȢ IJȘȢ ȝȑ IJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ ਕȞĮijȑȡİȚ: «ȅੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ țĮȓ Ƞੂ ਙȞįȡİȢ ȝȑ IJȒȞ ੢ʌĮȡȟȒ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȩȞ țȩıȝȠ ਥȞİȡȖȠ૨Ȟ, ਕıijĮȜ૵Ȣ, ȝȑ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȠȪȢ IJȡȩʌȠȣȢ. ȅੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ʌȠȪ ȝȑıĮ ਕʌȩ ȖİȞİȑȢ ȖİȞİ૵Ȟ țȡĮIJȠ૨Ȟ IJȩ ıȣȞĮȚıșȘȝĮIJȚțȩ ੂıIJȩ IJોȢ ȠੁțȠȖȑȞİȚĮȢ țĮȓ IJોȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ İੇȞĮȚ ਕıțȘȝȑȞİȢ ı’Į੝IJȩ. ਯȤȠȣȞ ȝȚȐ Į੝șȩȡȝȘIJȘ IJȐıȘ ȞȐ İੇȞĮȚ įȚĮșȑıȚȝİȢ țĮȓ ਕȞȠȚțIJȑȢ, țȐȞȠȣȞ İ੝țȠȜȩIJİȡĮ Ȥ૵ȡȠ ȖȚȐ țȐʌȠȚȠȞ ਙȜȜȠ (ȜȩȖ૳ IJોȢ ȝȘIJȡȩIJȘIJĮȢ; ʌȠȜȚIJȚıIJȚț૵Ȟ țĮIJĮȕȠȜ૵Ȟ ĮੁȫȞȦȞ; Į੝IJȩ įȑȞ ਕȜȜȐȗİȚ IJȩ ਕʌȠIJȑȜİıȝĮ). Ǽ੡țȠȜĮ IJȐııȠȣȞ IJȩȞ ਦĮȣIJȩ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȒȞ ʌȡȠıIJĮıȓĮ țĮȓ IJȒ įȚĮIJȒȡȘıȘ IJોȢ ȗȦોȢ. ੜȜĮ Į੝IJȐ İੇȞĮȚ ʌȠȜȪIJȚȝĮ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Į ʌȠȪ IJȓȢ ੩șȠ૨Ȟ ȞȐ ıțȪȥȠȣȞ ʌȐȞȦ ıIJȩȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠ, ıIJȩȞ țȐșİ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠǯ ȞȐ ʌȡȠıʌĮșȒıȠȣȞ ȞȐ IJȩȞ ȖȞȦȡȓıȠȣȞ țĮȓ ȞȐ ਥʌȚțȠȚȞȦȞȒıȠȣȞ ȝĮȗȓ IJȠȣ. ਺ ijȠȞIJĮȝİȞIJĮȜȚıIJȚțȒ ıȣȞİȓįȘıȘ ਫ਼ȥȫȞİȚ IJİȓȤȘ ਕʌȩ ੁįȑİȢ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȓȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞİȢ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȟİȚȢ țĮȓ ȖȚȐ ȤȐȡȘ IJ૵Ȟ ੁįİ૵Ȟ ʌĮȡĮȝİȡȓȗİȚ țȐșİ İ੝ıʌȜĮȤȞȓĮ țĮȓ ਕȞșȡȦʌȚȐ. ਺ ȖȞȫıȘ IJȠ૨ ਙȜȜȠȣ, ੖ʌȦȢ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȐ İੇȞĮȚ, țĮȓ ੕ȤȚ ੖ʌȦȢ ਲ ijĮȞIJĮıȓĮ ȝĮȢ IJȩȞ ʌĮȡĮȝȠȡijȫȞİȚ, ਕijȠʌȜȓȗİȚ ȤȑȡȚĮ țĮȓ ıȣȞĮȚıșȒȝĮIJĮ».36 ਺ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ਫ਼ʌȠįȘȜȫȞİȚ ȝȚȐ IJİȜİȓȦȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȖȚıȘ IJોȢ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ, ਩ȟȦ ਕʌȩ ıȤȒȝĮIJĮ țĮȓ ıȪȝȕȠȜĮ ਕȞįȡȠțİȞIJȡȚțોȢ ਥȟȠȣıȓĮȢ. ȂȚȐ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJોȢ ਕȜȜȘȜİȖȖȪȘȢ, IJોȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțોȢ ʌȡȠıijȠȡ઼Ȣ, IJોȢ țİȞȦIJȚțોȢ ਕȖȐʌȘȢ, IJોȢ ıȣȞȪʌĮȡȟȘȢ, IJોȢ İੁȡȒȞȘȢ, IJોȢ ʌĮȡȐțȜȘıȘȢ, IJોȢ ʌȡĮȩIJȘIJĮȢ, IJોȢ įȚțĮȚȠıȪȞȘȢ. ǽȘIJİ૙IJĮȚ, IJİȜȚțȐ, ਥʌĮȞĮʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȚıȝȩȢ IJ૵Ȟ ıȤȑıİȦȞ ਕȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȒȞ įȠȝȒ IJȒȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮȓ IJȒ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ੪Ȣ ਫ਼ʌȠțİȓȝİȞȠ ਦȞȩȢ ਙȜȜȠȣ ȝȒ ਕȞįȡȠțİȞIJȡȚțȠ૨ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȠ૨. ȉȒ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ੪Ȣ ijȠȡȑĮ ȝȚ઼Ȣ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ ʌȠȪ ਥʌȚȗȘIJİ૙ IJȒȞ İੁȡȘȞȚțȒ ıȣȞȪʌĮȡȟȘ ȝȑ IJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ ıIJȘȡȚȗȩȝİȞȘ ıIJȒȞ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘ țĮȓ ıIJȒȞ ਕʌȠįȠȤȒ IJȠ૨ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȠ૨. ੘ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJોȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ı’Į੝IJȒ IJȒ ʌȠȡİȓĮ IJોȢ ıȣȞȪʌĮȡȟȘȢ șȐ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞȐ İੇȞĮȚ ਕʌȠȝȣșİȣIJȚțȩȢ, ਫ਼ʌİȡȕĮIJȚțȩȢ, țȡȚIJȚțȩȢ, įȣȞĮȝȚțȩȢ țĮȓ, ਙȞ ȤȡİȚĮıIJİ૙, ਕȞĮIJȡİʌIJȚțȩȢ. 36

«ȅੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ਕʌȑȞĮȞIJȚ ıIJȩ ijĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠ IJȠ૨ țȜȘȡȚțĮȜȚıȝȠ૨», ıIJȩ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȓ ĬȡȘıțİȓĮ, ibid., p.470.

Typology of Women’s Submission to Men

219

ਝʌȑȞĮȞIJȚ ıȑ ȝȚȐ ʌĮșȘIJȚțȒ ਕʌȠįȠȤȒ ੁįİȠȜȠȖȚț૵Ȟ ਕȞIJȚȜȒȥİȦȞ șİȠțȡĮIJȚțȠ૨ IJȪʌȠȣ ʌȠȪ șİȦȡȠ૨Ȟ IJȒȞ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ੪Ȣ ਕȞIJĮȞȐțȜĮıȘ IJોȢ ǺĮıȚȜİȓĮȢ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨,37 ਲ ʌȠȡİȓĮ ਕʌİȖțȜȦȕȚıȝȠ૨ șȐ İੇȞĮȚ ıȣȞİȤȒȢ țĮȓ ੒ ıIJȩȤȠȢ ıIJĮșİȡȩȢ, țĮșȫȢ ਲ ਥıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȚȐıIJĮıȘ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ਥțijȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ ੖IJĮȞ ਕȞĮIJȡȑʌoȞIJĮȚ țĮIJİıIJȘȝȑȞİȢ, ʌĮȡİȜșȠȞIJȚțȑȢ țĮȓ ȝİıĮȚȦȞȚțȠ૨ IJȪʌȠȣ ਕȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ, țĮIJĮȞȠȠ૨ȞIJĮȚ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ਥȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮ țĮȓ ੒įȘȖİ૙IJĮȚ ਲ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ıȑ ȝȚȐ ıȣȞİȤȒ ਕȞĮȗȒIJȘıȘ ਫ਼ʌȑȡȕĮıȘȢ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮȚȡȑıİȦȞ țĮȓ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȡȓıİȦȞ ਥȞ IJȩʌ૳ țĮȓ ਥȞ ȤȡȩȞ૳.

37

ਡȜȜȦıIJİ, ੒ ȃȚțȩȜĮȠȢ ȀĮȕȐıȚȜĮȢ ȖȡȐijİȚ ȖȚȐ IJȒȞ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ, țȡȓȞȠȞIJĮȢ ੖IJȚ IJȩ ȗȘIJȠȪȝİȞȠ ȖȚ’ Į੝IJȒȞ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ: «ȉȠ૨IJȠ ȖĮȡ ਥıIJȓȞ ਲ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ, įȪȞĮȝȚȢ ਫ਼ʌȘȡİIJȚțȒ IJȚȢ IJ૵Ȟ ੂİȡ૵Ȟ, ȖȚĮIJȓ ੒ ੂİȡİȪȢ ਫ਼ʌȘȡȑIJȘȢ ਥıIJȓ ȝȩȞȠȞ, Ƞ੝į’Į੝IJȩ IJȩ ਫ਼ʌȘȡİIJİ૙Ȟ Ƞ੅țȠșİȞ ਩ȤȦȞǯ țĮȓ IJȠ૨IJȠ ȖȐȡ ʌĮȡȐ IJોȢ ȤȐȡȚIJȠȢ Į੝IJ૶», ıIJȩ ǼੁȢ IJȒȞ șİȓĮȞ ȁİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮȞ, ĭȚȜȠțĮȜȓĮ, 22, īȡȘȖȩȡȚȠȢ ȆĮȜĮȝȐȢ, 47,8, p.220.

CHAPTER SIXTEEN WOMEN’S ORDINATION AND THE ESCHATOLOGICAL BODY: TOWARDS AN ORTHODOX ANTHROPOLOGY BEYOND SEXUAL DIFFERENCE SPYRIDOULA ATHANASOPOULOU-KYPRIOU

Abstract: The aim of my paper is to consider the construction of Christian Orthodox anthropology beyond sexual ideology and towards the eschatological body. Among the arguments put forward by the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church against the ordination of women, the sex of the incarnated word of God appears as a fundamental one, and makes the female human being unsuitable to represent Christ. Those who argue against the ordination of women acknowledge that: a) the aim of the incarnation of the son of God was exactly the restoration of the unity of divided human nature and; b) in Christ, men and women are equal. However, they support sexual difference as a structural component of human nature (and not just an external element), suggesting that men and women are different not because each human being is a unique person, but on the basis of their sexed body. What lies behind this argument is a sexual ideology that assumes that human beings are naturally distinguished by sex. In this paper, I propose that such a view is not only contrary to current understandings of the construction of sex and gender but also to biblical witness and the Church’s tradition. My main argument is that if we see human beings in terms of the eschatological body, no person can be excluded from ordination.

Among the arguments of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church against the ordination of women, the sex of the incarnated word of God appears as a fundamental one and makes the female human being unsuitable to represent Christ. Those who argue against the ordination of women acknowledge that: a) the aim of the incarnation of the son of God was precisely the restoration of the unity of divided human nature and; b) in Christ, men and women are equal. However, they support the idea that

222

Chapter Sixteen

sexual difference is a structural component of human nature (and not just an external element) and that men and women are different not because each human being is a unique person, but on the basis of their sexed body. What lies behind this argument is a sexual ideology that assumes that human beings are naturally distinguished by sex. In this paper, I propose that such a view is not only contrary to current philosophical understandings of the construction of sex and gender, but also biblical witness and the Church’s tradition. My main argument is that if we see human beings in terms of the eschatological body, no person can be excluded from ordination on the basis of their sexed body. At this point, I need to say that my intention is not to develop an Orthodox anthropology. Rather, my attempt is simply to explore the possible relevance of the notion of the eschatological body in the discussion of women’s ordination. I also attempt to look at philosophically critical understandings of sex and gender in order to initiate a fruitful dialogue between Orthodox theology and, in particular, Orthodox anthropology and critical theories. The paper is structured as follows: First, I focus on the work of a leading postmodern secular feminist, Judith Butler, in order to outline how the naturalization of sexual difference has been challenged by contemporary critical theorists. Then, I present Gregory of Nyssa’s eschatologicallyoriented theory of gender that is based on biblical witness, and argue for a Christian anthropology that goes beyond the naturalization of sexual difference, claiming that aspects of patristic thought are in accordance with contemporary denaturalization of sexual difference. I conclude with a brief discussion on the idea that if we understand human beings in terms of the eschatological body, no person can be excluded from ordination on the basis of their sexed body.

Current philosophical understandings of the construction of sex and gender: Judith Butler Judith Butler’s work serves as the starting point for any contemporary discussion on issues of gender and sexuality. She has provided an influential analysis of sex, gender, sexuality and the body. Her work combines aspects of feminist theory and philosophy, queer theory and psychoanalysis. Her contribution to gender theory involves a radical critique of identity categories in which not only gender, but also sex, sexuality and the body are conceived as cultural products. She is an antiessentialist feminist who argues for the death of gender stability. Her work is appealing to groups of oppressed people because it subverts the repressive

Women’s Ordination and the Eschatological Body

223

net of sexual stereotypes and compulsory heterosexuality, and is critical of gender essentialism. According to gender essentialism, there is a natural essence of femininity and a natural essence of masculinity. Therefore, human beings are first understood as men and women who have to fulfill socially-imposed gender requirements. In her two very influential books, Gender Trouble (1990) and Bodies that Matter (1993), Judith Butler challenges the naturalization of sex, gender, the body and heterosexuality. She reveals the ways in which sex and gender are produced within a binary framework that is conditioned by heterosexuality, rather than the other way round. It is therefore not that sex and gender produce heterosexuality, but that heterosexuality produces sex and gender in a binary form.1 In Gender Trouble, she attempts to move beyond the sex/gender distinction that became central to feminist theory during the 1970s and early 1980s. This distinction allowed feminists to avoid biological determinism and to examine the cultural production of gender. This distinction seems to understand gender as some sort of cultural overlay on a basic biological category that is taken as given2 (sex is given and gender is a cultural overlay on sex). Yet, for Butler, the category of “sex” is itself a gendered category. For Butler, “gender” is not “natural” but repetitively “performed.” Moreover, as she puts it: “there is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender; that identity is performatively constituted by the very ‘expressions’ that are said to be its results.”3 She writes that sex is “no longer believable as an interior ‘truth’ of dispositions and identity,” but is rather a “performatively enacted signification […] one that, released from its naturalized interiority and surface, can occasion the parodic proliferation and subversive play of gendered meaning.”4 Butler’s whole project is thus about the denaturalization and fluidity of gender, and its creation through repeated practices. But this is not to say that gender can be constituted at will.5 For Butler, “to enter into the repetitive practices of this terrain of signification is not a choice, for the ‘I’ that might enter is always already inside: there is no possibility of agency or reality outside of the discursive practices that give those terms the intelligibility that they have.”6 1

Jagger, Gill, Judith Butler: Sexual Politics, Social Change and the Power of the Performative, Oxon, 2008, 1. 2 Jagger 2008: 2. 3 Butler Judith, Bodies that Matter, London 1993, 33. 4 Butler 1993: 44. 5 Coakley, Sarah, Powers and Submissions: Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender, Oxford, 2002, 158. 6 Butler 1993: 189.

224

Chapter Sixteen

Butler’s analysis of the performative production of sexed identity was criticized because it appeared to neglect the materiality of the body. In Bodies that Matter, she attempts to respond to accusations that she neglects the materiality of the body7 and that she reduces physical bodylines to mere forms of verbal instantiation.8 She develops her account of performativity by reworking speech act theory to focus on the ways in which bodies are materialized as sexed.9 In other words, for Butler, language does not create bodies. Rather she thinks that there is no access to bodies that is not already a gendered access: bodies are understood through culture, as culturally determined; we make sense of bodies through cultural distinctions. By adapting speech act theory, she links the materialization of the body to the performativity of gender and, in so doing, rethinks the materiality of the sex/gendered body in non-essential terms. Moreover, she argues that identity involves multiple and co-existing identifications and that gender identifications are “phantasmatic.”10 As such, for Butler, these identifications are not something given in biology or some sort of essential self. An important aspect of her critique of identity is that the categories through which embodied subjects come into being are never fully determining.11 This allows for the possibility of resistance (and of gender fluidity). One would say that celibacy is a form of resistance. Somehow, it is the prospect of gender liberation (not just sex liberation), of an escape from stereotype and an elusive personal transformation beyond normal human restrictions, that is appealing to the late-20th century mind.12 It is important to keep in mind that, for critical theories, the category of sex is itself a gendered category.

7

Jagger, Gill, Judith Butler: Sexual Politics, Social Change and the Power of the Performative, Oxon, 2008, 4. 8 Coakley Powers and Submissions: Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender, Oxford, 2002, 160. 9 Jagger 2008: 4. 10 Jagger 2008: 5. 11 Jagger 2008: 7. 12 Coakley, Sarah, Powers and Submissions: Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender, Oxford, 2002, 161.

Women’s Ordination and the Eschatological Body

225

Gregory of Nyssa’s eschatologically-oriented theory of gender that is based on biblical witness Butler’s thematization of gender fluidity and subversive personal agency echoes older theistically-oriented traditions.13 The denaturalization of sex and gender is a theme shared with an older tradition of ascetical transformation.14 Interestingly, Western feminist theologians like Sarah Coakley and Tina Beattie, as well Orthodox theologians,15 argue for the relevance of the Eastern Orthodox tradition to contemporary issues of gender and sexuality. It seems that many feminist theologians revisit the Eastern tradition, particularly the works of Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor, in order to find liberating resources. What these feminist theologians try to do is to explore the different ways in which tradition might be interpreted in response to contemporary questions about sex, gender and sexuality.16 Tina Beattie points out that there are significant differences between Eastern and Western Christianity in term of gender and sexuality.17 Orthodox Christianity is influenced by the Encratite theology of early Christian thinkers, such as Origen, Gregory of Nyssa and Maximus the Confessor, in which the virginal body most perfectly symbolizes the redeemed asexual human being. In this way, Orthodox Christianity puts forward the idea that sexuality does not have ontological significance. On the other hand, Western Catholic Christianity adopts an Augustinian perspective, according to which sexual difference is, to some extent, ontological. Western Christianity follows Augustine’s understanding of a single creative act, in which the will of God finds material expression in creation, so that the sexual human body is part of the original and ultimate

13

Coakley, 2002: 157. Coakley, Powers and Submissions: Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender, Oxford, 2002, 159. 15 Karras, Valerie, 2002, Harrison, Verna, “Male and Female in Cappadocian Theology,” Journal of Theological Studies 41 (1990): 465–71 1990 and 1996; Agoras Konsantinos, “ȆĮȡİȝȕȐıİȚȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȐijİȚĮ IJȘȢ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒȢ ȖȚĮ IJĮ ijȪȜĮ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ıȤȑıİȚȢ IJȠȣȢ,” in ĭȪȜȠ țĮȚ ĬȡȘıțİȓĮ: Ǿ ĬȑıȘ IJȘȢ īȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ed. by P. Kalaintzidis & ȃ. Dodos, 67-86, Athens, 2004. 16 Beattie Tina, New Catholic Feminism: Theology and Theory, London and New York, 2006, 117. 17 Beattie 2006: 117. 14

226

Chapter Sixteen

intention of God.18 So, for Augustine, in the resurrection there shall be redeemed sexual bodies. Orthodox Christianity has followed a different route in its doctrine of creation. Gregory of Nyssa reads the creation stories in Gen. 1 and Gen. 2 in terms of a double creation.19 As Andrew Louth explains: “This doctrine of double creation makes a distinction within creation between the first creation of spiritual beings in the image of God, and the creation of human beings, embodied and marked by sexual differentiation.”20 In other words, the first account of the human made in the image of God refers to a creation in which the human is a form of pre-sexual, angelic being. Sexual embodiment is a feature of a secondary, material creation in which God’s foreknowledge of the Fall makes sexuality contingent upon the coming of death into creation, and does not refer to the image of God in the human.21 Therefore, at the resurrection, we shall be restored to our original, presexual condition in the image of God: “To discover one’s ending in one’s beginning with Gregory is to go before and beyond sexual difference, to a creation and an eschaton in which humankind is sexless.”22 Gregory’s eschatologically-oriented gender theory is not captive to a sexual ideology, which allows him more linguistic freedom in terms of analogy and symbolism. In his Commentary on the Song of Songs, he represents the relationship between the soul and God, and between Christ and the Church, through nuptial imagery. But Gregory’s “bride” is not woman, nor is she “feminine.” As Beattie points out: “For Gregory, sexual difference has no ontological significance, and therefore his use of nuptial symbolism needs to be interpreted as a form of mystical language that transcends the body’s sexual particularity.”23 Gregory’s gendered analogies do not constantly come into conflict with his sexual ontologies: “The gendering of Gregory’s theology does not become a form of ontotheology in which sexual relationships are projected into the being of God.”24 Gregory’s understanding of the soul as bride needs to be understood 18

Beattie 2006: 118; Louth, Andrew, “The Body in Western Catholic Christianity,” in Religion and the Body, ed. by Sarah Coakley, Cambridge, 1997, 111-130. 19 Beattie 2006: 118; Louth, 1997:115. 20 Louth 1997: 115. 21 Beattie 2006: 118; Burrus, “Queer Father: Gregory of Nyssa and the Subversion of Identity,” in Queer Theology: Rethinking the Western Body, ed. by Gerard Louglin, 147-162, Oxford, 2007. 22 Beattie 2006: 118. 23 Beattie 2006: 117. 24 Beattie 2006: 117.

Women’s Ordination and the Eschatological Body

227

in the context of “a profound apophatic sensibility about the divine essence”25 through which the nuptial union goes beyond any difference that can be named or conceptualized.26 For Eastern Christianity, it is God (creator), rather than creation, that becomes normative for humanity. So, Orthodox Christianity does not understand the male (created) human being as the normative human.27 Human beings are created in the image of God but human differentiation in terms of male and female is not in itself a reflection of who and what God is intrinsically. In fact, humanity is called to transcend, through the grace of God, the various divisions which exist within creation. Maximus delineates divisions, which include the division between the created and the uncreated and between the perceptible and spiritual worlds, or even the distinction between male and female within humanity. The transcendence of distinctions through human mediation does not mean the obliteration of differences: “rather it is the inter-relational unifying of things which are by nature different.”28 Apart from the division between male and female in humanity, we are called to transcend the various levels of division, not by obliterating one for the other, but by uniting them all in ourselves as part of who we are existentially.29 The division, however, between the created and uncreated must be overcome by someone who personally incorporates both created and uncreated natures, namely Jesus Christ, who is the ultimate mediator and the only one capable of reconciling this division. The incarnation is thus not contingent on humanity’s fall: “It is part of God’s eternal plan as the culmination of humanity’s mediatorial role in creation.”30 To sum up: Orthodox writers, like Gregory of Nyssa and especially Maximus the Confessor, seem to understand sexual differentiation as a human characteristic outside the image of God and as irrelevant to our function as mediator, and not a necessary component of eschatological human nature. Besides, if “there were any ontological significance to sexual differentiation, then it necessarily would limit how we act and exist,

25

Coakley 2002: 124. Beattie 2006: 118. 27 Karras 2002: 252. 28 Karras, Karras, Valerie, “Eschatology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Feminist Theology, ed. by Susan Parsons, Cambridge, 2002, 243-260, 253. 29 Karras 2002: 254; Louth, Maximus the Confessor, London and New York, 1996: 69-74. 30 Karras 2002: 254. 26

228

Chapter Sixteen

and in so doing would interfere with our freedom to act ultimately and fundamentally as human beings.”31

The eschatological body: Constructing Orthodox anthropology beyond biological essentialism Before I conclude, I would like to stress the importance of Butler’s thought for theology. The idea that both gender and the biological category of sex are culturally determined is theologically very instructive. It is theologically precarious to accept as God-given, something that seems to be historically and culturally determined. I think that what Butler challenges is biological essentialism; so does Eastern Christian thought when it argues that our current biological body (male, female or otherwise) is meant to be transformed into another mode of existence. In terms of an eschatological oriented theory of gender, therefore, “there is no sexual difference,” as Graham Ward puts it in the title of one of his articles. There is, however, ontological significance to the body. But which body is significant for theology? Is it the disembodied body or the essentially sexual body? Neither. It is, in fact, the “sacramental body, which discovers its meaning through its incorporation into the performative narration of the Christian story in liturgy, worship, prayer and everyday life.”32 Attempting to construct a metaphysics of the body in a Christian context, Ward writes that: “The transcendent body of Christ redefines the human body from a more exalted, in fact glorified position – so that the properties of co-aboding in Christ’s body are communicated to the human body [...] Baptism ‘by (en) the one Spirit’ marks an ontological shift from being in the world to being en Christo […] the use of en suggests rather another level of ontological intensity available in this world but not concurrent with it. There is an incorporation effected by baptism and this incorporate does not leave the human body as such unchanged […] class notions of embodiment, ethnic notions, sexual notions […] incorporated en pneumatic and en Christo a new social order is announced. The Christocentric body politic constitutes this order […] The human body participating in the risen, eschatological body politic of Christ lives in a transposition state […] It lives physically in this world and equally as physical in the world to come […] in the incorporation into

31

Karras 2002: 254. Beattie, Tina, New Catholic Feminism: Theology and Theory, London and New York, 2006, 46. 32

Women’s Ordination and the Eschatological Body

229

Christ’s body otherness and difference remain […] the difference and materiality of somati are guaranteed by the one transcendent soma.”33 I think that a Christocentric, or rather an eschato-Christocentric understanding of the body, can contribute to the debates on women’s ordination by introducing the following perspectives to the discussion: 1. The eschatologically-oriented gender theory of Eastern Christianity subverts both gender essentialism and the culturally repressive web of sexual stereotypes. 2. En Christo, the act of resistance to stereotypes and compulsory sexualities, the goal of liberation and personal authenticity, are not doomed to failure. En Christo, the cultural and historical conditions of sexual oppression are not challenged but abolished.34 3. In terms of an eschatologically-oriented gender theory, the denaturalization of sexual difference is invested with ontological validity. In other words, within a Christocentric (and sacramental) epistemological framework, the ontological claim “there is no sexual difference” is valid. But if en Christo there is no sexual difference,35 then nobody can be excluded from ordination on the basis of their sex.

33

Ward, “The Metaphysics of the Body,” in Grace Jantzen: Redeeming the Present, ed. by Elaine Graham, Surrey 2009: 175-179. 34 However, a more cynical reading of Butler’s works would suggest that her theory of resistance merely reinstates the conditions of sexual oppression against which she argues. Coakley 2002:159; c.f. Jagger 2008: 35-49. 35 C.F. Yocarinis, The Gender or Genderless of the Incarnate Christ, Athens, 2011 (in Greek). Ware, Kallistos, “‘My Helper and my Enemy’: The Body in Greek Christianity,” in Religion and the Body, ed. by Sarah Coakley, Cambridge 1997, 90-110.

CHAPTER SEVENTEEN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY: ǹ PROPOSAL OF “CHRISTOCENTRIC” HERMENEUTICS CONSTANTINOS AGORAS

Abstract: This paper is meant to be viewed within the framework of an open, interdisciplinary dialogue between Christian theology and the humanistic disciplines, on the subject of human beings themselves. In this context, our theology is obliged to determine the position, foundation and theological perspective of its parameters. The writer: (a) Self-critically encountering this profound question, presents “Christocentrism” as a hermeneutical key, and the broad framework for every foundational Christian theology, particularly Orthodox theology. (b) Attempts, in a “Christocentric” way and with the background and axis of the Paschal mystery of the Lord Jesus, a Christ-iconological approach to the human being, in the image and likeness of Jesus Christ, who is indeed the image and truth of God the Father. (c) Attempts, within this framework, to outline an initial (but with eschatological reservation) sacramental and Paschal approach to the gender diversity of humans. This will be regarded retroactively and from a Christocentric perspective through the “God-Man” (along with the “Godman”) according to the Paschal mystery of His in-flesh economy and history. In Him and for us, the filial eschatological humanity of “God-man Jesus” (and at the same time, in sequence to Him by grace and participation, existence and perfection,) renovated and adopted the humanity of every person in our history as Christomorph and co-human with Him (and us), regardless of gender.

ȈIJȘ ıȣȞȐijİȚĮ IJȘȢ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒȢ IJȠȣ ıȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ țĮȚ ıĮȞ İȜȐȤȚıIJȘ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒ ıȣȝȕȠȜȒ Įʌȩ ʌȜİȣȡȐȢ ȝȠȣ șĮ İʌȚșȣȝȠȪıĮ ȞĮ İʌȚıȘȝȐȞȦ țȡȚIJȚțȐ IJȚȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ IJĮʌİȚȞȒ ȝȠȣ ȐʌȠȥȘ șİȝİȜȚȫįİȚȢ ʌĮȡĮȝȑIJȡȠȣȢ ȝȚĮȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ĮȞĮijİȡȩȝİȞȠȢ ıIJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijȘ ʌȡȠıȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, IJȘȞ ȑȝijȣȜȘ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJȐ IJȠȣ țĮȚ IJȘ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ

232

Chapter Seventeen

ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ. ȉĮ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ İȖȖȡȐijȠȞIJĮȚ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ ȝȚĮȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ (șȑȜİȚ ȞĮ) ijȑȡİȚ IJȘȞ İʌȦȞȣȝȓĮ «ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ» (țĮIJǯĮȡȤȐȢ țĮȚ ȕĮıȚțȐ) ıİ ıȤȑıȘ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ «ĮijİIJȘȡȓĮ» țĮȚ IJȠ ȑıȤĮIJȠ «șİȝȑȜȚȩ» IJȘȢ (IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ ȦȢ IJȑIJȠȚĮ țĮșȠȡȓȗȠȣȞ IJȠ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȩ IJȘȢ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ) ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıİ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ1 ʌȡȠȢ țȐșİ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȐȜȜȘȢ ĮijİIJȘȡȓĮȢ, șİȝİȜȓȦıȘȢ țĮȚ ʌȜĮȚıȓȠȣ. ȉȠ ʌȡȦIJĮȡȤȚțȩ ȝĮȢ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ijȪıİȦȢ țĮȚ IJȓșİIJĮȚ ȦȢ İȟȒȢ: ʌȠȚĮ İȓȞĮȚ Ș İȚįȠʌȠȚȩȢ įȚĮijȠȡȐ țĮȚ IJȚ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȣIJȩ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȓȗİȚ ȝȚĮ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ șİȫȡȘıȘ -țĮȚ İȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȦ ȝȚĮ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȒ șİȫȡȘıȘ- ȦȢ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ «ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ»; (ĮȢ ȟİțȚȞȒıȠȣȝİ ȝİ ĮȣIJȩ). ǹȟȓȗİȚ ȞȠȝȓȗȦ ȞĮ ıIJĮșȠȪȝİ ıIJȠ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ țĮșȩıȠȞ Ș ȩʌȠȚĮ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȒ IJȠȣ İț ȝȑȡȠȣȢ ȝĮȢ ʌȡȠįȚțȐȗİȚ ĮȞĮʌȩijİȣțIJĮ IJȠ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ țĮȚ IJȘ ıȣȖțȡȩIJȘıȘ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ȝĮȢ ıIJȠ ıȪȞȠȜȩ IJȘȢ – țĮȚ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ȝĮȢ.2 ȉȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ʌȡȠijĮȞȫȢ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌȜȐ țĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ șİȦȡȘIJȚțȩ. ǼȓȞĮȚ țĮȚ ȐȝİıĮ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȩ įȚȩIJȚ ıIJȠȤİȪİȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮȣIJȠıȣȞİȚįȘıȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȚįȚȠʌȡȠıȦʌȓĮ ȤȦȡȓȢ IJȚȢ ȠʌȠȓİȢ Ș ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠ-șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ (ȩʌȦȢ ijȣıȚțȐ țĮȚ țȐșİ ȐȜȜȘ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ıIJȠ įȚțȩ IJȘȢ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ țĮȚ ȝİ IJȚȢ įȚțȑȢ IJȘȢ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ țĮȚ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȑȢ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑıİȚȢ) įİȞ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ įȚĮȜİȤIJİȓ İʌȠȚțȠįȠȝȘIJȚțȐ –ʌȡȐȖȝĮ įȚĮȡțȫȢ ĮʌĮȡĮȓIJȘIJȠ țĮȚ İʌİȓȖȠȞ– ȝİ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ șİȦȡȒıİȚȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȠȪ IJȪʌȠȣ țĮȚ ʌȜĮȚıȓȠȣ ʌȡȠȢ ȩijİȜȠȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ıȒȝİȡĮ, IJȠȣ țȐșİ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ.3 1

ȈIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ İȚıȒȖȘıȘȢ Ƞ ȩȡȠȢ «įȚȐțȡȚıȘ» -ȝİIJĮȟȪ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ șȪȡĮșİȞ İʌȚıIJȘȝȫȞ- įİȞ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ĮʌĮȡĮȓIJȘIJĮ «įȚȐȗİȣȟȘ» ȠȪIJİ ȕİȕĮȓȦȢ «ıȪȖȤȣıȘ» ĮȜȜȐ țĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ «įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ʌȞİȣȝȐIJȦȞ» (ĮǯȀȠȡ. 12,10) ȝİ «ȞȠȣȞ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ» (ĮǯȀȠȡ. 2,16) țĮȚ ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ʌȡȠIJȡȠʌȒ «IJĮ ʌȐȞIJĮ įȠțȚȝȐȗİIJİ, IJȠ țĮȜȩȞ țĮIJȑȤİIJİ …» (ĮǯĬİı. 5,21). 2 ǻİȞ İȓȞĮȚ įȣȞĮIJȩȞ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ șȣȝȘșȠȪȝİ İįȫ IJȘȞ țĮȓȡȚĮȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠ-șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ıȘȝĮıȓĮȢ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȒ İʌȚıȒȝĮȞıȘ IJȠȣ J. Moltmann, ıIJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ ʌȡȠıȣʌȠȖȡȐijȠȣȝİ ĮʌȩȜȣIJĮ: «Ƞ ǿȘıȠȪȢ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȑȞĮ ĮȞIJȚțİȓȝİȞȠ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ [ȑıIJȦ țĮȚ ȦȢ IJȠ țİȞIJȡȚțȩ țĮȚ țĮIJİȟȠȤȒȞ ĮȞIJȚțİȓȝİȞȠ, ʌȡȠıșȑIJȠȣȝİ], ĮȜȜȐ IJȠ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȩ țĮȚ țĮșȠȡȚıIJȚțȩ ȣʌȠțİȓȝİȞȠ țȐșİ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ İȖİȓȡİȚ IJȘȞ ĮȟȓȦıȘ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ» (ȉȓ İȓȞĮȚ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ıȒȝİȡĮ; ǻȪȠ ȝİȜİIJȒȝĮIJĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ İʌȚțĮȚȡȠʌȠȓȘıȒ IJȘȢ, İțį. DZȡIJȠȢ ǽȦȒȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2008, ıİȜ. 65, ȣʌȠȖȡĮȝȝȓıİȚȢ įȚțȑȢ ȝĮȢ). ȆȡȕȜ. ıȤİIJȚțȐ țĮȚ J. Behr, “The Paschal Foundation of Christian Theology”, ıIJȠ St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 45/2 (2001), ı. 115-136. 3 īȚĮ ȑȞĮ ʌĮȞȩȡĮȝĮ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȦȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ șİȦȡȒıİȦȞ ʌȡȕȜ. B. Leclerc – S. Pucella, Les conceptions de l’être humain:théories et problématiques, éd. du renouveau pédagogique, Québec (CA) 1993. īȚĮ IJȘ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪ ĮȣIJȠȪ İȡȦIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ IJĮȣIJȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ʌȡȕȜ. G. Iammarrone, «Identità dell’antropologia teologica cristiana» ıIJȠ ıȣȜȜ. IJȩȝȠ B. Moriconi (ed.), Antropologia cristiana: Bibbia, teologia, cultura, Città Nuova ed.,

Orthodox Christian Anthropology

233

ȄİțȚȞȫȞIJĮȢ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ ĮȡȤȚțȐ (Į) Įʌȩ IJȠ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȩ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘ «ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȩIJȘIJĮ» IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ ʌȠȣ Ș ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ ıIJȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ĮȣIJȩ șĮ ʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȓıİȚ șĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒıȦ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ (ȕ) ȞĮ ʌȡȠıİȖȖȓıȦ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ ıIJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȠȣ ıȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ. ĬĮ įȚİȡȦIJȘșȫ ʌȐȞȦ ıIJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȐ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ Ȓ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ «șİȠıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ» ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ IJȠȣ «ȑȝijȣȜȠȣ» IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ (īİȞ. 1,27), IJȦȞ ȩʌȦȢ șĮ ijĮȞİȓ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ ijȪıİȚ țIJȚıIJȫȞ ʌȜȘȞ «İȞ ĮȡȤȒ» ʌȜĮıȝȑȞȦȞ įȣȞĮȝȚțȐ țĮIJ’ İȚțȩȞĮ țĮȚ ȠȝȠȓȦıȘ ĬİȠȪ țĮȚ «İȞ IJȑȜİȚ» ıȦıȝȑȞȦȞ țĮȚ IJİȜİȚȦȝȑȞȦȞ ıIJȠ ıȫȝĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ. ǹȢ ȝĮȢ İʌȚIJȡĮʌȠȪȞ İȚıĮȖȦȖȚțȐ țȐʌȠȚİȢ ȖİȞȚțȑȢ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡȒıİȚȢ. (Į) Ǿ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒ IJȠȣ ıȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȠȜȣįȚȐıIJĮIJȘ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȪʌȜȠțȘ. ǻȚȩIJȚ Ș șİȝĮIJȚțȒ IJȠȣ șȣȝȓȗİȚ IJȚȢ ĮȝijȓʌȜİȣȡİȢ İȚțȩȞİȢ. Ǿ ȝȓĮ ʌȜİȣȡȐ IJȠȣ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ İțʌȡȠıȫʌȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȒȢ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘȢ țĮȚ ȝİıȚIJİȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ȦȢ «ʌȡȠȚıIJȐȝİȞȠȣ» ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ -ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ (ĮıȪȝȝİIJȡȘ ıȤȑıȘ «ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ-İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ»). Ǿ ȐȜȜȘ IJȠȣ ʌȜİȣȡȐ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ: ȦȢ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȠȪ IJȠȣȢ țĮșȩIJȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȩ IJȠȣȢ («İȟȦIJİȡȚțȑȢ İIJİȡȩIJȘIJİȢ») ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȦȢ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ-țĮȚ-ʌȡȠȢ ȐȜȜȘȜĮ, ıİ İıȦIJİȡȚțȒ ĮȝȠȚȕĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ ıȣȞĮȜȜȘȜȓĮ ijȪȜȦȞ («İıȦIJİȡȚțȑȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJİȢ»), ȦȢ Įʌȩ țȠȚȞȠȪ ĮįȚĮȓȡİIJĮ țĮȚ ĮıȪȖȤȣIJĮ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȠȪ (ĮıȪȝȝİIJȡȘ ıȤȑıȘ «ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ-ĬİĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ». (ȕ) Ǿ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒ ȝĮȢ İȖȖȡȐijİIJĮȚ ıȣıIJȘȝĮIJȚțȐ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȠȣ «ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ» (ȦȢ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ – țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ ȠȝȠȓȦıȘ) ȩıȠ țĮȚ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȠȣ «ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ» (ȦȢ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞĮțĮȓȞȚıȘ –țĮIJȐ ȣȚȠșİıȓĮ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ șȑȦıȘ) ĮȜȜȐ ȝİ «ʌȡȠ-ȣʌȩșİıȘ», «ʌȡȠ-șİȦȡȓĮ», ȝİ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȩ ȐȟȠȞĮ țĮȚ ȠȞIJȠ-ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȣʌȩȕĮșȡȠ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ IJȠ «ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȠȣ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ» ıİ ȐȝİıȘ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ įİȪIJİȡȠ ȝȑȡȠȢ IJȠȣ «ıȣȝȕȩȜȠȣ IJȘȢ ʌȓıIJİȦȢ» («İȚȢ ȑȞĮȞ ȀȪȡȚȠȞ ǿȘıȠȪȞ-ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ ț.Ȝʌ). (Ȗ) ȈIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ IJȠȣ įȚĮȡțȠȪȢ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞIJȠȢ, ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ «İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ» (Įʌȩ IJĮ ȝȑıĮ IJȠȣ 20Ƞ ĮȚ.) IJĮ ʌİȡȓ «ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» ȑȤȠȣȞ ĮȡȤȓıİȚ ȞĮ IJȣȖȤȐȞȠȣȞ

Roma 2001, ı. 13-62 [14-31]. īȚĮ IJȠ įȚȐȜȠȖȠ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ ĮȞșȡȦʌȚıIJȚțȫȞ İʌȚıIJȘȝȫȞ ıIJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ʌȡȕȜ. İțIJȩȢ IJȘȢ ĮȝȑıȦȢ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȪȝİȞȘȢ ȝİȜȑIJȘȢ IJȠȣ Iammarrone țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȠ ıȣȜȜȠȖȚțȩ IJȩȝȠ P. Bühler (éd.), Humain à l’image de Dieu: la théologie et les sciences humaines face au problème de l’anthropologie, Labor et Fides, Genève 1989 İȚįȚțȐ IJȚȢ ıİȜ. 113-142.

234

Chapter Seventeen

İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞIJȠȢ ıIJȠȞ 21Ƞ ĮȚȫȞĮ ȩʌȦȢ ȣʌȠıIJȘȡȓȤIJȘțİ.4 ȆĮȡĮIJĮȪIJĮ ȑȤȦ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȐ IJȘȞ ĮȓıșȘıȘ ȩIJȚ įİȞ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ȚıȤȪȠȣȞ IJĮ ĮȞȐȜȠȖĮ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJĮ ʌİȡȓ «ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» ıIJȘȞ İʌȓțİȞIJȡĮ ıIJĮȣȡȠİȚįȒ ȤȡȚıIJȠ-ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ İțįȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ıİ ȠȡȚȗȩȞIJȚĮ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıİ țȐșİIJȘ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ («ĮȜȒșİȚĮ» İȞ ıĮȡțȓ) ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ țĮIJĮȞȠȠȪȞIJĮȚ ȕĮșȪIJİȡĮ ʌȚıIJİȪȦ, țĮȚ țȣȡȓȦȢ «ȤȡȚıIJȠ-țİȞIJȡȚțȐ» țĮȚ ȤȦȡȓȢ ĮȞIJȚȗȘȜȓİȢ (ʌȡȕȜ. ȇȦȝ 9-11), IJȩıȠ Ș ʌȡȩ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ «IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ» («IJȪʌȠȢ») ȩıȠ țĮȚ Ș ȝİIJȐ ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ «İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȓĮ» («İȚțȩȞĮ»). (į) ȈIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȦȞ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡȒıİȦȞ Ș ʌĮȡȠȪıĮ İȚıȒȖȘıȘ İıIJȚȐȗİȚ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠıȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȦȞ ĮʌĮȡȤȫȞ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ, ȤȦȡȓȢ ȞĮ ʌĮȡĮȖȞȦȡȓȗİȚ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȦȞ İıȤȐIJȦȞ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ İȜʌȓȗȦ (țĮIJȐ ʌȡȩșİıȘ IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ), ȑȤİȚ ȦȢ ıIJĮȣȡȠİȚįȑȢ șİȝȑȜȚȠ țĮȚ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȒ IJȘȢ IJȠ ĮȣIJȠʌȡȩıȦʌȠ țĮȚ țĮIJȐ ıȐȡțĮ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ țĮȚ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ ȝĮȢ.5 ȋȦȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ıİ įȣȠ ȝȑȡȘ ȝİ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤȠȣȢ IJȓIJȜȠȣȢ: «ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȩ 4 ȈȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ țȣȡȓĮȡȤȠ șȑȝĮ ıIJȘȞ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣ 21Ƞȣ ĮȚ. įȚĮʌȡİʌȒȢ ȚİȡȐȡȤȘȢ șİȠȜȩȖȠȢ İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ IJĮ İȟȒȢ: «ǹȞĮȝijȚıȕȒIJȘIJĮ, ıIJȠȞ 21Ƞ ĮȚȫȞĮ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ șĮ ıȣȞİȤȓıİȚ ȞĮ ȝĮȢ ĮʌĮıȤȠȜİȓ. ǹʌȠIJİȜİȓ ʌİʌȠȓșȘıȒ ȝȠȣ ȩȝȦȢ, ȩIJȚ șĮ ȣʌȐȡȟİȚ ȝȚĮ ıIJȡȠijȒ ıIJȘȞ țİȞIJȡȚțȒ İıIJȓĮıȘ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ȑȡİȣȞĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ ıIJȘȞ ǹȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ. ȆȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȐ, ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ ʌȠȜȜȐ ıȘȝȐįȚĮ ȩIJȚ ȝȚĮ IJȑIJȠȚĮ ıIJȡȠijȒ ȑȤİȚ ȒįȘ ĮȡȤȓıİȚ. ȉȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ-țȜİȚįȓ įİȞ șĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ: «ȉȚ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ;», ĮȜȜȐ İʌȓıȘȢ țĮȚ ʌȚȠ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ: «ȉȚ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ DZȞșȡȦʌȠȢ;», ıIJȠ ǼʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ ǻȚȠțȜİȓĮȢ ȀĮȜȜȓıIJȠȣ Ware, Ǿ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ıIJȠȞ 21Ƞ ĮȚȫȞĮ, İțį. ǴȞįȚțIJȠȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2005, ı. 25. 5 īȚĮ ȞĮ IJȠ ȟİțĮșĮȡȓıȠȣȝİ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤȒ Ș İįȫ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ (İʌȚșȣȝİȓ IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ ȞĮ) İȓȞĮȚ, ĮȝİIJȐțȜȘIJĮ IJȠ țĮIJȐ įȪȞĮȝȚȞ «ȤȡȚıIJȠ-țİȞIJȡȚțȒ»: įİȞ İʌȚșȣȝİȓ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȠȪIJİ «İțțȜȘıȚȠ-țİȞIJȡȚțȒ», ȠȪIJİ «IJȡȚĮįȠ-țİȞIJȡȚțȒ». ȆĮȡȩȜȠ ʌȠȣ Įʌȩ ʌȡȫIJȘ ȐʌȠȥȘ İȞįȑȤİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ʌȚțȡĮȓȞİȚ Ȓ țĮȚ ȞĮ ıțĮȞįĮȜȓȗİȚ, ıʌİȪįȦ ȞĮ įȚĮȕİȕĮȚȫıȦ ȩIJȚ ĮȣIJȩ įİȞ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ İʌȠȣįİȞȓ ȩIJȚ ȦȢ «ȤȡȚıIJȠ-țİȞIJȡȚțȒ» (Ȓ ĮțȡȚȕȑıIJİȡĮ «ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȐ ȤȡȚıIJȠ-țİȞIJȡȚțȒ» țĮȚ «ȤȡȚıIJȠ-țİȞIJȡȚțȐ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ») Ș ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ İȞįȠȖİȞȫȢ «IJȡȚĮįȚțȒ» (Ƞ ȊȚȩȢ İȞ ıĮȡțȓ) țĮȚ «İțțȜȘıȚĮțȒ» (Ș İȞ ȊȚȫ ıĮȡțȦșȑȞIJȚ ȣȚȠșİıȓĮ) -IJȠȣȞĮȞIJȓȠȞ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ!- ĮȜȜȐ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ İʌİȚįȒ İȓȞĮȚ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ «ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ» (ıȣȖ-țĮIJȐȕĮıȘ țĮȚ ıȣȞ-ĮȞȐıIJĮıȘ). Ǿ ĮȣIJȠʌȡȩıȦʌȘ ĮʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘ IJȩıȠ IJȠȣ «IJȡȚĮįȚțȠȪ» ĬİȠȪ (IJȡȚĮįȚțȐ İȞ ǼĮȣIJȫ) ȩıȠ țĮȚ IJȠȣ «İțțȜȘıȚĮțȠȪ» ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ țĮȚ țȩıȝȠȣ (ıİ țȓȞȘıȘ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ «IJȡȚĮįȚțȒ» ǺĮıȚȜİȓĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ) ȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ȤȫȡĮ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȠȞ/țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ «ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ» ǿȘıȠȪȋȡȚıIJȩ, ĮȣIJȩȞ įȘȜ. ʌȠȣ ıIJȠ ȓįȚȠ IJȠȣ IJȠ İȞ ıĮȡțȓ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ (ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ par excellence) «ȜȑȖİȚ», «İțijȡȐȗİȚ» țĮȚ «įİȓȤȞİȚ», İȞ İĮȣIJȫ țĮȚ ıIJȘ ıȐȡțĮ IJȠȣ, ĮțIJȚȞȦIJȐ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ ʌȐıĮ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȘ, ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȝİ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȝİ ȑȡȖĮ, IJȩıȠ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ «IJȡȚĮįȚțȩIJȘIJĮ» (IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ țĮȚ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ) ȩıȠ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ «İțțȜȘıȚĮțȩIJȘIJĮ» (IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ țĮȚ țȩıȝȦȞ ıİ țȓȞȘıȘ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘ ǺĮıȚȜİȓĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ).

Orthodox Christian Anthropology

235

ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ țĮȚ ȕĮıȚțȠȓ ʌĮȡȐȝİIJȡȠȚ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» țĮȚ «ʌȡȠȢ ȝȚĮ ȤȡȚıIJȠ-ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ». ȆȡȠıʌȐșȘıĮ ȞĮ įȫıȦ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ ıIJȠ ʌȡȫIJȠ ʌĮȡȐ ıIJȠ įİȪIJİȡȠ ȝȑȡȠȢ. ǼțIJȚȝȫ IJĮʌİȚȞȐ ȩIJȚ Įʌȩ ȐʌȠȥȘ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒȢ ıIJȘ ıȣıIJȘȝĮIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠ ȕȐȡȠȢ ʌȑijIJİȚ ĮȞĮȝijȓȕȠȜĮ ıIJȠ ʌȡȫIJȠ ȝȑȡȠȢ. Ȉİ țȐșİ ȩȝȦȢ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȠȣ ıȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȠȜȣįȚȐıIJĮIJȠ țĮȚ ĮʌĮȚIJİȓ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘ țĮȚ ıȣȞİȤȒ İȝȕȐșȣȞıȘ Įʌȩ ȩȜȠȣȢ ȝĮȢ.

ǹ. ȂİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ țĮȚ ȕĮıȚțȠȓ ʌĮȡȐȝİIJȡȠȚ «ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ» ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ 1. Ǿ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ĮȞȒțİȚ ʌȡȫIJȚıIJĮ țĮȚ țĮIJȐ ȕȐıȘ ıIJȘȞ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ (ȩʌȦȢ ȐȜȜȦıIJİ țĮȚ Ș İȕȡĮȧțȒ țĮȚ ȡĮȕȚȞȚțȒ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ). ȉȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ IJȘȢ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ-ǿȘıȠȪ ĮʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠ-ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ țĮIJǯĮȡȤȐȢ, ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖİȓ (Ȓ IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ șĮ ȩijİȚȜİ ȞĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖİȓ) ȦȢ ĮijİIJȘȡȓĮ țĮȚ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȝİIJĮ-ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ (ıȣȞȠįȚțȒ, ʌĮIJİȡȚțȒ, șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ț.Ȝʌ.) įȚĮțȡȓȞȠȞIJĮȢ ȡȚȗȚțȐ IJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ĮȣIJȒ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ țȐșİ țȠıȝȚțȒȢ ʌȡȠȑȜİȣıȘȢ țĮȚ įȩȝȘıȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ (ijȚȜȠıȠijȚțȒȢ, ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȒȢ, țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒȢ ț.Ȝʌ.).6 ȈȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ țĮȚ ȝİ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȩ İʌȓțİȞIJȡȠ (ıIJĮȣȡȠİȚįȫȢ, ıİ ȠȡȚȗȩȞIJȚĮ țĮȚ țȐșİIJȘ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȘ) IJȠ «ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ ǿȘıȠȪȢȋȡȚıIJȩȢ», IJȠȞ ĬİȐȞșȡȦʌȠ «ȊȚȩ IJȠȣ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ» İȞ IJȘ ıĮȡțȓ ȉȠȣ ȦȢ «ȊȚȩ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ» (ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ) șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȝİ ȞĮ ʌȠȪȝİ –ʌĮȡĮijȡȐȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJȠȞ K. Barth7– ȩIJȚ İȞȫ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȝȚĮ ʌȜİȣȡȐ IJȠ «ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ» ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ țĮȚ țȩıȝȠȣ ıȣȞȚıIJȐ IJȠ İȟȦIJİȡȚțȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȠȣ «İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ IJȠȣȢ», Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȐȜȜȘ, IJȠ «İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ țĮȚ țȩıȝȠȣ» ıȣȞȚıIJȐ IJȠ İıȦIJİȡȚțȩ șİȝȑȜȚȠ IJȠȣ «ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȠȣ».8 ȈIJȘȞ 6 īȚĮ IJĮ IJȡȓĮ ʌȡȫIJĮ țİijȐȜĮȚĮ (ıIJȘ ıȣȞȐijİȚĮ IJȦȞ īİȞ. 1-11) ȕȜ. ıȤİIJȚțȐ C. Westermann, Creazione, ed. Queriniana, Brescia 1974. īȚĮ IJȘ įȚĮijȠȡȐ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ȡĮȕȚȞȚțȒȢ țĮȚ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ İʌĮȞĮȞȐȖȞȦıȘȢ IJȘȢ īȑȞ. 1-3 ȕȜ. P. Gisel, La création : essai sur la liberté et la nécessité, l’histoire et la loi, l’homme, le mal et Dieu, Labor et Fides, Genève 1987 (2e éd), ı. 15-108. 7 Kirchliche Dogmatik III/1, Zürich 1945, ı. 106 ț.İ. 8 ȈIJȘ ıȣȞȐijİȚĮ IJȦȞ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ țĮȚ ıİ ıȣȝʌȜȒȡȦȝĮ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȣȝȑȞȘȢ ȣʌȠıȘȝİȓȦıȘȢ ĮȢ ıȘȝİȚȦșİȓ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ȩȡȠȢ «ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ» (ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȜĮIJİȚȐ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ) ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıİ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ ȖİȖȠȞȩIJĮ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ -ȝİ İʌȓțİȞIJȡȠ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ IJȘȢ İȞĮȞșȡȫʌȚıȘȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ȁȩȖȠȣ, IJȠȞ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȩ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌĮıȤȐȜȚĮ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ

236

Chapter Seventeen

ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ ĮȣIJȒ Ș «ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ», Ș İȟȐʌĮȞIJȠȢ ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚțȒ (ȕȜ. IJȠ «İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ țĮȚ İȚȢ ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ IJȦ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ ȣijȚıIJȐȞĮȚ» İțȐıIJȠȣ IJȦȞ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝȐIJȦȞ țĮȚ ıȪȞȠȜȘȢ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ), ʌȑȡĮȞ IJȘȢ ȠȞIJȠ-ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ıȘȝĮıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ (ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȦȞ țIJȚıIJȫȞ țĮIJȐ IJȘ ijȪıȘ IJȠȣȢ ȩȞIJȦȞ șİȦȡȠȪȝİȞȦȞ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȐțIJȚıIJȘ ȤȐȡȘ IJȘȢ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ-ǿȘıȠȪ șİȓĮȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ) ıȣȞȚıIJȐ țĮȚ IJȠ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ įȚİȡİȪȞȘıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȠȣıȓĮȢ țĮȚ ȕĮșȪIJİȡȘȢ ĮȜȒșİȚĮȢ: IJȩıȠ IJȘȢ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ «ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» (ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ-țIJȓıȘȢ) ȩıȠ țĮȚ IJȘȢ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ «İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» (ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ ĮȞĮįȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ-țĮȚȞȒȢ țIJȓıȘȢ) Ȓ ȩʌȦȢ Ȝȑȝİ ʌȚȠ ĮʌȜȐ IJȩıȠ IJȠȣ «ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ» (ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ «ǻȚĮșȒțȘȢ») ȩıȠ țĮȚ IJȠȣ «ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ» (ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ «ǺĮıȚȜİȓĮȢ»). ȈIJȘ ȝİșȩȡȚȠ țĮȚ ıIJȠ İʌȓțİȞIJȡȠ IJȦȞ įȣȠ ĮȣIJȫȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȦȞ (IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ IJȘȢ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ) ȕȡȓıțİIJĮȚ Ș ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȚȫȞ, IJȠ țĮIJǯİȟȠȤȒȞ ĮʌȠțĮȜȣʌIJȚțȩ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ, Ș țĮIJȐ ıȐȡțĮ ĮȣIJȠʌȡȩıȦʌȘ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ IJȠȣ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȠȪȞIJȠȢ ĬİȠȪ: Ƞ ǿȘıȠȪȢ-ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ıIJȘ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȒ șİĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ, IJȘȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ par excellence. 2. ȂȓĮ ȕĮșȪIJİȡȘ ʌĮȡĮIJȒȡȘıȘ IJȘȢ «ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ʌİȡȚʌȑIJİȚĮȢ», IJȘȢ ĮIJȠȝȚțȒȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ İȣȡȪIJİȡȘȢ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ, įİȓȤȞİȚ ʌȦȢ Ƞ «ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ», ʌĮȡȐ IJȚȢ ĮʌȠIJȣȤȓİȢ IJȠȣ, IJİȓȞİȚ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ «țȠȚȞȦȞȚĮțȩ ȩȞ». ȆĮȡȐȜȜȘȜĮ, ȝȚĮ ĮʌȜȒ ĮȞȐȖȞȦıȘ IJȦȞ ʌȡȫIJȦȞ țİijĮȜĮȓȦȞ IJȘȢ īȑȞİıȘȢ ȝĮȢ įİȓȤȞİȚ IJȚȢ ĮʌĮȡȤȑȢ IJȘȢ ȣʌĮȡțIJȚțȒȢ țĮȚ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȒȢ ʌİȡȚʌȑIJİȚĮȢ İȞȩȢ «ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ» ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ʌȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝȑȞȠȢ ıĮȞ «țȠȚȞȦȞȚĮțȩ ȩȞ»: ıİ țȐșİIJȠ țĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ İʌȓʌİįȠ (țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ȝİ IJȠȞ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȩ Ĭİȩ) țĮȚ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞĮ ıİ ȠȡȚȗȩȞIJȚȠ İʌȓʌİįȠ (țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ȝİ IJȠȞ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝȑȞȠ ıȣȞȐȞșȡȦʌȠ ıIJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ). ǹȣIJȒ țĮȚ ȝȩȞȘ Ș įȚĮıȪȞįİıȘ IJȘȢ įȚțȒȢ ȝĮȢ İȝʌİȚȡȓĮȢ ȝİ IJȘ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ ĮijȒȖȘıȘ șĮ ĮȡțȠȪıİ ʌȚıIJİȪȦ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ȣʌȠȥȚĮıIJȠȪȝİ IJȠȞ «ȜȩȖȠ» IJȘȢ İıȦIJİȡȚțȒȢ įȚĮıȪȞįİıȘȢ țĮȚ ĮȝȠȚȕĮȚȩIJȘIJĮȢ «ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠȣ» țĮȚ «țȠȚȞȦȞȚĮțȠȪ» țȐșİIJĮ țĮȚ ȠȡȚȗȩȞIJȚĮ (țĮȚ a contrario IJȠ «ʌĮȡȐ-ȜȠȖȠ» IJȘȢ İıȦIJİȡȚțȒȢ ĮʌȠıȪȞįİıȘȢ țĮȚ ĮȞIJȓșİıȒȢ IJȠȣȢ). Ȃİ ȜȓȖĮ ȜȩȖȚĮ, IJĮ (ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ) ȤȐȜȚĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ (ĮʌȐȞșȡȦʌȘ) țĮIJȐȞIJȚĮ ȝĮȢ. ǻİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ʌĮȡȐȟİȞȠ ȩIJȚ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ Ș ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ «ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ» țĮȚ Ș İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ «İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ» ĮȞIJȚıIJȠȚȤȠȪȞ IJȡȩʌȠȞ IJȚȞȐ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣȢ țĮȚ ıȣȞİʌȫȢ (șĮ ȑʌȡİʌİ ȞĮ) ıȣȞİȟİIJȐȗȠȞIJĮȚ ȝİ țȑȞIJȡȠ țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȠʌIJȚțȒ ȖȦȞȓĮ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ıIJȘȞ ĮʌȠțĮȜȣʌIJȚțȒ țĮȚ ıȦIJȘȡȚȫįȘ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ: Ș ȝİȞ (ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ) ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ȦȢ «İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȒ», Ș įİ (İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ) İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ȦȢ «ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ». Ǿ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ Ș İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ, Ș ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ

(«ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ» ȝİ IJȘ șİȝİȜȚĮțȒ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ)- ʌȠȣ ȑȜĮȕĮȞ țĮȚ ȜĮȕĮȓȞȠȣȞ ȤȫȡĮ ıȣȞİȤȫȢ ıIJȠȞ țIJȚıIJȩ ȤȫȡȠ țĮȚ ȤȡȩȞȠ, ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ ȝĮȢ.

Orthodox Christian Anthropology

237

İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ Ș İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ (șĮ ȑʌȡİʌİ ȞĮ) ıȣȞĮȡIJȫȞIJĮȚ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣȢ ȝİ ȝİșȩȡȚȠ, IJȩʌȠ, țĮȚ IJȡȩʌȠ (IJȡȚıįȚȐıIJĮIJȠ țĮȚ ĮıȪȝȝİIJȡȠ) ȩʌȦȢ ĮțȡȠșȚȖȫȢ ʌȡȠĮȞĮijȑȡșȘțİ.9 ǻȚȩIJȚ, ĮȢ IJȠ ʌȠȪȝİ ȤȦȡȓȢ ʌİȡȚıIJȡȠijȑȢ: IJȠ «Įʌȩ ʌȠȚĮ șȑıȘ» țĮȚ «ıİ ʌȠȚĮ ȕȐıȘ», IJȠ «ȝİ ʌȠȚĮ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȘ», țĮȚ «ȝİ ʌȠȚȠ IJȡȩʌȠ» ıȣȞȓıIJĮȞIJĮȚ, ıȣȞĮȡIJȫȞIJĮȚ, įȚĮʌȜȑțȠȞIJĮȚ țĮȚ ȞȠȘȝĮIJȠįȠIJȠȪȞIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȡȩʌȠ țĮȚ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȩ Ș ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ Ș İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ, Ș ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ Ș İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ ıȣȞȚıIJȐ șİȝİȜȚȫįİȢ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȩ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ țȠȚȞȩ IJȩıȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȩıȠ țĮȚ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ, IJȩıȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȩıȠ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ ıIJȚȢ İıȦIJİȡȚțȑȢ IJȠȣȢ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ įȚĮʌȜȠțȑȢ.10 9 ǻȣȠ įȚİȣțȡȚȞȒıİȚȢ İȞIJİȜȫȢ İʌȚȖȡĮȝȝĮIJȚțȐ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞȐʌIJȣȟȘ IJȦȞ ȠʌȠȓȦȞ İʌȚijȣȜȐııȠȝĮȚ ĮȞ șȑȜİȚ Ƞ ĬİȩȢ: (Į) Ș ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ «İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȓĮ» șĮ ȑʌȡİʌİ ʌȚıIJİȪȦ ȞĮ șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠ-șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ țĮȚ ıİ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ İȟȐʌĮȞIJȠȢ (țĮȚ ȝİ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ĮȣIJȩ ȞĮ ıȣȖțȡȠIJİȓIJĮȚ ıȣıIJȘȝĮIJȚțȐ) ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ «ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ» țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓĮȢ. ǵȤȚ ȐȤȡȠȞĮ ȠȪIJİ ȐțȠıȝĮ, ȩȤȚ ĮȞȚıIJȩȡȘIJĮ ȠȪIJİ ȐıĮȡțĮ, ĮȜȜȐ ȝİ țȑȞIJȡȠ IJȘȞ İȞ ıĮȡțȓ İʌȚįȘȝȓĮ-țĮȚ-ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ıIJȘȞ ĮʌȠțĮȜȣʌIJȚțȒ țĮȚ ʌĮıȤȐȜȚĮ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ. ǵȤȚ ȝȠȞȠįȚȐıIJĮIJĮ, ȠȪIJİ İȣșȪȖȡĮȝȝĮ ĮȜȜȐ ıIJĮȣȡȠİȚįȫȢ ĮȢ ʌȠȪȝİ ȑIJıȚ: țȐșİIJĮ țĮȚ ȠȡȚȗȩȞIJȚĮ, ȠȡȚȗȩȞIJȚĮ țĮȚ țȐșİIJĮ. ȃĮ ıȣȖțȡȠIJİȓIJĮȚ İȞįȠȖİȞȫȢ IJȡȚĮįȚțȐ țĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȠ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ IJȡȚĮįȚțȒȢ ȪʌĮȡȟȘȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ țĮȚ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ ȩʌȦȢ ǹȣIJȩȢ ĮʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮȣIJȠʌȡȩıȦʌȘ ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ ıȐȡțȦıȘ IJȠȣ ȊȚȠȪ țĮȚ ȁȩȖȠȣ ȉȠȣ ʌȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ ǿȘıȠȪȢ-ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ, Ș ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȐ ıĮȡțȦȝȑȞȘ İȚțȩȞĮ țĮȚ ĮȜȒșİȚĮ IJȠȣ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ. ǵȤȚ ʌȐȞIJȦȢ įȣĮįȚțȐ țĮȚ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚțȐ țĮIJȐ ʌȜĮIJȦȞȓȗȠȞIJĮ țȐșİIJȠ țĮȚ ĮȞȚıIJȩȡȘIJȠ ȝİIJĮijȣıȚțȩ IJȡȩʌȠ (ĮȚıșȘIJȐ-ȞȠȘIJȐ). ȅ IJȡȩʌȠȢ IJȘȢ İȚțȩȞĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȕĮșȪIJĮIJĮ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩȢ, ȩȤȚ ĮʌȜȐ ȝİIJĮijȣıȚțȩȢ ȖȚĮIJȓ «İȚțȩȞĮ» ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ țĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ ȑȞĮȞ «IJȡȩʌȠ ȪʌĮȡȟȘȢ» ȝİ ȕȐıȘ ȑȞĮȞ «IJİȜȚțȩ ıțȠʌȩ», IJȘȞ ȠȝȠȓȦıȘ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ĮȡȤȑIJȣʌȠ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȩ IJȠȣ. (ȕ) Ȉİ IJȑIJȠȚĮ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ, ȠȞIJȠ-ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ, Ș ıȤȑıȘ İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȘ-ĮȞIJȚıIJȡȑȥȚȝȘ. ǼȓȞĮȚ Ș ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ ʌȠȣ șİȝİȜȚȫȞİȚ țĮȚ ȞȠȘȝĮIJȠįȠIJİȓ ȠȞIJȠıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ IJȘȞ İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ȩȤȚ ĮȞIJȓıIJȡȠijĮ. Ǿ «İȚțȩȞĮ» ȑȤİȚ ȦȢ șİȝȑȜȚȩ IJȘȢ IJȠ «ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȠȣ ĮȡȤİIJȪʌȠȣ» IJȘȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ įİȓȤȞİȚ -ȝİ İȜİȪșİȡĮ įȣȞĮȝȚțȩ țĮȚ ȩıȠ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ʌȚȠ ʌȚıIJȩ IJȡȩʌȠ (İȜİȣșİȡȓĮ-ȠȝȠȓȦıȘ)- ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ ȦȢ «İȚțȩȞĮ» IJȠȣ. Ȉİ ĮȞIJȓșİIJȘ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ țĮȚ ȝİ ĮʌȫȜİȚĮ ıȣȞİȓįȘıȘȢ IJȠȣ «ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJȠȣ ĮȡȤİIJȪʌȠȣ» IJȘȢ Ș «İȚțȩȞĮ» ȤȐȞİȚ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ IJȘȢ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ, IJȠȞ ȠȞIJȠ-ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ, țĮȚ ĮʌȠțIJȫȞIJĮȢ ȐȜȜȠ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ, ȥȚȜȐ ĮȚıșȘIJȚțȩ ĮȢ ʌȠȪȝİ, İțʌȓʌIJİȚ İȓIJİ ıİ ĮʌȜȩ «ıȪȝȕȠȜȠ», İȓIJİ ıİ ȤȠȞįȡȠİȚįȑȢ «İȓįȦȜȠ». ȆȡȕȜ. ıȤİIJȚțȐ IJȘȞ țȜĮıȚțȒ ȝİȜȑIJȘ IJȠȣ țĮșȠȜȚțȠȪ ĮȡȤȚİʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ ǺȚȑȞȞȘȢ C. Schönborn, L’icône du Christ:Fondements théologiques élaborés entre le Ier et le IIe Concile de Nicée, éd. Universitaires, Fribourg (Suisse), 1976. 10 ȍȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ, Ș ʌȜȘȡȑıIJİȡȘ įȚİȡİȪȞȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪ İȡȦIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘ ȕȐıȘ șİȝİȜȓȦıȒȢ IJȘȢ ʌȠȣ ȖȞȦȡȓȗȦ, Įʌȩ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ ʌȜİȣȡȐȢ, İȓȞĮȚ ĮȣIJȒ IJȠȣ G. Florovsky, «Christ and His Church, Suggestions and Comments» ıIJȠ ıȣȜȜȠȖȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ L’Eglise et les Eglises: Etudes et travaux offerts à Dom Lambert Beauduin, vol.II, Chevetogne 1954, ı. 159-170.

238

Chapter Seventeen

ǺĮıȚțȑȢ șȑıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ȖȡȐijȠȞIJȠȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ (1) ıİ ȝȚĮ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ İȞįȠȖİȞȫȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ IJȩıȠ Ƞ «ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ» (ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ) ȩıȠ țĮȚ Ș «İțțȜȘıȓĮ» (İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ), IJȩıȠ Ș «İȚțȩȞĮ» (İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȓĮ) ȩıȠ țĮȚ IJȠ «ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ» (ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ), įİȞ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȞ –IJİȜȚțȐ– ʌĮȡȐ ȞĮ ȞȠȘȝĮIJȠįȠIJȠȪȞIJĮȚ (țĮȚ ȞĮ șİȝİȜȚȫȞȠȞIJĮȚ) ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚțȐ (ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȒ IJȘȢ).11 Ȉİ ȐȜȜȘ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ, ıIJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ʌȠȣ Ș İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ șĮ șİȝİȜȓȦȞİ ĮʌİȣșİȓĮȢ IJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ĮȞIJȚıIJȡȩijȦȢ șĮ ȒIJĮȞ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ ĮįȪȞĮIJȠ ȞĮ ĮʌȠijİȣȤșİȓ ȝȚĮ ʌİȡȚıIJȠȜȒ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠ-șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ șİȫȡȘıȘȢ țĮȚ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ıİ ȝȚĮ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠ-țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ ȠȡȚȗȩȞIJȚĮ (ȝȩȞȠ) ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ İȞįİȤȠȝȑȞȦȢ ȣʌİȡȕĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪ IJȪʌȠȣ.12 (2) Ǿ șİȝİȜȓȦıȘ ȩȝȦȢ țĮȚ Ș İıȦIJİȡȚțȒ įȚĮıȪȞįİıȘ «ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» țĮȚ «İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȠȪIJİ ȞĮ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȫȞİIJĮȚ ȠȪIJİ ȞĮ İʌȚșİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ ĮʌİȣșİȓĮȢ (įȘȜ. țȐșİIJĮ țĮȚ İȞ ʌĮȡĮȜȜȒȜȦ) ĮȜȜȐ İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȐ-țĮȚ-ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠțĮȜȣʌIJȚțȒ-țĮȚ-ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ «ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ» țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȒ 11

ȆȡȠȢ ĮʌȠijȣȖȒȞ ʌĮȡĮȞȠȒıİȦȞ șĮ ȒșİȜĮ ȞĮ ĮʌȠıĮijȘȞȓıȦ ȩIJȚ (Į) ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȝĮȚ ȩȤȚ ıİ ȝȚĮ ȠʌȠȚĮįȒʌȠIJİ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȝİIJĮijȣıȚțȠȪ ĮʌȜȐ IJȪʌȠȣ (ȝİIJĮijȣıȚțȐ İț IJȦȞ ȐȞȦ) Ȓ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȠȪ ĮʌȜȐ IJȪʌȠȣ (ȚıIJȠȡȚțȐ İț IJȦȞ țȐIJȦ) ĮȜȜȐ ıİ ȝȓĮ İȞįȠȖİȞȫȢ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮȚ ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ (ȕ) ȝȚȜȫȞIJĮȢ ȖȚĮ «ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȩ», IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ İȚįȚțȐ țĮȚ İȣȡȪIJİȡĮ ȩȜȘȢ IJȘȢ IJȡȚĮįȚțȒȢ ȅȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ, IJȠȞ ĮȞIJȚįȚĮıIJȑȜȜȦ ʌȡȠȢ ȑȞĮȞ įȚȐȤȣIJȠ ʌĮȡǯȘȝȓȞ, țȠȚȞȦȞȚıIJȚțȐ ȖİȞȚțİȣȝȑȞȠ «IJȡȚĮįȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȩ» Ȓ/țĮȚ «İțțȜȘıȚȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȩ». DZȜȜȠ «ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȩȢ» (ȝİ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȘȞ IJȡȚĮįȚțȒ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȞ IJȡȚĮįȚțȫ IJȦ IJȡȩʌȦ țĮȚ țĮIJǯȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ ıȣȖțȡȠIJȠȪȝİȞȘ țĮȚ șİȦȡȠȪȝİȞȘ) țĮȚ ȐȜȜȠ «IJȡȚĮįȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȩȢ» (ȝİ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ĮʌİȣșİȓĮȢ ıİ ȝȚĮ IJȡȚĮįȠȜȠȖȓĮ remoto Christo), Ȓ ĮțȩȝĮ «İțțȜȘıȚȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȩȢ» (ȝİ țȠȚȞȦȞȚıIJȚțȩ ʌȐȜȚ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ). ǼʌȚʌȡȩıșİIJĮ, Ƞ ȜȩȖȠȢ İȓȞĮȚ ʌİȡȓ «ȋȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȠȪ» (ȕȜ. ȑȞıĮȡțȠȢ-țĮȚ-ȑıȤĮIJȠȢ ȁȩȖȠȢ IJȠȣ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ ǿȘıȠȪȢ-ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ȦȢ ȣȚȩȢ IJȠȣ ǹȞșȡȫʌȠȣ) țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ĮʌȜȐ ʌİȡȓ «ȁȠȖȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȠȪ» (ȕȜ. ȐıĮȡțȠȢ-țĮȚ ĮǸįȚȠȢ ȁȩȖȠȢ IJȠȣ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ ȦȢ ȊȚȩȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ). 12 ǼȓȞĮȚ ȖȞȦıIJȩ ȩIJȚ Ș ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ıIJȠȞ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞIJĮ 20Ƞ ĮȚ. ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓıIJȘțİ İȞ ʌȠȜȜȠȓȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓijȘȝȘ «ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ıIJȡȠijȒ». ȉȠ ijĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȠȜȣįȚȐıIJĮIJȠ ĮȞȐȜȠȖĮ ȝİ IJȠȞ țȐșİ șİȠȜȩȖȠ țĮȚ įİȞ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ıİ țĮȝȓĮ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ȞĮ ȠȝȠȖİȞȠʌȠȚȘșİȓ. ȆȡȕȜ. ıȤİIJȚțȐ IJȘȞ șĮȣȝȐıȚĮ ȝİȜȑIJȘ IJȠȣ G. Pattaro, La svolta antropologica: un momento forte della teologia contemporanea, EDB, Bologna, 1991. ȋȦȡȓȢ ȞĮ șȑȜȦ ȞĮ İʌİțIJĮșȫ İʌȓ IJȠȣ ʌĮȡȩȞIJȠȢ ıIJȠ șȑȝĮ, ȑȤȦ ıȣȤȞȐ IJȘȞ ĮȓıșȘıȘ ȩIJȚ țĮȚ Ș ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣ IJȑȜȠȣȢ IJȠȣ 20ȠȪ ĮȚ. İȞįȑȤİIJĮȚ ȞĮ İȖȖȡȐijİIJĮȚ mutatis mutandis ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒ ĮȣIJȒ Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ıİ țȐʌȠȚİȢ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ (Ȝ.Ȥ. K. Rahner) įȚĮIJȡȑȤİȚ IJȠȞ țȓȞįȣȞȠ ıȣȡȡȓțȞȦıȘȢ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ İȞ ȖȑȞİȚ ıİ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȣʌİȡȕĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪ IJȪʌȠȣ. ȆȡȕȜ. ıȤİIJȚțȐ V. Holzner, Le Dieu Trinité dans l’histoire: le différend théologique Balthasar-Rahner, éd. Du Cerf, Paris, 2007. ȆȚıIJİȪȦ ȩIJȚ IJȠ șȑȝĮ ĮȣIJȩ șĮ ȐȟȚȗİ ıȠȕĮȡȒȢ ıȣȖțȡȚIJȚțȒȢ ȝİȜȑIJȘȢ İʌȚțİȞIJȡȦȝȑȞȘȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȐʌȠȥȒ ȝȠȣ țĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ ıIJȘ șİȓĮ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ țĮȚ İȚįȚțȐ ıIJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ. Ǽįȫ ĮʌȜȐ IJȠ țĮIJĮșȑIJȦ.

Orthodox Christian Anthropology

239

IJȘȢ. ǻȘȜ. ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ (țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ) IJȘȞ ʌĮıȤȐȜȚĮ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ țĮȚ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ ȝĮȢ țĮȚ įȚĮ IJȘȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒȢ ȝİIJȠȤȒȢ ȝĮȢ ıİ ĮȣIJȒ. ȉȩıȠ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ (ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ) ȩıȠ țĮȚ ĮȣIJȩ IJȘȢ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ ȗȦȒȢ IJȠȣ (İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ) șİȝİȜȚȫȞİIJĮȚ țĮȚ ȞȠȘȝĮIJȠįȠIJİȓIJĮȚ (İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȐ țĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤĮ) Įʌȩ IJȠ -țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ- ʌĮıȤȐȜȚȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ țĮȚ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ ȝĮȢ.13 dz ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȜȪIJİȡĮ, Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȓįȚȠ IJȠȞ ıĮȡțȦșȑȞIJĮ ȀȪȡȚȠ-ȋȡȚıIJȩ ȦȢ IJȠ IJİȜȚțȐ ĮʌȠțĮȜȣʌIJȚțȩ-țĮȚ-ıȦıIJȚțȩ ȂȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȠȣ «ĬİȠȪ» (ȆĮIJȡȩȢ) țĮȚ IJȠȣ «ǹȞșȡȫʌȠȣ» (ĮȞİȟĮȡIJȒIJȦȢ ijȪȜȠȣ!) «țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ İȣįȠțȓĮȞ ǹȣIJȠȪ» (Ǽij. 1,9). ĭĮȞIJȐȗȠȝĮȚ ȩIJȚ ĮȡțİIJȠȓ Įʌȩ ȝĮȢ șĮ șȣȝȘșȠȪȞ ıȤİIJȚțȐ IJȠȞ ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȩ țĮȚ IJȠ İȚțȠȞȠ-ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ ıIJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣ ȃȚțȠȜȐȠȣ ȀĮȕȐıȚȜĮ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ İȜİȪșİȡĮ İȝʌȞȑȠȝĮȚ. ȈȣȝʌİȡĮıȝĮIJȚțȐ: ǹȞIJȚȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȝĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ıIJȚȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣȢ İıȦIJİȡȚțȑȢ ıȤȑıİȚȢ įȚĮʌȜȠțȒȢ, ȦȢ țĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ İȚțȠȞȠ-ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ıȣȞĮȡIJȫȝİȞİȢ ıIJȘ ȕȐıȘ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, IJȘȢ IJȡȚĮįȚțȐ įȠȝȠȪȝİȞȘȢ ĮʌȠțĮȜȣʌIJȚțȒȢ țĮȚ ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ. ǹȞĮijȑȡȠȝĮȚ ıIJȠȞ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȩ șİȝȑȜȚȠ, ıIJȠȞ İijȐʌĮȟ ıĮȡțȦȝȑȞȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ – ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȐ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȒ ıȦIJȘȡȚȫįȘ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ ȝİ İʌȓțİȞIJȡȠ IJȠ ʌĮıȤȐȜȚȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȩ IJȠȣ (ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ)– ȖȪȡȦ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ –țĮȚ İʌȓ IJȠȣ ȠʌȠȓȠȣ– ȩ «ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ» (ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ) țĮȚ Ș «İțțȜȘıȓĮ» (İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ) ʌİȡȚıIJȡȑijȠȞIJĮȚ țĮȚ ıȣȞ-ȓıIJĮȞIJĮȚ, įȚĮʌȜİțȩȝİȞİȢ İıȦIJİȡȚțȐ İȞ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ȝİ ǼțİȓȞȠȞ ȦȢ ʌȡȫIJȠ țĮȚ ȑıȤĮIJȠ șİȝȑȜȚȠ țĮȚ ȠȡȓȗȠȞIJȐ IJȠȣȢ. Ǿ IJȡȚıįȚȐıIJĮIJȘ țĮȚ ĮıȪȝȝİIJȡȘ șİȫȡȘıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ șĮ ĮțȠȜȠȣșȒıİȚ (ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ șĮ ȑʌȡİʌİ ȞĮ ıȣȞ-İȟİIJĮıIJİȓ) İʌȚșȣȝİȓ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌǯȐțȡȘ ıǯȐțȡȘ ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚțȒ. ȆĮȡĮțĮȜȫ șİȡȝȐ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ İțȜȐȕȠȣȝİ IJȠȞ ʌȡȠĮȞĮijİȡșȑȞIJĮ «ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȩ» ȠȪIJİ ȦȢ ȁȠȖȠ-ĮȞșȡȦʌȠ-ȝȠȞȚıȝȩ (țĮIJȐ ıȪȞșİıȘ), ȠȪIJİ ȦȢ «ȤȡȚıIJȠȝȠȞȚıȝȩ». ǻİȞ ʌȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ İįȫ ȖȚĮ țĮȞİȞȩȢ İȓįȠȣȢ ȝȠȞȚıȝȩ ĮȜȜȐ ȖȚĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȚĮțȩIJȘIJĮ țĮșȩıȠȞ ıİ ĮȞIJȚįȚĮıIJȠȜȒ ʌȡȠȢ țȐșİ İȓįȠȣȢ ȤȡȚıIJȠȝȠȞȚıȝȩ (ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȠȝȠȞȚıȝȩ Ȓ IJȡȚĮįȠȝȠȞȚıȝȩ), Ƞ İįȫ «ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȩȢ» İȓȞĮȚ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ IJȡȚĮįȚțȩȢ, ĮʌȠțĮȜȣʌIJȚțȩȢ țĮȚ ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩȢ. ȈȣȖțȡȠIJİȓIJĮȚ țĮȚ İʌȚȞȠİȓIJĮȚ ȦȢ IJȑIJȠȚȠȢ ȝİ IJȡȚĮįȚțȩ IJȡȩʌȠ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȠʌIJȚțȒ ȖȦȞȓĮ IJȠȣ İȞĮȞșȡȦʌȓıĮȞIJȠȢ ȂȠȞȠȖİȞȠȪȢ ȊȚȠȪ,14 IJȠȣ 13

ȆȡȕȜ. G. Iammarone, L’uomo immagine di Dio: Antropologia e Cristologia, ed. Borla, Roma 1989, İȚįȚțȐ IJȚȢ ıİȜ. 7-22. 14 ǹȞĮijȑȡȠȝĮȚ ʌȡȠijĮȞȫȢ ıIJȠȞ «ȑȞĮ IJȘȢ IJȡȚȐįȠȢ», IJȠȞ IJȡȚĮįȚțȐ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȩ țĮȚ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȐ IJȡȚĮįȚțȩ ȊȚȩ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ȦȢ ȣȚȩ IJȠȣ ǹȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, ıIJȠȞ ʌȡȠ-ĮȚȫȞȚȠ (țĮȚ ȣʌȑȡ-ĮȚȫȞȚȠ), ıIJȠȞ Ȑ-țIJȚıIJȠ (țĮȚ ȣʌȑȡ-țIJȚıIJȠ), ıIJȠȞ Ȑ-ȤȡȠȞȠ (țĮȚ ȣʌȑȡ-ȤȡȠȞȠ) ț.Ȝʌ. ȊȚȩ IJȠȣ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ İȞ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ İȞ ıĮȡțȓ İʌȚįȘȝȓĮ (ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ) IJȠȣ ıIJȠ

240

Chapter Seventeen

İȞĮșȡȦʌȓıĮȞIJȠȢ ȩȝȦȢ İȞ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ.15 ȍȢ IJȡȚĮįȚțȐ ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȩȢ Ƞ ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȩȢ ȑȤİȚ ȠȡȓȗȠȞIJĮ, ĮijİIJȘȡȓĮ țĮȚ IJȑȜȠȢ IJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ. ȋȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚțȒ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ ʌȚıIJİȪȠȣȝİ ȩIJȚ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ Ș șİȫȡȘıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ (ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ), ȩȤȚ ȩȝȦȢ ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚțȒ ĮȞĮȜȠȖȚțȫ Ȓ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚțȫ IJȦ IJȡȩʌȦ ĮȜȜȐ İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȫ țĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȫ IJȦ IJȡȩʌȦ. ȉȠ ıȘȝİȓȠ ĮȣIJȩ șĮ șȑȜĮȝİ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıİȤșİȓ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ, ĮȞĮijȠȡȚțȐ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ȑȝijȣȜȠ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ıİ ıȤȑıȘ (ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ IJȐȟİȦȢ) ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıİ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ (İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ijȪıİȦȢ-ȕȜ. İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ İʌȚijȪȜĮȟȘ) ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ȑȝijȣȜȠ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ IJȠȣ İȞ ıĮȡțȓ İʌȚijĮȞȑȞIJȠȢ șİĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, IJȠȣ ĮȞĮıIJȐȞIJȠȢ İȞ IJȘ ıĮȡțȓ IJȠȣ țĮȚ İț įİȟȚȫȞ IJȠȣ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ İȞ ıĮȡțȓ įȠȟĮıȝȑȞȠȣ.16 3. ǼȞIJȩȢ IJȠȣ ʌȜĮȚıȓȠȣ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ «įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒȢ»,17 Ș ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȦȢ «ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ» įİȞ įȚĮȝȠȡijȫȞİIJĮȚ ȝİ ȕĮȡȪțİȞIJȡȠ IJȘȞ IJȑȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ĮȚȫȞȦȞ, ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘ įȚțȒ ȝĮȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ ȦȢ ǿȘıȠȪȢ Ƞ ȃĮȗȦȡĮȓȠȢ, Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ țĮȚ ȀȪȡȚȠȢ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ. 15 Ȋʌȩ IJȠȞ ĮʌĮȡȐȕĮIJȠ ȩȡȠ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȩȢ ȞȠİȓIJĮȚ IJȡȚĮįȚțȫ IJȦ IJȡȩʌȦ (įȘȜ.IJȡȚĮįȠ-ıȤİıȚĮțȐ) țĮȚ ʌȠIJȑ IJȡȚĮįȠȜȠȖȚțȫ IJȦ IJȡȩʌȦ (įȘȜ. IJȡȚĮįȠʌĮȞȠȡĮȝȚțȐ), IJȩIJİ ȠȪIJİ ȤȡȚıIJȠȝȠȞȚıȝȩ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ, ȠȪIJİ ȤȡȚıIJȠİȖțȜȦȕȚıȝȩ ĮȜȜȐ ĮʌȑȡĮȞIJȘ ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ țĮȚ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȚȐȞȠȚȟȘ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ (țĮșȩIJȚ İȟǯĮȡȤȒȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ). Ǿ șİȓĮ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ «ʌĮIJȐİȚ ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȐ» ıIJȠȞ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȩ ȟİțȚȞȫȞIJĮȢ ȩȝȦȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ İʌȚıIJȡȑȥİȚ ȠȜȠțȜȘȡȦȝȑȞȘ ıIJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ. Ȋʌȩ IJȘȞ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ ĮȣIJȒ Ƞ «ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȚțȩȢ» ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȩȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡİȓ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ «șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ» ʌĮIJȡȠțİȞIJȡȚıȝȩ. ȆȡȕȜ. IJȚȢ șĮȣȝȐıȚİȢ ıȤİIJȚțȑȢ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡȒıİȚȢ IJȠȣ G. Iammarone, «Identità dell’antropologia teologica cristiana», ȩ.ʌ., ı. 25-31. 16 ȈIJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ İȞĮȞșȡȫʌȚıȘȢ IJȠȣ ȁȩȖȠȣ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, İțIJȩȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȠȞIJȠ-ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ, IJȘȞ ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ țĮȚ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ țĮȚ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİIJĮȟȪ «șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» (ȁȩȖȠȢ İȞ İĮȣIJȫ) țĮȚ «ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ» (ȁȩȖȠȢ İȞ ıĮȡțȓ) ȑȤȠȣȝİ țĮȚ ȝȚĮ ȐȜȜȘ ȕĮıȚțȒ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ, ĮȣIJȒ ijȠȡȐ İȞIJȩȢ IJȘȢ İȞ ıĮȡțȓ «ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ» IJȠȣ ȁȩȖȠȣ. ȉȘȞ ʌĮȪȜİȚĮ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ıIJȘ «șİȫȡȘıȘ» IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ȦȢ ıĮȡțȦșȑȞIJȠȢ ȁȩȖȠȣ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ «țĮIJȐ ıȐȡțĮ»/«țĮIJȐ ʌȞİȪȝĮ». Ǽįȫ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ IJȓșİIJĮȚ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ıȤȑıȘȢ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ įȚȐțȡȚıȘȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣ ijȣıȚțȠȪ ȑȝijȣȜȠȣ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ (ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ) țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȚțȠȪ ȑȝijȣȜȠȣ IJȠȣ ĮȞĮıIJȘȝȑȞȠȣ țĮȚ įȠȟĮıȝȑȞȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ (ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ) șİȦȡȠȪȝİȞȠȣ «țĮIJȐ ʌȞİȪȝĮ» țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ĮʌȜȫȢ «țĮIJȐ ıȐȡțĮ» (ıĮȞ Ƞ ȀȪȡȚȠȢ-ǿȘıȠȪȢ ȞĮ ȒIJĮȞ ȑȞĮȢ țȠȚȞȩȢ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ, ȑȞĮȢ «ȥȚȜȩȢ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ»). īȚĮ ȝȚĮ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, ʌȡȕ. Ȁ. īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘ, ȉȠ ȑȝijȣȜȠ Ȓ ȐijȣȜȠ IJȠȣ ıĮȡțȦșȑȞIJȠȢ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, İțį. ǹȡȝȩȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2011, ı. 268-9, ȣʌȠı. 638 țĮȚ 639. 17 ȆȡȠIJȚȝȠȪȝİ țĮIJȐ ʌȠȜȪ IJȘȞ İʌȦȞȣȝȓĮ «ıȣıIJȘȝĮIJȚțȒ» ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ (ʌȠȣ ıȓȖȠȣȡĮ įİȞ ıȣȝʌȓʌIJİȚ ȝİ IJȘ «įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒ» șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ) ȣʌȩ IJȠȞ ȩȡȠ ȕİȕĮȓȦȢ ȩIJȚ șĮ ʌȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ İȟȐʌĮȞIJȠȢ ȖȚĮ ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚțȒ «ıȣıIJȘȝĮIJȚțȒ» șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ «ĮȞȠȚțIJȒ» (ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ) țĮȚ «İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȒ» (İț IJȠȣ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ ȋȡȚıIJȩ).

Orthodox Christian Anthropology

241

ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȒ «ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ» țĮșĮȣIJȒ (ȕȜ. īȑȞ. 1-2) ĮȜȜȐ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ «ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ», ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ țĮȚ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ ĮȣIJȒ. ǻȘȜ. IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ (ȩʌȦȢ ȐȜȜȦıIJİ țĮȚ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ) İʌȚșİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȐ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȩ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ ıIJȘȞ ʌĮıȤȐȜȚĮ ȑȟȠįȠ țĮȚ țȓȞȘıȒ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ (IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ șİĮȞșȡȦʌȓĮȢ ȉȠȣ). ǻȚĮțȡȓȞȠȞIJĮȢ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȐ IJȠ İʌȓʌİįȠ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȠțȡȚIJȚțȒȢ İȟȘȖȘIJȚțȒȢ (Ȝ.Ȥ. IJȘȢ ǺȓȕȜȠȣ, IJȦȞ ȝȞȘȝİȓȦȞ IJȘȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ ț.Ȝʌ.) Įʌȩ IJȠ İʌȓʌİįȠ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒȢ (ıIJȠ ıȣıIJȘȝĮIJȚțȩ IJȠȝȑĮ), ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ ȝİ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ ȞĮ ʌȠȪȝİ ȩIJȚ ȩʌȦȢ ıİ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ ıȪȞȠȜȘ Ș Ȇ.ǻ. İȡȝȘȞİȪİIJĮȚ İȞ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ȝȑıȦ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ. ȝİ țȑȞIJȡȠ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȠȞ ǿȘıȠȪȋȡȚıIJȩ, ȑIJıȚ țĮȚ Ș «ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ» IJȘȢ īȑȞİıȘȢ 1-2 -țĮȚ ȩʌȦȢ șĮ įȠȪȝİ ʌĮȡĮțȐIJȦ IJȠ «ȐȡıİȞ țĮȚ șȒȜȣ» (īİȞ. 1,27) IJȘȢ ijȪıİȚ țIJȚıIJȒȢ ʌȜȘȞ țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ ĬİȠȪ ʌȜĮıșİȓıĮȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ- İȡȝȘȞİȪİIJĮȚ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȐ ȩIJĮȞ țĮȚ İijǯȩıȠȞ țĮIJĮȞȠİȓIJĮȚ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȠ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȩ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠțĮȜȣʌIJȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ țĮȚ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ ȝĮȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ ĮȣIJȒ IJȘȞ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȘ. ȉȠ ʌȡȠIJȚȝȫ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȘȢ İʌȦȞȣȝȓĮȢ «įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒ», ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȜȩȖȦ ĮȜȜİȡȖȓĮȢ ʌȡȠȢ țȐșİ IJȚ IJȠ įȠȖȝĮIJȚıIJȚțȩ, İȚįȚțȐ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ȩIJĮȞ ʌȡȠıʌĮșİȓ ȞĮ įȚțĮȚȦșİȓ «İȟ ȠȞȩȝĮIJȠȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ» (ȑțʌIJȦıȘ IJȠȣ įȩȖȝĮIJȠȢ ıIJȠ įȠȖȝĮIJȚıȝȩ), ĮȜȜȐ ȖȚĮ țȐIJȚ ȕĮșȪIJİȡȠ: ʌȡȠȢ ĮʌȠijȣȖȒ ȝȚĮȢ ĮȞIJȚıIJȡȠijȒȢ IJȘȢ «įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» ıİ «ȚıIJȠȡȚțȠșİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȠȖȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ», ıİ ȝȚĮ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȐ įȠȖȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȠțİȞIJȡȚțȒ țĮȚ ʌĮIJȡȠȜȠȖȠțİȞIJȡȚțȒ ȝİ ȕȚȕȜȚțȑȢ ȕİȕĮȓȦȢ ʌĮȡĮʌȠȝʌȑȢ (ex auctoritatae fontium revlationis!). ȉȠ ĮȞȐȜȠȖȠ șĮ ȓıȤȣİ İȟȓıȠȣ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ țȐșİ İȓįȠȣȢ ȕȚȕȜȚțȠțİȞIJȡȚțȒȢ İțįȠȤȒȢ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ. ǼȣIJȣȤȫȢ IJȠ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓȠ İȓįȠȢ ıʌĮȞȓȗİȚ ʌȜȑȠȞ ... ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ ıIJȠȣȢ ĮʌȠȖȩȞȠȣȢ IJȘȢ ǻȚĮȝĮȡIJȪȡȘıȘȢ. Ȉİ ȝȚĮ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ, IJȩıȠ ȑȞĮȢ «ȕȚȕȜȚțȚıȝȩȢ» ȩıȠ țĮȚ ȝȚĮ «ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮȡȤȓĮ» ĮįȚțȠȪȞ ȕĮșİȚȐ țĮȚ įȚĮıIJȡȑijȠȣȞ ijȠȞIJĮȝİȞIJĮȜȚıIJȚțȐ (ĮșİȠȜȩȖȘIJĮ) IJȩıȠ IJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ «ǺȓȕȜȠ» IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȩıȠ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ «ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ» (ʌȓıIJȘȢ țĮȚ țȘȡȪȖȝĮIJȠȢ) ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ (įȘȜ. ȩȤȚ IJȠȣ İĮȣIJȠȪ IJȘȢ !), ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȠ «ȗȫ į ǯȠȣțȑIJȚ İȖȫ, ȗİȚ įİ İȞ İȝȠȓ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ» (īĮȜ. 2,20 ʌȡȕȜ. ȇȦȝ. 14, 7-8 ț.Ȑ). ǹȣIJȩ IJȠ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓȠ (Į) įİȞ ȑȤİȚ ĮʌȜȐ țĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȩ-țĮȚ-ȣʌĮȡȟȚĮțȩ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ țĮȚ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ ȠȞIJȠıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ țĮȚ ȠȞIJȠ-ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ (ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ «ijȪıȘȢ» ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘ «ȤȐȡȘ» țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓĮȢ). (ȕ) įİȞ ȑȤİȚ ȝȩȞȠ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȚȐıIJĮıȘ țĮȚ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ ĮȜȜȐ İʌȓıȘȢ -țĮȚ ʌȡȫIJȚıIJĮİțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȚȐıIJĮıȘ țĮȚ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ. ǻİȞ ĮijȠȡȐ įȘȜ. ȝȩȞȠ ıIJȠȞ țĮșȑȞĮ ȝĮȢ ȦȢ Ƞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩȢ (İȞ IJȑȜİȚ) İĮȣIJȩȢ IJȠȣ (Ȝ.Ȥ. ıIJȠȞ ȆĮȪȜȠ, ıIJȘȞ ǼȜȑȞȘ ț.Ȑ.) ĮȜȜȐ țĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȫIJȚıIJĮ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȦȢ Ș ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȒ (İȞ IJȑȜİȚ) ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȦȢ Ș țĮȚȞȒ (İȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȦ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ) țIJȓıȘ. Ǽįȫ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ țĮșĮȡȐ țĮȚ ȐȝİıĮ Ș ĮȜȜȘȜȠįȚĮʌȜȠțȒ ʌȠȣ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤȒ ȣʌȠıIJȘȡȓȗȦ ȝİIJĮȟȪ «ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» țĮȚ «İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» ȝİ ȕȐıȘ, ȐȟȠȞĮ, ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ, ȠȡȓȗȠȞIJĮ țĮȚ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȘ IJȠ ʌĮıȤȐȜȚȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ («ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ»).

242

Chapter Seventeen

ȉİȜȚțȐ (Į) Ș ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ «ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ» ıȣȖțȡȠIJİȓIJĮȚ ȝİ ĮijİIJȘȡȓĮ ȝİȞ IJȘȞ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ «ĮįĮȝȠȜȠȖȓĮ» ĮȜȜȐ șİȦȡȠȪȝİȞȘ «İȚțȠȞȠȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ» ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘ (țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘ) ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮȚ ĮʌȠțĮȜȣʌIJȚțȒ «ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ». ȉȠ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ ȠȝȠȓȦıȘ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ĮįȐȝ-ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ įİȓȤȞİȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒȢ ıȐȡțȦıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȓįȚĮȢ IJȘȢ İȚțȩȞĮȢ țĮȚ ĮȜȒșİȚĮȢ IJȠȣ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ ıIJȠȞ ȑıȤĮIJȠ țĮȚ ʌİȡȚȜȘʌIJȚțȩ ĮįȐȝȋȡȚıIJȩ țĮȚ ıȣȖȤȡȩȞȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘ įȦȡİȐ İȞ ǹȣIJȫ IJȘȢ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒȢ ȣȚȠșİıȓĮȢ ıİ ȝĮȢ IJȠȣȢ ĮįȐȝ-ıȣȞĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢ (IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ).18 ǻİȞ ıȣȖțȡȠIJİȓIJĮȚ ȝİ ȝȚĮ ĮʌİȣșİȓĮȢ ĮȞĮȖȦȖȒ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌȡȠʌIJȦIJȚțȒ «ĮįĮȝȠȜȠȖȓĮ» țĮșȩIJȚ, ʌȑȡĮȞ IJȘȢ ĮıȣȝȝİIJȡȓĮȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ijȪıİȦȢ țĮȚ ȤȐȡȚIJȠȢ, ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮȣIJȒȢ țĮȚ ȘȝȫȞ ȝİıȠȜĮȕİȓ Ș ʌIJȫıȘ IJȠȣ ĮįȐȝ, Ș ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȒ ȝĮȢ țĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ țĮȚ IJȠ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȩ ȝĮȢ ȕȜȑȝȝĮ ıIJĮ ʌȡȐȖȝĮIJĮ. DzIJıȚ IJȠ ʌĮıȤȐȜȚȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȠȣ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ ȝȩȞȠ ȑȖțȣȡȠ ʌȡȓıȝĮ ĮʌȠțȡȣʌIJȠȖȡȐijȘıȘȢ IJȘȢ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ «ĮįĮȝȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» ʌȠȣ ȝĮȢ ʌȡȠijȑȡİIJĮȚ (ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȤȐȡȘ ıȘȝİȚȦIJȑȠȞ). ǼțIJȩȢ ĮȣIJȠȪ (ȕ) įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ ǿȘıȠȪȢ-ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ IJȪʌȠȢ țĮȚ İȚțȩȞĮ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠʌIJȦIJȚțȠȪ ĮįȐȝ-ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, ĮȜȜȐ ĮȞIJȓıIJȡȠijĮ: Ƞ ȝİȞ ʌȡȠʌIJȦIJȚțȩȢ ĮįȐȝ-ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ İȓȞĮȚ «İȚțȩȞĮ İȚțȩȞȠȢ», IJȪʌȠȢ țĮȚ İȚțȩȞĮ IJȠȣ ıĮȡțȦȝȑȞȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, IJȘȢ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ țĮȚ ĮʌȠțĮȜȣʌIJȚțȒȢ İȚțȩȞĮȢ IJȠȣ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ, Ƞ įİ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İȞ IJȘ ıĮȡțȓ IJȠȣ įȠȟĮıȝȑȞȠȢ ǿȘıȠȪȢ (Ƞ ĮȞĮıIJȐȢ țĮȚ İț įİȟȚȫȞ IJȠȣ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ ĮȞĮȜȘijșİȓȢ) İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ (ȠȞIJȠ-İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȩȢ țĮȚ ıȦIJȘȡȚȠ-ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩȢ) ĮȡȤȑIJȣʌȠȢ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ Ș IJİȜİȓȦıȘ IJȠȣ ʌȡȫIJȠȣ ĮįȐȝ, IJȠȣ ĮʌǯĮȡȤȒȢ ʌȜĮıșȑȞȠȢ țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠıȫʌȠȣ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȠȣ ȝȑȜȜȠȞIJȠȢ țĮȚ ȑıȤĮIJȠȣ ǹįȐȝ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ. ȈIJȠ țĮȓȡȚȠ ĮȣIJȩ ıȘȝİȓȠ IJȘȢ İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ȣʌȩıIJĮıȘȢ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠʌIJȦIJȚțȠȪ ĮįȐȝ (İȚțȩȞĮ țĮȚ ȠȝȠȓȦıȘ) șĮ İʌĮȞȑȜșȦ ĮȞĮȜȣIJȚțȩIJİȡĮ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ. 4. DzȤȦ IJȘȞ ĮȓıșȘıȘ ȩIJȚ IJȩıȠ Ș «īȑȞİıȘ» ȩıȠ țĮȚ Ș «ǹʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘ», ʌȠȣ ȖȚĮ ȝĮȢ IJȠȣȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠȪȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤĮ ıIJȚȢ ĮʌĮȡȤȑȢ țĮȚ 18

ȉĮ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ʌĮȪȜİȚȠ ĮıȪȝȝİIJȡȠ įȓʌȠȜȠ «ǹįȐȝ-ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ» șİȦȡȠȪȝİȞȠ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, IJȠȣ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪ țȑȞIJȡȠȣ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ įȣȠ țĮIJİȣșȪȞıİȚȢ ĮıȪȝȝİIJȡİȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣȢ: «ǹįȐȝ-ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ»/«ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ-ǹįȐȝ». ȉȠ «ǹįȐȝ-ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ» ʌĮȡĮʌȑȝʌİȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȒ IJȠȣȢ ıȤȑıȘ (ıIJȠ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ įȫȡȠ IJȘȢ țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ țĮIJȐ ijȪıȚȞ) IJȠ įİ «ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ-ǹįȐȝ» ʌĮȡĮʌȑȝʌİȚ ıIJȘ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ IJȠȣȢ ıȤȑıȘ (ıIJȠ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ įȫȡȠ IJȘȢ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ ȣȚȠșİıȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ țĮIJȐ ȤȐȡȚȞ). ȆȡȠȠʌIJȚțȑȢ țĮȚ ĮȞĮijȠȡȚțȩIJȘIJİȢ İʌĮȞĮȜĮȝȕȐȞȦ ĮıȪȝȝİIJȡİȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣȢ (ȕȜ. ĮıȣȝȝİIJȡȓĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ įȫȡȠȣ ijȪıİȦȢ țĮȚ įȫȡȠȣ ȤȐȡȚIJȠȢ ıIJȠȞ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ) ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ țĮȚ ĮʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘȢ. ȆȡȕȜ. ıȤİIJȚțȐ G. Iammarone, L’uomo immagine di Dio: Antropologia e Cristologia, ȩ.ʌ.

Orthodox Christian Anthropology

243

ıIJĮ ȑıȤĮIJĮ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ, įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȠȪIJİ İʌĮțȡȚȕȫȢ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȑȢ ĮijȘȖȒıİȚȢ, ȠȪIJİ ĮʌȜȑȢ ȝȣșȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ĮijȘȖȒıİȚȢ ĮȜȜȐ -İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ, ȝȑıĮ ĮʌǯǹȣIJȩȞ, țĮȚ țĮșȠįȩȞ ʌȡȠȢ ǹȣIJȩȞ- țĮIJǯİȟȠȤȒȞ ʌȡȠijȘIJȚțȑȢ țĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ĮijȘȖȒıİȚȢ. ǻİȞ İȓȝĮȚ įȚȩȜȠȣ İȚįȚțȩȢ ıIJȠ șȑȝĮ, ʌȚșĮȞȩȞ ȞĮ țȐȞȦ ȜȐșȠȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ĮȣIJȒ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ĮȓıșȘıȒ ȝȠȣ. ȉĮ IJȘȢ īȑȞİıȘȢ 1-2 ʌȡȠİȚțȠȞȓȗȠȣȞ (ȦȢ IJȪʌȠȚ IJȦȞ ȝİȜȜȩȞIJȦȞ) IJȠȞ İȞ ıĮȡțȓ ĮȞĮıIJȐȞIJĮ țĮȚ ĮȞĮȜȘijșȑȞIJĮ İȞ įȩȟİȚ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȩ, IJȘȞ ĮʌȠțĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ IJȘȢ ıȐȡțĮȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒ ȉȠȣ ȑȞįȠȟȘ ıȐȡțĮ. ǹȜȜȐ țĮȚ (ıȣȞ ǹȣIJȫ, İȞ ǹȣIJȫ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ ǹȣIJȩȞ) IJȘȞ İȞ IJȦ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȦ ȉȠȣ țĮȚ įȚȐ IJȠȣ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ ȉȠȣ ʌĮȜȚȞȩȡșȦıȘ ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ ȑȝijȣȜȦȞ (ȑȝȥȣȤȦȞ țĮȚ İȞıȫȝĮIJȦȞ ț.Ȝʌ.) ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ, țȐșİ İʌȠȤȒȢ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȠȪ, țĮȚ IJȦȞ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȫȞ ıȤȑıİȫȞ IJȠȣȢ ȦȢ țĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ țĮȚ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȑȢ. ȅʌȠȚȠįȒʌȠIJİ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ ȑȝijȣȜȠ (ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ IJȠ İȡȝĮijȡȩįȚIJȠ Ȓ ȠʌȠȚȠįȒʌȠIJİ ȐȜȜȠ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ ĮʌĮȞIJȘșİȓ ıIJȘȞ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȒ ʌĮȡĮIJȒȡȘıȘ) ȦȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ, İȓȞĮȚ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ «ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijȠ», ȑȤİȚ IJȠ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩ IJȠȣ șİȝȑȜȚȠ ıIJȘ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ țĮȚ ĮʌȠțĮȜȣʌIJȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ țĮșȠȜȚțȒȢ țĮȚ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȒȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞĮıIJȘȝȑȞȠȣ ȃĮȗȦȡĮȓȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ, ıIJȘȞ «ȚįȓĮ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ» țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ İȞ ıĮȡțȓ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ IJȠȣ țĮșȠȜȚțȠȪ țĮȚ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȠȪ ȁȩȖȠȣ IJȠȣ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ (ȕȜ. ĮȖȚȠIJȡȚĮįȚțȐ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒ țĮȚ ĮıȪȝȝİIJȡȘ İȞȣʌȠıIJĮıȓĮ ıIJȠȞ ȊȚȩ IJȘȢ ıȪȞȠȜȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, ıİ ȠʌȠȚĮįȒʌȠIJİ ʌĮȡĮȜȜĮȖȒ IJȘȢ). Ȉİ ȝȚĮ IJȑIJȠȚĮ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȝİ ȞĮ ʌȠȪȝİ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢĮįȐȝ ʌȜȐıIJȘțİ İȞ ĮȡȤȒ (ʌȡȠʌIJȦIJȚțȐ) ȝİ IJȡȩʌȠ țĮȚ IJȩʌȠ IJȡȚıįȚȐıIJĮIJȠ: (Į) ȦȢ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȠȪ IJȠȣ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ ȝİ ĮȣIJȩȞ, (ȕ) ȦȢ țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠȢ, (Ȗ) ȦȢ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞĮ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠȢ, ȦȢ ʌȠȜȣįȚȐıIJĮIJĮ «ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijȠȢ ĮįȐȝ» (İȚțȩȞĮ İȚțȩȞȠȢ). ǻȘȜ. ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ, İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠȢ (ȦȢ «ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijȠȢ») țĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȠȢ (ȦȢ «ĮȞȒȡ țĮȚ ĮȞįȡȓȢ»). ȈIJȠ ʌȡȫIJȠ Įʌȩ ĮȣIJȐ IJĮ İʌȓʌİįĮ IJȡȚıįȚȐıIJĮIJȘȢ șİȫȡȘıȘȢ -IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ įȚĮțȡȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣȢ ĮȜȜȐ įİȞ ȤȦȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ʌȠIJȑ țĮșȩıȠȞ ıȣȞĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪȞ įȚĮıIJȐıİȚȢ IJȘȢ șİȫȡȘıȘȢ-ĮȞȒțİȚ Ș ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ «ĮȞȠȚțIJȩIJȘIJĮ» ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ (İʌȓʌİįȠ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪ ıțȠʌȠȪ IJȘȢ ȓįȚĮȢ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ). ȈIJȠ įİȪIJİȡȠ ĮȞȒțİȚ Ș «ȤȡȚıIJȠȝȠȡijȓĮ» IJȘȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, Ș ȤȡȚıIJȠ-İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ (İʌȓʌİįȠ ȣʌȠıIJȐıİȦȢ țĮIJȐ IJȡȩʌȠȞ IJȠȣ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝȑȞȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ). ȈIJȠ IJȡȓIJȠ İʌȓʌİįȠ (İʌȓʌİįȠ ijȪıİȦȢ țĮIJȐ ȜȩȖȠȞ IJȠȣ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝȑȞȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ) ĮȞȒțİȚ Ș țȐșİ İȓįȠȣȢ İıȦIJİȡȚțȒ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȓȘıȘ ıIJȘȞ ijȪıȘ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, IJȘȞ İȟȐʌĮȞIJȠȢ țĮȚ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ (įȘȜ. İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ) ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒ.19 19

ȅ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ ĮȣIJȩȢ, Ƞ İȞȚĮȓĮ (ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijĮ) įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȠȢ țĮȚ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞĮ İȞȚĮȓȠȢ (ȦȢ ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijȠȢ), ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ ʌȜȐıIJȘțİ (İȞ ĮȡȤȒ) ĮȜȜȐ ʌȜȐșİIJĮȚ țĮȚ ĮȞĮʌȜȐșİIJĮȚ (ıȣȞİȤȫȢ țĮȚ İȞ IJȑȜİȚ) Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȩ Ĭİȩ IJȠȣ țĮȚ

244

Chapter Seventeen

5. ȅ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ ıIJȠ ıȪȞȠȜȩ IJȠȣ, Ƞ İȞȚĮȓĮ «ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijȠȢ» ĮįȐȝ, Ƞ İȚȢ ȐȡıİȞ țĮȚ șȒȜȣ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȠȢ İȞIJȩȢ IJȠȣ țĮșȠȜȚțȠȪ ʌȜĮȚıȓȠȣ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȠȝȠȡijȓĮȢ IJȠȣ, ȜȩȖȦ IJȠȣ İȚįȚțȠȪ IJȡȩʌȠȣ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJİȜȚțȠȪ ıțȠʌȠȪ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȠȣ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȩ IJȠȣ, ȜȩȖȦ IJȠȣ țIJȓıIJȘ, IJȠȣ ĮȡȤȑIJȣʌȠȣ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȠȣ IJȡȩʌȠȣ IJȘȢ țIJȓıİȫȢ IJȠȣ, İȓȞĮȚ țĮȚ ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ «ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijȠȢ». ǼȓIJİ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ «ȖȞȦȡȓȗİȚ» (İʌȓȖȞȦıȚȢ) Ȓ ĮȞIJȓșİIJĮ įİȞ IJȠ «ȖȞȦȡȓȗİȚ» (ȐȖȞȠȚĮ), İȓIJİ ĮțȩȝĮ IJȠ «ʌĮȡĮȖȞȦȡȓȗİȚ» (ʌIJȫıȘ). ǹțȩȝĮ țĮȚ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ ʌIJȫıȘ IJȠȣ Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ ȝĮȢ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌĮȡĮȝȩȡijȦıȘ ĮȜȜȐ ȩȤȚ ʌȜȒȡȘ İȟȐȜİȚȥȘ Ȓ ȐȡıȘ IJȘȢ «ȤȡȚıIJȠȝȠȡijȓĮȢ» IJȠȣ. ǹȣIJȩ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞĮ įİȓȤȞİȚ Ƞ ȤȡȚıIJȠ-İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȩȢ IJȡȩʌȠȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ ȪʌĮȡȟȘȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ȦȢ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ «țĮIJ ǯİȚțȩȞĮ» țĮȚ įȣȞĮȝȚțȐ «ʌȡȠȢ ȠȝȠȓȦıȘ» ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ țȩıȝȠȣ, İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ įİ ʌȡȠȢ șȑȦıȘ, țĮșȠȜȚțȒ ȤȡȚıIJȠʌȠȓȘıȘ țĮȚ ĮȞȐıIJĮıȘ ıIJȘ ǺĮıȚȜİȓĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ. ǵȤȚ ȩʌȦȢ ʌȡȠİȓʌĮȝİ IJȡȚĮįȚțȐ ȖİȞȚțİȣȝȑȞĮ ȠȪIJİ șİȚıIJȚțȐ ĮįȚȐțȡȚIJĮ, ĮȜȜȐ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȐ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȝȑȞĮ: ȝİ ĮȪȟȘıȘ IJȠȣ ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȠȪ įȫȡȠȣ IJȘȢ ʌȓıIJȘȢ (İȚȢ ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ) țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȣȚȠșİıȓĮȢ (țĮIJȐ ȤȐȡȚȞ) –Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ, İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ ǿȘıȠȪ, IJȦ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ– ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ IJİȜȚțȒ țĮȚ ĮįȚȐʌIJȦIJȘ «İȖȤȡȓıIJȦıȒ» ȝĮȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ «ĮȞĮțİijĮȜĮȓȦıȘ» (Totus Christus, caput et corpus).20

ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȠȪ ĬİȠȪ IJȠȣ: (Į) ȝİ IJȡȩʌȠ IJȡȚĮįȚțȩ, (ȕ) ȝİ ĮȡȤȑIJȣʌȠ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ ıȐȡțȦıȘȢ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ (Ȗ) ȝİ IJİȜȚțȩ ıțȠʌȩ IJȘȞ IJȑȜİȚĮ țĮȚ ĮįȚȐʌIJȦIJȘ ȠȝȠȓȦıȒ IJȠȣ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ıIJȘȞ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ IJȠȣ ʌȜȘȡȩIJȘIJĮ (ȕȜ. țĮșǯȠȝȠȓȦıȚȞ), įȘȜ. IJȘȞ țĮșȠȜȚțȒ ĮȞĮțİijĮȜĮȓȦıȒ IJȠȣ ıIJȠȞ İȞ ıĮȡțȓ įȠȟĮıȝȑȞȠ ȀȪȡȚȠ ǿȘıȠȪ (ȕȜ. ĮȞȐıIJĮıȘ, İț įİȟȚȫȞ țĮșȑįȡĮ țĮȚ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞĮțİijĮȜĮȓȦıȘ). ȀĮȚ ıȣȞİʌȫȢ IJȘȞ ĮįȚȐʌIJȦIJȘ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ȝİ IJȠȞ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȩ Ĭİȩ IJȠȣ ȦȢ Ƞ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ ǹȣIJȠȪ. ǼȓȞĮȚ ȝİȖȐȜȘ ĮȞĮțȡȓȕİȚĮ ʌȚıIJİȪȦ - ȝİ ıȠȕĮȡȑȢ ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ țĮȚ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ İʌȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ, ĮȢ IJȠ ʌȡȠıȑȟȠȣȝİ ĮȣIJȩ - ȞĮ Ȝȑȝİ ȩIJȚ ʌȡȦIJȩIJȣʌȠ țĮȚ ĮȡȤȑIJȣʌȠ IJȠȣ țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝȑȞȠȣ (țĮȚ ĮȞĮįȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȠȪȝİȞȠȣ) ĮįȐȝ İȓȞĮȚ ȖİȞȚțİȣȝȑȞĮ țĮȚ ĮțĮșȩȡȚıIJĮ Ƞ «ĬİȩȢ», Ȓ Ș «ĮȖȓĮ ȉȡȚȐįĮ», Ȓ Ș «IJȡȚĮįȚțȒ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ» (IJȦȞ șİȓȦȞ ʌȡȠıȫʌȦȞ), Ȓ ĮțȩȝĮ Ƞ «șİȓȠȢ ȁȩȖȠȢ» ȐıĮȡțĮ ȞȠȠȪȝİȞȠȢ. 20 ǹȢ ȝȠȣ ıȣȖȤȦȡȘșİȓ İįȫ ȝȚĮ įȘȝȩıȚĮ İȟȠȝȠȜȩȖȘıȘ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJĮ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ. ǻİȞ İȓȞĮȚ IJȣȤĮȓȠ ȩIJȚ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, IJȘȢ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ İȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȦ, ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȝȚĮ įȚʌȜȒ ĮıȐijİȚĮ țĮȚ ıȪȖȤȣıȘ IJȩıȠ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ «İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ĮȡȤȑIJȣʌȠ» IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ «ʌȡȠıȦʌȩIJȘIJȐ» IJȠȣ (in via), ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ĮįȚȐʌIJȦIJȘ «IJİȜİȓȦıȘ» țĮȚ «șȑȦıȒ» IJȠȣ (in patria). ǹȣIJȩ IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ įİȓȤȞȠȣȞ ȠȚ ĮʌĮȞIJȒıİȚȢ ȝİIJĮʌIJȣȤȚĮțȫȞ ijȠȚIJȘIJȫȞ ȝȠȣ, ʌȠȜȜȠȓ İț IJȦȞ ȠʌȠȓȦȞ İȓȞĮȚ țȜȘȡȚțȠȓ Ȓ/țĮȚ ʌIJȣȤȚȠȪȤȠȚ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, ıIJĮ įȣȠ įȚĮıIJĮȣȡȠȪȝİȞĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣȢ İȡȦIJȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ IJȓșİȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤȒ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ țĮIJȐ IJȘ įȚȐȡțİȚĮ IJȠȣ ĮțĮįȘȝĮȧțȠȪ ȑIJȠȣȢ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ IJȩıȠ IJȠȣ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪ «țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ» (ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ) ȩıȠ țĮȚ ȝİ ĮȣIJȩ IJȘȢ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ «șȑȦıȘȢ» (ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ).

Orthodox Christian Anthropology

245

6. ȈȣȝʌİȡĮıȝĮIJȚțȐ: (Į) Ƞ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ, IJȠ ĮȡȚıIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ ĮȣIJȩ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ, İȓȞĮȚ țĮȚ ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ ȣʌĮȡȟȚĮțȐ ȝİȞ «İȡȫIJȘȝĮ» (ȖȚĮ ȝĮȢ IJȠȣȢ ȓįȚȠȣȢ, șİȠȜȩȖȠȣȢ țĮȚ ȝȘ ĮįȚȐțȡȚIJĮ), șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ įİ «ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ» (ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ IJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ). ȀĮȚ șĮ ʌĮȡĮȝİȓȞİȚ ȑIJıȚ ȠıȠȞįȒʌȠIJİ țȚ ĮȞ «İȝȕĮșȪȞȠȣȝİ» ıİ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ țĮȚ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȠ ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȩ ijȫȢ IJȘȢ İȞ ȘȝȓȞ «ʌȓıIJȘȢ» (ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ İȞ ıĮȡțȓ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ «ĮʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘ» IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ, İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ-ǿȘıȠȪ, IJȦ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ)21 ȆĮȡȩȜȘ IJȘȞ ȠıȠȞįȒʌȠIJİ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ ıȣȝȕȠȜȒ IJȦȞ șȪȡĮșİȞ İʌȚıIJȘȝȫȞ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘ įȚĮijȫIJȚıȘ IJȠȣ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ (ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȠȣ țȩıȝȠȣ), Ȓ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ ȖȚĮ IJȘ įȚİȪȡȣȞıȘ IJȠȣ İȡȦIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ, İȓȞĮȚ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ĮʌĮȡĮȓIJȘIJȠ, ıIJȠ įȚȐȜȠȖȩ ȝĮȢ ȝİ IJȚȢ șȪȡĮșİȞ İʌȚıIJȒȝİȢ țĮȚ IJȚȢ șİȦȡȒıİȚȢ IJȠȣȢ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌĮȡĮȓIJȘIJȘ Ș İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ȝİIJĮȟȪ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ țĮȚ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȠȪ ʌȡȠȕȜȒȝĮIJȠȢ. ȅ «ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ» -ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ İȞȞȠİȓIJĮȚĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ țĮIJǯĮȡȤȐȢ țĮȚ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ İȓȞĮȚ ȑȞĮ ĮʌȠțĮȜȣʌIJȚțȩ «ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ» (ʌȡȠȢ ıȣȞİȤȒ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ İȝȕȐșȣȞıȘ). ǵȤȚ ĮʌȜȫȢ ȠȪIJİ țĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ ȑȞĮ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȩ «ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ» (ʌȡȠȢ İȟİȜȚțIJȚțȐ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȒ ȜȪıȘ). (ȕ) ȈIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȘȢ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ȠȡȚȠșȑIJȘıȘȢ Ș «ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ» ıȒȝİȡĮ, ȦȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ țĮȚ ĮȞİȟĮȡIJȒIJȦȢ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȚĮțȫȞ Ȓ ȐȜȜȦȞ ĮʌȠȤȡȫıİȦȞ ıİ «ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒ» țĮȚ «ǻȪıȘ», ȩȤȚ ĮʌȜȐ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ ıȣȞİȡȖȐȗİIJĮȚ -«ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚțȐ» ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ- ȝİ IJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ «șȪȡĮșİȞ ʌĮȚįİȓĮ». ǵʌȦȢ mutatis mutandis ıȣȞȑȕȘ țĮȚ țĮIJȐ IJȠ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ IJȘȢ, ıIJȘȞ ʌĮIJİȡȚțȒ, ȝİıĮȚȦȞȚțȒ, ȞİȦIJİȡȚțȒ țĮȚ ȝİIJȑʌİȚIJĮ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ıIJȠȣȢ țȣȡȚȩIJİȡȠȣȢ IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ İțʌȡȠıȫʌȠȣȢ IJȦȞ ʌİȡȚȩįȦȞ ĮȣIJȫȞ, ȝİ ʌȡȫIJȠ țĮȚ IJİȜȚțȩ țȡȚIJȒȡȚȠ ıȘȝİȚȦIJȑȠȞ, ȩȤȚ ȩȝȦȢ țĮȚ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȩ, IJȘȞ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ IJȦȞ ıȣȖȖȡĮijȑȦȞ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ. ȍȢ IJȑIJȠȚȠ IJȠ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȩ țȡȚIJȒȡȚȠ İȓȞĮȚ țĮșȠȡȚıIJȚțȩ

21 ǹȢ įȠȪȝİ IJȠ įȫȡȠ IJȘȢ «ʌȓıIJȘȢ» țȐIJȚ ıĮȞ IJȘȞ «ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ ĮȞȐįȡĮıȘ» (feedback) ʌȠȣ Ș «İȞ ıĮȡțȓ ĮȣIJȠʌȡȩıȦʌȘ ĮʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘ» IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ (IJȠ țĮIJ’ İȟȠȤȒȞ «ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ») įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİȓ ıİ ȝĮȢ. ǵȤȚ ȕİȕĮȓȦȢ İȚȢ ȕȐȡȠȢ IJȘȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒȢ İȜİȣșİȡȓĮȢ ȝĮȢ (ĮȜȜȐ, ĮȞIJȓșİIJĮ, ʌȡȠȢ ʌİȡĮȚIJȑȡȦ ĮʌİȜİȣșȑȡȦıȒ IJȘȢ), ȠȪIJİ ȤȦȡȓȢ IJȘ įȚțȒ ȝĮȢ țȡȣijȒ İʌȚșȣȝȓĮ ȦȢ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ «ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijȦȞ» ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ (ʌȡȚȞ Įʌȩ țĮȚ ʌȑȡĮȞ IJȦȞ ȩʌȠȚȦȞ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȐ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȫȞ ʌİȡȚʌİIJİȚȫȞ ȝĮȢ). Ǿ «İȞ ıĮȡțȓ ĮȣIJȠʌȡȩıȦʌȘ ĮʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘ» IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ȦȢ IJȠ țĮIJǯİȟȠȤȒȞ «ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ» ıȣȞȚıIJȐ «ʌȡȩ-țȜȘıȘ» ȝİ IJȘȞ İȣȖİȞȑıIJİȡȘ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȩȡȠȣ, «pro-vocatio»: ȕȖĮȓȞȦ ȑȟȦ (ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ıİ ijȦȞȐȟȦ) țĮȚ ıİ ijȦȞȐȗȦ (İțİȓ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ ȠʌȠȣįȒʌȠIJİ ȕȡȓıțİıĮȚ). Ǿ İȞ ȜȩȖȦ «ĮʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘ» įİȞ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİȓ ĮʌȜȐ țĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȑȞĮ «șİȦȡȘIJȚțȩ» İȡȫIJȘȝĮ (ȚıIJȠȡȚțȒȢ Ȓ ijȚȜȠıȠijȚțȒȢ Ȓ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȒȢ ț.Ȝʌ. ijȪıİȦȢ) ĮȜȜȐ țĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȫIJȚıIJĮ ȑȞĮ «İȡȫIJȘȝĮ» ȕĮșȪIJĮIJĮ ȣʌĮȡȟȚĮțȩ țĮȚ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞĮ ȝȓĮ «İȣ-țĮȚȡȓĮ» ȐȝİıĮ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ. ȈIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ ĮȣIJȩ ȞȠȘȝĮIJȠįȠIJİȓIJĮȚ țĮȚ IJȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ıȤȑıȘ ȠȡșȠįȠȟȓĮȢ țĮȚ ȠȡșȠʌȡĮȟȓĮȢ. ǿįȠȪ «țĮȚȡȩȢ İȣʌȡȩıįİțIJȠȢ».

246

Chapter Seventeen

ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ ȝİIJĮ-ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒȢ «ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ» țĮȚ «șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ» ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ İʌȠȤȫȞ ȦȢ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ ȕȚȕȜȚțȠ-ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ.

Ǻ ȆȡȠȢ ȝȚĮ «ȤȡȚıIJȠ-ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ» ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ22 ȈIJȠ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȠȣ ʌȡȫIJȠȣ ȝȑȡȠȣȢ IJȘȢ İȚıȒȖȘıȘȢ țĮȚ ʌİȡȞȫȞIJĮȢ ıIJȠ įİȪIJİȡȠ țĮȚ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓȠ ȝȑȡȠȢ țĮȜȠȪȝĮıIJİ ȞĮ įȚİȡȦIJȘșȠȪȝİ «ȤȡȚıIJȠ-țȡȚIJȚțȐ», ȚıIJȐȝİȞȠȚ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ țĮȚ ıȣȖȤȡȩȞȦȢ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ țȩıȝȠȣ, ʌȡȐȖȝĮ įȚȩȜȠȣ İȪțȠȜȠ, İʌȐȞȦ ıİ ȑȞĮ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȩ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ.23 ȉȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ĮȣIJȩ ĮȞĮįȪİIJĮȚ įȚİʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȐ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȠ įȚȐȜȠȖȠ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ İʌȚıIJȘȝȫȞ țĮȚ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ įȚĮIJȣʌȦșİȓ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȦȢ İȟȒȢ: İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌȠįİțIJȒ ȝȚĮ ʌȡĮȖȝȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ țĮȚ ȠȞIJȠʌȠȓȘıȒ IJȠȣȢ (ijȣıȚȠțȡĮIJȚțȠȪ IJȪʌȠȣ); ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ȐȜȜȘ ʌȜİȣȡȐ: İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌȠįİțIJȒ ȝȚĮ ȡȚȗȚțȒ ıȤİIJȚțȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ țĮȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠʌȠȓȘıȒ IJȠȣȢ (ȚıIJȠȡȚȠțȡĮIJȚțȠȪ IJȪʌȠȣ); ȂȒʌȦȢ IJİȜȚțȐ Ș ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ ȑȝijȣȜȘȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ȦȢ IJȑIJȠȚĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ İȖțȜȦȕȚıȝȑȞȘ ıIJȘ įȚİȜțȣıIJȓȞįĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ijȣıȚȠțȡĮIJȓĮȢ țĮȚ ȚıIJȠȡȚȠțȡĮIJȓĮȢ, ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮʌȠșȑȦıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȒȢ ijȪıȘȢ țĮȚ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ Ȓ ĮȞIJȓıIJȡȠijĮ ĮʌȠȥȓȜȦıȘȢ IJȠȣȢ; ȉȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȠȪIJİ İȪțȠȜȠ, ȠȪIJİ ĮȞȫįȣȞȠ țĮȚ Ș ȠʌȠȚĮįȒʌȠIJİ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ, ĮȞȐȜȠȖȘ ʌȡȠȢ IJĮ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ʌȜĮȓıȚĮ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ įȚĮȝȠȡijȫȞİIJĮȚ, ȑȤİȚ ıİ țȐșİ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ıȠȕĮȡȑȢ İʌȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ıİ įȚȐijȠȡĮ İʌȓʌİįĮ (ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȩ, țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ, ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȩ ț.Ȝʌ.). ǻİȞ ʌȡȠIJȓșİȝĮȚ İįȫ ȞĮ ĮʌĮȞIJȒıȦ ıİ ȑȞĮ IJȑIJȠȚȠ įȚİʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȩ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ. ǹʌȜȐ țĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ șĮ ȒșİȜĮ ȞĮ țĮIJĮșȑıȦ ȝİȡȚțȑȢ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡȒıİȚȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȜİȣȡȐ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, ıȣȝʌȜȘȡȦȝĮIJȚțȑȢ ıIJĮ ȩıĮ İȜȑȤșȘıĮȞ ıIJȠ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȪȝİȞȠ ȝȑȡȠȢ IJȘȢ İȚıȒȖȘıȘȢ. 1. ǼȓȞĮȚ ʌĮȞIJİȜȫȢ ĮįȪȞĮIJȠ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȤșȠȪȝİ -remoto Christo- įȚǯĮʌȜȒȢ İʌȚıIJȡȠijȒȢ (regressio) ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠʌIJȦIJȚțȒ «ĮįĮȝȠȜȠȖȓĮ» IJȠȣ «İȞ ĮȡȤȒ» ȑȝijȣȜĮ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȠȣ İȚȢ «ȐȡıİȞ țĮȚ șȒȜȣ» țĮȚ 22

ȉȠ ȝȑȡȠȢ ĮȣIJȩ İȚįȚțȐ ĮijȚİȡȫȞİIJĮȚ ıİ įȣȠ ĮȖĮʌȘIJȑȢ ijȓȜİȢ țĮȚ İțȜİțIJȑȢ ıȣȞİȡȖȐIJȚįİȢ ıIJȠ ǼǹȆ, ıIJȘȞ ț. ȈʌȣȡȚįȠȪȜĮ ǹșĮȞĮıȠʌȠȪȜȠȣ-ȀȣʌȡȓȠȣ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ț. ǼȜȑȞȘ ȀĮııİȜȠȪȡȘ-ȋĮIJȗȘȕĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘ, ȦȢ ĮȞIJȓįȦȡȠ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȑȢ IJȠȣȢ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚİȢ. ȈȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ ȝȑȡȠȢ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȡȕȜ. IJȘȞ İȚıȒȖȘıȘ IJȘȢ Ȉ. ǹșĮȞĮıȠʌȠȪȜȠȣ-ȀȣʌȡȓȠȣ ʌȠȣ ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȠȞ ʌĮȡȩȞIJĮ IJȩȝȠ. 23 ȃĮ įȚİȡȦIJȘșȠȪȝİ įȘȜ. Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȠʌIJȚțȒ ȖȦȞȓĮ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ İȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȦ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, Įʌȩ IJȠ țȑȞIJȡȠ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ (ȝİ «ȞȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ»), ȦȢ ȚıIJȐȝİȞȠȚ İʌȓ IJȠȣ șİȝİȜȓȠȣ IJȘȢ (ȝİ ʌȓıIJȘ țĮIJǯİʌȓȖȞȦıȚȞ), ĮȜȜȐ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞĮ țĮȚ ıİ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ ĮȞȠȚțIJȠȪ įȚĮȜȩȖȠȣ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘ șȪȡĮșİȞ ʌĮȚįİȓĮ (ıIJȚȢ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞİȢ İʌȚıIJȒȝİȢ).

Orthodox Christian Anthropology

247

ȠȞIJȠİȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İȞȚĮȓȠȣ «ĮįȐȝ» (ȕȜ. İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣ «ĮįȐȝ»). ȉȠ «ȐȡıİȞ» (ĮȞȒȡ-ish) țĮȚ «șȒȜȣ» (ĮȞįȡȓȢ-ishsha) IJȠȣ ĮįȐȝĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ İȞįȪșȘțĮȞ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȐ țĮȚ țĮIJǯȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȞ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ Ĭİȩ «ȤȚIJȫȞĮȢ įİȡȝĮIJȓȞȠȣȢ», «İȟİȕȜȒșȘıĮȞ țĮȚ țĮIJȫțȚıĮȞ ĮʌȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ʌĮȡĮįİȓıȠȣ IJȘȢ IJȡȣijȒȢ». Ǿ įİ «ȠįȩȢ IJȠȣ ȟȪȜȠȣ IJȘȢ ȗȦȒȢ», Ș ʌȩȡIJĮ IJȠȣ ʌĮȡĮįİȓıȠȣ, ȑțȜİȚıİ ȖȚĮ ȝĮȢ (īİȞ. 3,21-24)24. ȈȣȞİʌȫȢ IJȠ IJȚ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ țĮIJȐ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ IJȠ ʌȡȠʌIJȦIJȚțȐ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ «ȐȡıİȞ țĮȚ șȒȜȣ», įȘȜ. Ș ʌȡȠʌIJȦIJȚțȒ ȑȝijȣȜȘ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ ıȤİıȚĮțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ijȪıİȚ țIJȚıIJȠȪ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, įİȞ ȞȠȝȓȗȦ ȩIJȚ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȝİ ȞĮ IJȠ ʌȡȠıʌİȜȐıȠȣȝİ. ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠ-șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ, ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ țĮȚ ȠijİȓȜȠȣȝİ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıįȫıȠȣȝİ ıIJȚȢ ȑȝijȣȜİȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJİȢ țĮȚ ıȤİıȚĮțȩIJȘIJİȢ «ĮȞįȡȩȢ» țĮȚ «ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ», țĮIJǯĮȡȤȐȢ țĮȚ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ («țĮIJȐ ȜȩȖȠȞ»), ȑȞĮ șİIJȚțȩ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ (ʌȡȚȞ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ «İȞ ĮįȐȝ» ʌIJȫıȘ țĮȚ İʌȑțİȚȞĮ IJȘȢ ʌIJȫıȘȢ: IJȘȢ «ʌIJȫıȘȢ țĮIJȐ IJȡȩʌȠȞ» (țĮȚ «ʌĮȡȐ-ȜȩȖȠȞ») IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠȣ «ȑȝijȣȜȠȣ» (ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ «ȑȞȣȜȠȣ-İȞıȫȝĮIJȠȣ» țĮȚ «ȑȝȥȣȤȠȣ» ț.Ȝʌ.)25 ǵʌȦȢ Ș țIJȚıIJȩIJȘIJĮ İȞ ȖȑȞİȚ ȦȢ țIJȚıIJȩIJȘIJĮ (țIJȚıIJȑȢ ijȪıİȚȢ) IJȦȞ țIJȚıȝȐIJȦȞ (įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝȐIJȦȞ) IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ (ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȠȪ) įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ʌĮȡȐ ȞĮ șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ ȦȢ țȐIJȚ IJȠ șİIJȚțȩ, țĮșȩıȠ ıȣȞȚıIJȐ İȣȜȠȖȓĮ ȉȠȣ (ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ İȣȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ),26 ȑIJıȚ țĮȚ Ș ȑȝijȣȜȘ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ ıȤİıȚĮțȩIJȘIJĮ ȦȢ IJȑIJȠȚĮ IJȘȢ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ijȪıȘȢ IJȦȞ ʌȡȦIJȠʌȜȐıIJȦȞ, IJȦȞ ʌȡȫIJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ, įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ʌĮȡȐ ȞĮ șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ ȦȢ İȣȜȠȖȓĮ (ʌȡȕȜ. ȂIJș. 19,4 țĮȚ IJĮ ıȣȞȠʌIJȚțȐ ʌĮȡȐȜȜȘȜĮ). ǹȞĮijȑȡȠȝĮȚ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡĮ ıIJȘȞ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ȑȝȥȣȤȘ țĮȚ ȑȞȣȜȘ țĮȚ ȑȝijȣȜȘ ıȦȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJȐ IJȠȣ ȦȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ. ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ȠʌIJȚțȒ ȖȦȞȓĮ IJȘȢ ȕȚȕȜȚțȠ-ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ (İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ țĮȚ İȚȢ ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ) țĮȞȑȞĮ Įʌȩ IJĮ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ȣʌȠȖȡĮȝȝȚıșȑȞIJĮ ıIJȠȚȤİȓĮ țĮșĮȣIJȐ įİȞ ıȣȞȚıIJȠȪȞ ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıȝĮ IJȘȢ ʌIJȫıȘȢ ĮȜȜȐ ĮȞIJȓșİIJĮ 24 DzțȜİȚıİ ȩȝȦȢ ʌȡȠȞȠȘIJȚțȐ ȞȠȝȓȗȦ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ĮȞȠȓȟİȚ, İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ, țĮȚ İʌĮțȡȚȕȫȢ ıIJȠ ȠȞIJȠ-ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ țȑȞIJȡȠ IJȘȢ, Ș ʌȩȡIJĮ IJȠȣ IJȐijȠȣ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ. 25 ȉȠȪIJȠ ʌȡȠȢ ĮʌȠijȣȖȒ țȐșİ ʌİȚȡĮıȝȠȪ ȖȞȦıIJȚțȓȗȠȞIJȠȢ Ȓ țĮȚ İȜȜȘȞȓȗȠȞIJȠȢ IJȪʌȠȣ ıIJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȦȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ İȞįȠȖİȞȫȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȦIJĮȡȤȚțȐ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒȢ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒȢ. ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȫȞ ȤȡȩȞȦȞ Ș ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȦȢ «ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ» (ȦȢ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠȣ «ʌĮȡĮįİȓȖȝĮIJȠȢ» șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ȕȚȕȜȚțȠȪ IJȪʌȠȣ), įİȞ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ ȓıIJĮIJĮȚ țĮȚ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ įȚĮȝȠȡijȫȞİIJĮȚ ȦȢ IJȑIJȠȚĮ (ȕȚȕȜȚțȠȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ) IJȩıȠ İȞȫʌȚȠȞ IJȦȞ ʌȐıȘȢ ijȪıİȦȢ «ȚȠȣįĮȚȗȩȞIJȦȞ» ȩıȠ țĮȚ İȞȫʌȚȠȞ IJȦȞ ʌȐıȘȢ ijȪıİȦȢ «İșȞȚțȚȗȩȞIJȦȞ» ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ «ȖȞȦıIJȚțȚȗȩȞIJȦȞ» țȐșİ İʌȠȤȒȢ. 26 ȆĮȡİțIJȩȢ ĮȞ ĮȚıșȐȞȠȝĮȚ ȐıȤȘȝĮ, țĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ, ȦȢ țIJȚıIJȩȢ, ĮȞ ȗȦ ĮȡȞȘIJȚțȐ IJȘȞ țIJȚıIJȩIJȘIJȐ ȝȠȣ (țĮȚ țĮIJǯİʌȑțIJĮıȘ IJȘȞ ȑȝijȣȜȘ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJȐ ȝȠȣ, IJȘ ıȦȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJȐ ȝȠȣ ț.Ȝʌ.), Ȓ ĮțȩȝĮ ĮȞ ijșȐıȦ ȞĮ ijșȠȞȫ (ȣʌȠıȣȞİȓįȘIJĮ) IJȠȞ Ĭİȩ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮțIJȚıȓĮ IJȠȣ ʌȠȣ İȖȫ įİȞ ȑȤȦ.

248

Chapter Seventeen

ĮȞȐȖȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȚțȒ İȣȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ. Ǿ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȠʌȠȚȒșȘțİ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȩ İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, įȘȜ. ȝİ ȝȚĮ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ «țȜȒıȘ» (IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ) țĮȚ ȑȞĮȞ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ «ıțȠʌȩ» (IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ): ȦȢ țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ ȠȝȠȓȦıȘ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ. Ǽįȫ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ ʌȚıIJİȪȦ İıIJȚȐȗİIJĮȚ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ʌIJȫıȘȢ IJȠȣ țIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ (ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ȀIJȓıIJȠȣ): ȦȢ ʌĮȡĮțȠȒ IJȘȢ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ «țȜȒıȘȢ» IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ IJȠȣ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝȑȞȠȣ ȦȢ ȤȡȚıIJȠİȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪ (ʌĮȡĮțȠȒ țȜȒıȘȢ) țĮȚ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞĮ ȦȢ ʌĮȡĮȖȞȫȡȚıȘ IJȠȣ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪ «ıțȠʌȠȪ» IJȘȢ țIJȓıȘȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ Ĭİȩ (ʌĮȡĮȖȞȫȡȚıȘ ıțȠʌȠȪ) ʌȠȣ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȐȜȜȘ ʌĮȡȐ Ș ȠȝȠȓȦıȘ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ ĮȡȤȑIJȣʌȩ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȩ țĮȚ –İʌȚʌȜȑȠȞ!– Ș İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ-țĮȚ-İȚȢ-ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ įȦȡİȐ IJȘȢ ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒȢ ȣȚȠșİıȓĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ.27 2. ǹȢ ȑȡșȠȣȝİ IJȫȡĮ ıIJȘȞ «ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȒ İʌȑȞįȣıȘ» ȝİ «įİȡȝȐIJȚȞȠȣȢ ȤȚIJȫȞİȢ» (İʌȑȞįȣıȘ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ») IJȦȞ ĮʌǯĮȡȤȒȢ ȑȝijȣȜȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ, įȘȜ. ıIJȘ ıȘȝİȡȚȞȒ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ĮȢ IJȘȞ ʌȠȪȝİ ȑIJıȚ IJȘȢ ȑȝijȣȜȘȢ (țĮȚ ȑȝȥȣȤȘȢ, țĮȚ ȑȞȣȜȘȢ) ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ijȪıȘȢ ıIJȘȞ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ. Ǽįȫ șĮ İʌȚșȣȝȠȪıĮȝİ ȞĮ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡȒıȠȣȝİ IJĮ İȟȒȢ: (Į) ǻİȞ șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ıȣȖȤȑȠȣȝİ IJȘȞ ȑȝijȣȜĮ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȘ ijȪıȘ IJȦȞ ʌȡȦIJȠʌȜȐıIJȦȞ (ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮʌǯĮȡȤȒȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ IJȠȣȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ Ĭİȩ) ȝİ IJȘȞ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȒ İʌȑȞįȣıȒ IJȘȢ (ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȝİIJȑʌİȚIJĮ ʌȡȩȞȠȚĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ). ǻİȞ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ ȞĮ ʌİȡȚıIJİȓȜȠȣȝİ ȠȞIJȠ-ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ IJȠ «ĮʌǯĮȡȤȒȢ» țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝȑȞȠ țĮȚ ȑȝijȣȜĮ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȠ ıIJȠ «ȝİIJȑʌİȚIJĮ» ȝİ ȤȚIJȫȞİȢ İʌİȞįİįȣȝȑȞȠ, ȠȪIJİ ȩȝȦȢ ĮȞIJȓıIJȡȠijĮ țĮȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȠȕȐȜȜȠȣȝİ IJȠ «ȝİIJȑʌİȚIJĮ» (țĮȚ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ IJȘȢ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȒȢ ıȤİıȚĮțȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ) ıIJȠ «ĮʌǯĮȡȤȒȢ» ȝİ ĮʌȜȩ ĮȞĮȖȦȖȚıȝȩ.28 ĬĮ ȒIJĮȞ ıĮȞ ȞĮ ʌȡȠȕȐȜȜĮȝİ IJȘ (ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȒ) įȚȐıʌĮıȘ țĮȚ įȚĮȓȡİıȘ İʌȐȞȦ ıIJȘ įȣȞĮȝȚțȒ IJȘȢ (ʌȡȠʌIJȦIJȚțȒȢ) įȚȐțȡȚıȘȢ țĮȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ. ǹȣIJȩ ʌȠȣ İȝʌİȚȡȚțȐ ıȒȝİȡĮ (ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȐ) ȠȞȠȝȐȗȠȣȝİ «ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ ȑȝijȣȜȠ» ȦȢ ȑȝijȣȜȠ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȠȪIJİ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ȠȪIJİ ȩȝȦȢ țĮȚ ȡȚȗȚțȐ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩ Įʌȩ IJȠ (įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȚțȐ țĮȚ ʌȡȠʌIJȦIJȚțȐ) «ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ ȑȝijȣȜȠ» ȦȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ, ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤȚțȒ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ țĮȚ ıȤİıȚĮțȒ IJȠȣ ıȣȞ-ȪʌĮȡȟȘ țĮȚ ıȣȞ-ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ, ȦȢ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ıIJĮȣȡȠİȚįȒ, țȐșİIJȘ-țĮȚ-ȠȡȚȗȩȞIJȚĮ. ȉȘȞ IJȡȚıįȚȐıIJĮIJĮ ıȤİıȚĮțȒ ıȣȞ-ȪʌĮȡȟȘ țĮȚ ıȣȞ-ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ȝİ IJȠȞ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȩ Ĭİȩ (ȦȢ DZȜȜȠȞ), ȝİ IJȠȞ ȓįȚȠ IJȠȞ İĮȣIJȩ IJȠȣ (ȦȢ ȐȜȜȠȞ) țĮȚ ȝİ IJȠȞ ıȣȞ-ȐȞșȡȦʌȩ IJȠȣ (ȦȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȐ ȐȜȜȠȞ). dz ĮțȩȝĮ ĮȞ ʌȡȠIJȚȝȐȝİ, 27

ȆȡȕȜ. ıȤİIJȚțȐ Ȁ. ǹȖȩȡĮ, «Ȇİȡȓ țȩıȝȠȣ, ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ țĮȚ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ» ıIJȠ ıȣȜȜȠȖȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ Ȁ.ǹȖȩȡĮȢ ț.Į., ǻȩȖȝĮ, ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ ȒșȠȢ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮȢ, İțį. ǼȜȜȘȞȚțȠȪ ǹȞȠȚțIJȠȪ ȆĮȞİʌȚıIJȘȝȓȠȣ, ȆȐIJȡĮ 2002, ı. 75-178. 28 ȆȡȕȜ. ıȤİIJȚțȐ Ȇ. ȃȑȜȜĮ, IJȘȞ İȞȩIJȘIJĮ «İȚțȩȞĮ ĬİȠȪ țĮȚ įİȡȝȐIJȚȞȠȚ ȤȚIJȫȞİȢ» IJȠȣ ȑȡȖȠȣ IJȠȣ ǽȫȠȞ șİȠȪȝİȞȠȞ: ȆȡȠȠʌIJȚțȑȢ ȖȚĮ ȝȚĮ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, ȩ.ʌ., ı. 17-114 [45 ț.İ. ].

Orthodox Christian Anthropology

249

IJȠȞ țȐșİ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ıȣȞĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ IJȠȣ ıIJȠȞ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞIJĮ țȩıȝȠ.29 (ȕ) ȂȚĮ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒȢ ĮijİIJȘȡȓĮȢ IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ, įȘȜ. ıİ țȐșİIJȘ-țĮȚ-ȠȡȚȗȩȞIJȚĮ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ, ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ IJȡȚıįȚȐıIJĮIJĮ ıIJĮȣȡȠİȚįȒ țĮȚ ʌȠIJȑ įȚıįȚȐıIJĮIJĮ İʌȓʌİįȘ, įİȞ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ʌȚıIJİȪȦ ȞĮ ĮʌȠȜȣIJȠʌȠȚȒıİȚ ijȣıȚȠțȡĮIJȚțȐ țĮȚ ȚıIJȠȡȚȠțȡĮIJȚțȐ IJȠ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȩ ȑȝijȣȜȠ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, ȠȪIJİ ȕİȕĮȓȦȢ ȞĮ IJȠ ʌȡȠȕȐȜȜİȚ ıIJȠ ĮȡȤȑȖȠȞȠ ʌȡȠʌIJȦIJȚțȩ ȑȝijȣȜȠ (ıIJȠ ʌȡȠıȦʌȠțȡĮIJȚțȩ ȑȝijȣȜȠ) ȝȑıȦ ȝȚĮȢ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȒȢ ȠȞIJȠʌȠȓȘıȘȢ țĮȚ ʌȡĮȖȝȠʌȠȓȘıȘȢ IJȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ (Ȝ.Ȥ. ȝİ IJȘ ȝȠȡijȒ IJȠȣ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚıȝȠȪ). ǻȚȩIJȚ ȝİ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ĮȣIJȩȞ ȝȚĮȢ įȚĮıįȚȐıIJĮIJȘȢ șİȫȡȘıȘȢ șĮ İʌȑıIJȡİijİ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȐ IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ ıİ țĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ «ʌIJȫıȘȢ», șĮ ʌȡȠıȣʌȑȖȡĮijİ ıİ ȝȚĮ İʌȓʌİįȘ țĮȚ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȐ ʌIJȦIJȚțȒ șİȫȡȘıȘ IJȦȞ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ (ȦȢ įȚıįȚȐıIJĮIJȘ).30 ǻİȞ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȝİ ȩȝȦȢ İȟȓıȠȣ ȠȪIJİ țĮȚ ȞĮ ıȤİIJȚțȠʌȠȚȒıȠȣȝİ İȞIJİȜȫȢ țĮȚ ȞĮ ĮʌȠȥȚȜȫıȠȣȝİ IJȠ ȑȝijȣȜȠ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ıIJȘȞ ʌĮȡȠȪıĮ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȒ țĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ țĮȚ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣȢ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ ȝȚĮ ĮʌȠįȩȝȘıȘ IJȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ (Ȝ.Ȥ. ȝİ IJȘ ȝȠȡijȒ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠʌȠȓȘıȒȢ IJȦȞ). Ǿ ȑȝijȣȜȘ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ ıȤİıȚĮțȩIJȘIJĮ ıIJȠȞ țȐșİ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ -ȝĮȗȓ ȝİ IJȠȞ ıȣȞ-ȐȞșȡȦʌȩ IJȠȣ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ıȣȞ-ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ IJȠȣ, ʌȡȦIJĮȡȤȚțȐ įİ ȝĮȗȓ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȋȡȚıIJȩ țĮȚ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȠȪ ĬİȠȪ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ (coram Deo)- įȚĮıȫȗİȚ ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ ȩʌȦȢ ĮʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİIJĮȚ 29

ȆĮȡİțIJȩȢ ĮȞ ȣʌȠșȑIJȠȣȝİ ȩIJȚ Ș ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ ȦȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ (IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ĮįȐȝ) İȓȞĮȚ IJĮȣIJȩıȘȝȘ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌIJȫıȘ (IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ İȞ ĮįȐȝ) țĮȚ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıȝĮ IJȘȢ ʌIJȫıȘȢ. ȉȩIJİ Ș ıȦIJȘȡȓĮ șĮ ıȒȝĮȚȞİ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ (țĮȚ șĮ İʌȑȕĮȜİ İȖțĮIJȐȜİȚȥȘ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ). ǻİȞ șĮ ıȒȝĮȚȞİ, ȩʌȦȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȐ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ, ıȦIJȘȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ĮȣIJȠİȖțȜȦȕȚıȝȩ IJȘȢ, IJȘȞ ʌIJȫıȘ IJȘȢ (İȞ ĮįȐȝ). ȉȠ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȩ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ ʌȠȣ Ș ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤȠ ȝİ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ. Ǿ ĮįȚĮijȐȞİȚȐ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȠȞ İʌȑțİȚȞĮ ȀȪȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ, Ƞ ĮȣIJȠİȖțȜȦȕȚıȝȩȢ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȠȞ İĮȣIJȩ IJȠȣȢ, Ș ĮȣIJȠĮʌȠșȑȦıȒ IJȠȣȢ țĮȚ ıȣȞİʌȫȢ Ș ȞĮȡțȚııȚıIJȚțȒ ĮȣIJȠțĮIJĮȞȩȘıȒ IJȠȣȢ. ǵʌȦȢ ʌȐȞIJĮ IJȠ ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ șȑȝĮ įİȞ ĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȠȞ «ȜȩȖȠ ijȪıİȦȢ» ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȠȞ «įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȚțȩ ıțȠʌȩ» ĮȜȜȐ ıIJȠȞ ʌIJȦIJȚțȩ IJȠȣ «IJȡȩʌȠȣ ȣʌȐȡȟİȦȢ» (ʌĮȡĮ-ȜȩȖȠȞ). ȅ «ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ» țĮȚ Ș «ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ» ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪȞ ijȪıİȚ İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJİȢ: ȩʌȦȢ Ƞ «ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ-ĮįȐȝ» ȑȤİȚ IJȘȞ ȠȞIJȠ-İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ IJȠȣ (IJȠ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ șİȝȑȜȚȠ țĮȚ ȑıȤĮIJȠ ȕȐșȠȢ IJȠȣ) ıIJȠȞ ĮȡȤȑIJȣʌȩ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȩ, ȑIJıȚ țĮȚ Ș «ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ» ȑȤİȚ IJȘȞ ȠȞIJȠ-İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ IJȘȢ (IJȠ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ șİȝȑȜȚȠ țĮȚ ȑıȤĮIJȠ ȕȐșȠȢ IJȘȢ) ıIJȘȞ İijȐʌĮȟ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ (Įʌȩ IJȘ ıȪȜȜȘȥȘ țĮȚ ȖȑȞȞȘıȒ ȉȠȣ ȑȦȢ IJȘȞ İț įİȟȚȫȞ IJȠȣ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ țĮșȑįȡĮ țĮȚ įİȣIJȑȡĮ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ ȉȠȣ). 30 ǻȚȩIJȚ «ʌIJȫıȘ» (ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ) țĮȚ «ʌIJȦIJȚțȩ» (IJȡȩʌȠȢ) ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȖȚĮ ȝİȞ IJȠȣȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠȪȢ IJȠ «ʌĮȡȐ ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ» țĮȚ IJȠ «İțIJȩȢ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ» ȖȚĮ įİ IJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠ remoto Christo IJȘȢ ıȣȖțȡȩIJȘıȒȢ IJȘȢ, ȠıȠȞįȒʌȠIJİ țĮȚ ĮȞ ĮȣIJȩ ȑȤİȚ ȝİIJĮijȣıȚțȐ Ȓ ȣʌĮȡȟȚĮțȐ Ȓ ʌȡȠıȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ț.Ȝʌ. ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ, ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ Ȓ ȜȚȖȩIJİȡȠ «ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȐ» (ȝİ IJȘȞ IJȡȑȤȠȣıĮ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȩȡȠȣ).

250

Chapter Seventeen

ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȐ țĮȚ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȫȞİIJĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȐ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ-ǿȘıȠȪ IJȠ İȚıȑIJȚ ĮȞİȡȝȒȞİȣIJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȩ IJȘȢ, İȞ ĮȞĮȝȠȞȒ IJȘȢ ȆĮȡȠȣıȓĮȢ.31 ȉĮ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤĮ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȞ ȞĮ ȜİȤșȠȪȞ IJȩıȠ ȖȚĮ IJȠ «ȑȝȥȣȤȠ» ȩıȠ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠ «ȑȞȣȜȠ» IJȠȣ ĮįȐȝ-ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ıIJȠ İʌȓʌİįȠ IJȘȢ țIJȚıIJȒȢ ijȪıȘȢ IJȠȣ, IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ (ȜȩȖȠȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ijȪıȘȢ).32 TȠ ȑȞȣȜȠ țĮȚ IJȠ ȑȝȥȣȤȠ țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ IJȠ İıȦIJİȡȚțȐ įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȠ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ijȪıȘȢ ȦȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ıȣȞȚıIJȠȪȞ țĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȚțȒ İȣȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ. ȉȘȞ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȜȒșİȚĮ IJȠȣ ȑȝȥȣȤȠȣ, ȑȞȣȜȠȣ, ȑȝijȣȜȠȣ ț.Ȝʌ. ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ȦȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ ȠȝȠȓȦıȘ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝȑȞȠȣ -įȘȜ. IJȠȣ țĮșİȞȩȢ ȝĮȢ- įİȞ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȐ ȞĮ IJȘȞ ȥĮȪıȠȣȝİ ʌĮȡȐ ȝȩȞȠ -țĮȚ Įʌȩ ȝȑȡȠȣȢ- «İȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȦ»: ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ ȋȡȚıIJȩ, İțIJȩȢ IJȘȢ ʌIJȦIJȚțȒȢ įȚİȜțȣıIJȓȞįĮȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ȠȞIJȚțȒȢ ĮʌȠșȑȦıȘȢ ijȪıȘȢ (ijȣıȚȠțȡĮIJȓĮ) țĮȚ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ (ȚıIJȠȡȚȠțȡĮIJȓĮ) Ȓ ĮȞIJȓıIJȡȠijĮ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ĮʌȠȥȓȜȦıȘȢ IJȠȣȢ. ǻȚȩIJȚ ıİ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠ-șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ Ș ijȪıȘ țĮȚ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ, ȦȢ İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ ȣʌȐȡȟİȦȞ țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝȑȞȦȞ, įİȞ șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ Įʌȩ ȝȩȞȘ IJȘȢ (ȖȣȝȞȒ) ĮȜȜȐ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijİȢ ȣʌȐȡȟİȚȢ ȝĮȢ (İȞȣʌȩıIJĮIJȘ). ȈȣȞİʌȫȢ ȠȪIJİ ĮʌȠȜȣIJȠʌȠİȓIJĮȚ, ȠȪIJİ ıȤİIJȚțȠʌȠȚİȓIJĮȚ (ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ Ȓ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȐ) ĮȜȜȐ țĮIJĮijȐıțİIJĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ: İȞ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ, ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ ȋȡȚıIJȩ, İȚȢ įȩȟĮȞ ĬİȠȪ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ. 3. Ȉİ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞĮȜȠȖȓĮ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ IJȡȚĮįȚțȒ țĮȚ ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ (ĮıȪȝȝİIJȡȘ İȞȣʌȠıIJĮıȓĮ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ijȪıȘȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒ ȣʌȩıIJĮıȘ IJȠȣ ȊȚȠȪ), ıİ ȝȚĮ ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚțȒ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȞȠȝȓȗȦ ȩIJȚ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȝİ mutatis mutandis ȞĮ ʌȠȪȝİ ȩIJȚ İȓȞĮȚ Ș İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȤȡȚıIJȠȝȠȡijȓĮ (ʌȡȠıȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ) IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ʌȠȣ țĮșȠȡȓȗİȚ țĮȚ ıȣȞȚıIJȐ, IJİȜȚțȐ, IJȘȞ ȣʌȩıIJĮıȘ țĮȚ IJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȘȢ ȑȝijȣȜȘȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJȐȢ IJȠȣ (ȑȝijȣȜȘ ijȪıȘ). ǵȤȚ ĮȞIJȓıIJȡȠijĮ. ǼʌȓıȘȢ ȩIJȚ Ș İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȤȡȚıIJȠȝȠȡijȓĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ (İʌȓʌİįȠ ȣʌȠıIJȐıİȦȢ țĮIJȐ 31

ȃȠȝȓȗȦ ʌȦȢ ıİ ĮȞIJȓșİIJȘ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ, ȝȚĮ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȠʌȠȓȘıȘ Ȓ ȝȚĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ –ȝİ ȕȐıȘ İʌĮȞĮȜĮȝȕȐȞȦ IJȠȣȢ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȠȪȢ «įİȡȝȐIJȚȞȠȣȢ ȤȚIJȫȞİȢ» IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȠ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȐ ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ-ȩȡȚȠ IJȦȞ İʌȚıIJȘȝȫȞ– șĮ ȑijİȡȞİ IJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ (ȦȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ «țĮȚȞȒȢ țIJȓıȘȢ» İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ, IJȦ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ) ıİ ĮȞIJȓșİıȘ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ İĮȣIJȩ IJȘȢ. 32 ȈIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ IJȠȣ țİȚȝȑȞȠȣ, ĮijȠȪ ĮȞĮijİȡșȠȪȝİ ıIJȠ İʌȓʌİįȠ IJȘȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒȢ IJȠȣ ȣʌȩıIJĮıȘȢ, įȘȜ. ıIJȠ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ «țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ» (IJȡȩʌȠȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ȣʌȠıIJȐıİȦȢ) ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıIJȠ ʌȡȦIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩ İʌȓʌİįȠ IJȘȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒȢ IJȠȣ «țȜȓıȘȢ» ʌȡȠȢ «ȠȝȠȓȦıȘ» (İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȩȢ ıțȠʌȩȢ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȠȣ), ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ ȞĮ ȟĮȞĮįȠȪȝİ ʌȐȜȚ IJȠ ȑȝijȣȜȠ İȚįȚțȐ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ʌȠȣ ȝĮȢ ĮʌĮıȤȠȜİȓ ıIJȘȞ ʌĮȡȠȪıĮ ıȣȞȐijİȚĮ.

Orthodox Christian Anthropology

251

IJȡȩʌȠȞ), țĮȓIJȠȚ įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ʌȠIJȑ «țİȞȒ ijȪıİȦȢ» (ĮıȫȝĮIJȘ, ȐȥȣȤȘ ȐijȣȜȘ), ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ ĮʌİȡȓıIJĮȜIJȘ ıIJȘȞ ȩʌȠȚĮ ȠȞIJȚțȒ ĮȞIJȚțİȚȝİȞȠʌȠȓȘıȒ IJȘȢ Ȓ ȚıIJȠȡȚȠțȡĮIJȚțȒ ıȤİIJȚțȠʌȠȓȘıȒ IJȘȢ (ȦȢ İȞıȫȝĮIJȘ, ȑȝȥȣȤȘ, ȑȝijȣȜȘ ț.Ȝʌ. ijȪıȘ). ǹȞIJȓıIJȡȠijĮ, įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ʌȠIJȑ ȦȢ «ȖȣȝȞȒ» in abstracto, ĮȜȜȐ ʌȐȞIJĮ ȦȢ ĮıȪȝȝİIJȡĮ «İȞȣʌȩıIJĮIJȘ» in concreto ıIJȚȢ ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijİȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȑȢ ȣʌȠıIJȐıİȚȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ, ıIJȚȢ ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijİȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȩIJȘIJȑȢ IJȠȣȢ. Ȃİ ȐȜȜĮ ȜȩȖȚĮ: Ș ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒ İIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮ ȦȢ țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ ȤȡȚıIJȠȝȠȡijȓĮ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ, țĮȓIJȠȚ įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ʌȠIJȑ «ȐįİȚĮ ijȪıİȦȢ», İȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȦ įȓȤȦȢ ȑȝijȣȜȘ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ (ȑȝijȣȜȘ ijȪıȘ), ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞȠȞIJĮȢ ȦȢ ȤȡȚıIJȠȝȠȡijȓĮ –IJİȜȚțȐ– ĮʌİȡȓıIJĮȜIJȘ ıIJȓȢ ȑȝijȣȜİȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJȑȢ IJȠȣȢ. ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ȐȜȜȘ ʌȜİȣȡȐ Ș ȑȝijȣȜȘ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ (ȑȝijȣȜȘ ijȪıȘ) įİȞ ȣijȓıIJĮIJĮȚ ʌȠIJȑ ȦȢ «ȖȣȝȞȒ» in abstracto ĮȜȜȐ ʌȐȞIJĮ ȦȢ İȞȣʌȩıIJĮIJȘ in concreto ıIJȚȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȑȢ İIJİȡȩIJȘIJİȢ IJȦȞ ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ. Ȃİ ȜȓȖĮ ȜȩȖȚĮ: ȝȩȞȠ ıİ ĮȞĮȜȠȖȓĮ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ «ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȠȣ ĬİĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ» ǿȘıȠȪȋȡȚıIJȠȪ (ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ) -ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ ĮȣIJȩ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ ȦȢ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ șȑıȘ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȠȣ «ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ»- Ș ıȤȑıȘ ȤȡȚıIJȠ-İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȚ ȑȝijȣȜȘȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ ȩȜȦȞ ȝĮȢ ĮʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİIJĮȚ (İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ İȞȞ.) ȦȢ ĮıȪȝȝİIJȡĮ įȚĮȜİțIJȚțȒ. ǼȓȞĮȚ Ș ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİȚ țĮȚ șİȝİȜȚȫȞİȚ ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠıȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ıIJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ (țĮȚ ıȣȞĮijȫȢ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ) ȦȢ «ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȐ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȘȝȑȞȘ» ʌȡȠıȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ. ǵȤȚ ĮȞIJȓıIJȡȠijĮ. ȈIJȠȣȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢ, ıIJȚȢ İȞȣʌȩıIJĮIJĮ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȑȢ İIJİȡȩIJȘIJȑȢ IJȠȣȢ IJȚȢ İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȐ țĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ȤȡȚıIJȠİȚįİȓȢ, ȠȚ ȑȝijȣȜİȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJİȢ țĮȚ ıȦȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJİȢ ȦȢ IJȑIJȠȚİȢ (țĮIJȐ ȜȩȖȠȞ ijȪıİȦȢ) țĮIJĮijȐıțȠȞIJĮȚ țĮȚ įİȞ ĮȞĮȚȡȠȪȞIJĮȚ. ǵȤȚ ȩȝȦȢ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ʌĮȡĮȝİȓȞȠȣȞ țĮIJȐ IJȡȩʌȠȞ ȦȢ ȑȤȠȣȞ ıȒȝİȡĮ (ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȐ) ĮȜȜȐ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ įȚĮȞȠȚȤșȠȪȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ (țĮIJȐ țĮȚȞȩȞ IJȡȩʌȠȞ) țĮȚ ȝİ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ĮȣIJȩ ȞĮ įȚĮıȦșȠȪȞ İȞ IJȑȜİȚ (İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ).33 33

īȚĮ IJȘȞ ȑȝijȣȜȘ ıȦȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ʌȡȕȜ. IJȚȢ ıȤİIJȚțȑȢ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡȒıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ȝȘIJȡ. ȆİȡȖȐȝȠȣ ıIJȠ J.D. Zizioulas, Being as communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church, St Vladimir’s SP, Crestwood (N.Y.) 1993, ı. 50-53 țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ O. Clément, Corps de mort et de gloire: Petite introduction à une théopoétique du corps, Desclée de Brouwer, Paris 1995. ǹʌȩ ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȠʌIJȚțȒ ȖȦȞȓĮ, IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ʌIJȫıȘȢ ĮijȠȡȐ ȩȤȚ ıIJȘȞ ȑȝijȣȜȘ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ȦȢ IJȑIJȠȚĮ (țĮIJȐ ȜȩȖȠȞ ijȪıİȦȢ) ĮȜȜȐ ıİ ȑȞĮȞ ĮʌȡȩıȦʌȠ, įȘȜ. ĮȤȡȚıIJȠȜȩȖȘIJȠ IJȡȩʌȠ ȣʌȩıIJĮıȘȢ țĮȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȘȢ. ǵIJĮȞ įȘȜ. IJĮ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞĮ ȑȝijȣȜĮ, ĮȞIJȓ ȞĮ ȣijȓıIJĮȞIJĮȚ țĮȚ ȞĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȠȪȞ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJĮ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȐ țĮȚ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijĮ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ, ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ȤȡȚıIJȠ-İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȩIJȘIJİȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ, IJĮ ʌȡȐȖȝĮIJĮ IJİȓȞȠȣȞ ȞĮ ĮȞIJȚıIJȡĮijȠȪȞ. ȉȩIJİ IJĮ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞĮ ȑȝijȣȜĮ IJİȓȞȠȣȞ ȞĮ ĮȣIJȠȞȠȝȘșȠȪȞ țĮȚ ȞĮ ʌİȡȚıIJİȓȜȜȠȣȞ, ȞĮ ijȣȜĮțȓıȠȣȞ ıIJȠȞ İĮȣIJȩ IJȠȣȢ IJȚȢ ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijİȢ İȚțȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȩIJȘIJİȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ, ȤȦȡȓȢ ȩȝȦȢ IJİȜȚțȐ

252

Chapter Seventeen

4. ȂȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȠ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ȣȚȠșİıȓĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ Ĭİȩ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒȢ įȦȡİȐȢ ʌȠȣ ȜȐȕĮȝİ İijȐʌĮȟ țĮIJȐ IJȠ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩ ȕȐʌIJȚıȝĮ țĮȚ ıȣȞİȤȓȗȠȣȝİ ȞĮ ȜĮȕĮȓȞȠȣȝİ ex novo ıIJȘȞ İȣȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮ, ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ ȞĮ ʌȠȪȝİ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ ȣʌȐȡȟİȚȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȤȡȚıIJȠ-ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ (ıIJȘ įȚțȒ IJȠȣȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ıȪȞȠȜȘ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ). ǼȓȞĮȚ ĮȣIJȑȢ ȠȚ ȤȡȚıIJȠȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ȝĮȢ IJĮȣIJȩIJȘIJİȢ ʌȠȣ ȝĮȢ țĮșȠȡȓȗȠȣȞ ʌȜȑȠȞ șİȝİȜȚĮțȐ (țĮșȩIJȚ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ) ȦȢ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȐ țĮȚ ĮȞİʌĮȞȐȜȘʌIJĮ IJȑțȞĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ («İȞ» țĮȚ «İȚȢ» ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ įȚĮ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ). Ȉİ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȑȢ įȘȜ. IJĮȣIJȩIJȘIJİȢ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ ıĮȡțȦȝȑȞȦȞ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣȢ (țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ĮijȘȡȘȝȑȞĮ ȚįİĮIJȫȞ) ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ, ıİ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȑȢ ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijİȢ ȣʌȐȡȟİȚȢ ȑȝijȣȜȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ, ıİ ȤȡȚıIJȠ-ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȑȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȩIJȘIJİȢ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ, ȩȤȚ ȐijȣȜİȢ ȠȪIJİ ĮțȠȚȞȫȞȘIJİȢ. ǼȓȞĮȚ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ IJȠ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ, IJȠ «ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ» (Ș İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ IJĮȣIJȩIJȘIJĮ-ȦȢ-İIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮ) IJȠȣ țȐșİ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ʌȠȣ įȓȞİȚ ȣʌĮȡțIJȚțȩ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ ıIJȘȞ ȑȝijȣȜȘ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ijȪıȘ IJȠȣ ȝİ ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȐ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȩ IJȡȩʌȠ (IJȘȞ țȐȞİȚ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȐ ȞĮ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȝİ IJȡȩʌȠ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȩ, IJȘȞ ʌȡȠıȦʌȠʌȠȚİȓ, IJȘȢ įȓȞİȚ ȩʌȦȢ Ȝȑȝİ «ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ»).34 Ǿ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ șİȫȡȘıȘ IJȦȞ ȑȝijȣȜȦȞ ıIJȘ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJȐ IJȠȣȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣȢ įİȞ ĮijȠȡȝȐIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘ (ȠȪIJİ șİȝİȜȚȫȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ) ȝİIJĮʌIJȦIJȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ ȝĮȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ĮijȠȡȝȐIJĮȚ țĮȚ șİȝİȜȚȫȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ıȦIJȘȡȚȫįȘ țĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ ȣʌȑȡ ȘȝȫȞ ıĮȡțȦșȑȞIJȠȢ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, ıIJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ ʌȡȠȜȘʌIJȚțȐ « İȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȦ» ȝİIJȑȤȠȣȝİ țĮȚ «Įʌȩ ȝȑȡȠȣȢ» (ex parte) ȕȚȫȞȠȣȝİ. ȈIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ ĮȣIJȩ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȝİ ȓıȦȢ ȞĮ ȥĮȪıȠȣȝİ – ĮȞĮįȡȠȝȚțȐ țĮȚ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ ȝİ «İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ İʌȚijȪȜĮȟȘ» – țȐIJȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤȑȖȠȞȘ İȣȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ țĮIJĮijĮIJȚțȒ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȩ Ĭİȩ ıİ «ȐȡıİȞ» țĮȚ «șȒȜȣ» İȞIJȩȢ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȠȣ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ İȞȚĮȓȠȣ-țĮȚ- įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȠȣ «ʌȡȠʌIJȦIJȚțȠȪ ĮįȐȝ». 5. Ǿ «İȞ» țĮȚ «İȚȢ» ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ ʌȠȚțȚȜȓĮ IJȦȞ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȫȞ ȤĮȡȚıȝȐIJȦȞ IJȦȞ ȑȝijȣȜȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ įİȞ İȟĮȡIJȐIJĮȚ (țĮȚ įİȞ șĮ ȑʌȡİʌİ ʌȜȑȠȞ ȞĮ İȟĮȡIJȐIJĮȚ) Įʌȩ ĮȡȞȘIJȚțȑȢ įȚĮțȡȓıİȚȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ (țĮȚ mutatis mutandis ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȦȞ ijȣȜȫȞ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȫȞ) IJȠȣ «ĮįȐȝ İȞ įȚĮıʌȐıİȚ țĮȚ İȞ įȚĮıIJȐıİȚ», įȘȜ. IJȠȣ ʌIJȦIJȚțȠȪ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ. ȅȪIJİ Įʌȩ ıİȟȚıIJȚțȑȢ, ȡĮIJıȚıIJȚțȑȢ Ȓ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȑȢ ȚİȡĮȡȤȒıİȚȢ (țĮȚ țĮIJĮʌȚȑıİȚȢ IJȦȞ ȞĮ țĮIJȠȡșȫȞȠȣȞ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȚȡȑıȠȣȞ Ȓ ȞĮ İȟĮȜİȓȥȠȣȞ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ IJȠ ĮʌǯĮȡȤȒȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȚțȩ įİįȠȝȑȞȠ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȩ: IJȘȞ ĮʌǯĮȡȤȒȢ įȠȝȚțȒ ȤȡȚıIJȠȝȠȡijȓĮ IJȦȞ ijȠȡȑȦȞ IJȠȣȢ țĮȚ IJȠ ĮʌǯĮȡȤȒȢ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȩ IJȠȣȢ. 34 ȀĮșĮȣIJȑȢ ȠȚ ȑȝijȣȜİȢ ijȪıİȚȢ ȦȢ ȑȝijȣȜİȢ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌȡȩıȦʌİȢ (ȚįȚȠȣʌȩıIJĮIJİȢ), Ȝ.Ȥ. ıIJĮ șȘȜĮıIJȚțȐ. ȈIJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ȩȝȦȢ IJȦȞ țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ (IJȦȞ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ țĮȚ İȚȢ ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ ȤȐȡȚIJȚ ȣijȚıIJĮȝȑȞȦȞ) Ș ȑȝijȣȜȘ ijȪıȘ IJȠȣȢ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ «ȚįȚȠȣʌȩıIJĮIJȘ» (ıIJĮ ijȪȜĮ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ) ĮȜȜȐ «İȞ-ȣʌȩıIJĮIJȘ» (ıIJĮ ʌȡȩıȦʌȐ IJȠȣȢ).

Orthodox Christian Anthropology

253

ȝİȞ ıIJȠȣȢ įİ). ȈIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ ȝȚĮȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠ-șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ıijĮȚȡȚțȒȢ șİȫȡȘıȘȢ IJȠ șȑȝĮ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌȜȐ țĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ ĮȟȚĮțȩ Ȓ IJĮȟȚțȩ, ȚıIJȠȡȚțȩ Ȓ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ, ȘșȚțȩ Ȓ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȩ ĮȜȜȐ ȕĮșȪIJĮIJĮ ȠȞIJȠ-ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ: Ș ıȣıIJȠȓȤȚıȘ ȝİ IJȠȞ ĮįȐȝ ıIJȘȞ ʌIJȫıȘ IJȠȣ țĮȚ Ș ȑȝʌȡĮțIJȘ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ ȝĮȢ ıİ ĮȣIJȒ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȑIJȠȚİȢ ĮȡȞȘIJȚțȑȢ įȚĮțȡȓıİȚȢ. ȉȑIJȠȚȠȣ İȓįȠȣȢ įȚĮțȡȓıİȚȢ İȚȢ ȕȐȡȠȢ IJȦȞ ȐȜȜȦȞ, ȩʌȠȣ țȚ’ ĮȞ ĮʌĮȞIJȫȞIJĮȚ -țĮȚ ȩȜȠȚ ȖȚȞȩȝĮıIJİ įȣıIJȣȤȫȢ ıȣȞȑȞȠȤȠȚ!- ȣʌȠįȘȜȫȞȠȣȞ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȐȟȘ ȝȚĮ ʌIJȦIJȚțȒ ȝĮȢ ʌĮȡĮȖȞȫȡȚıȘ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠȣ ȦȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠȣ, įȘȜ. ȦȢ țĮIJǯİȚțȩȞĮ ȤȡȚıIJȩȝȠȡijȠȣ, ȝȚĮ șİȫȡȘıȒ ȝĮȢ «ĮįĮȝȚĮȓĮ», ʌIJȦIJȚțȒ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ȤȡȚıIJȠİȚįȒ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȚ ʌȠȚțȚȜȠȝȠȡijȓĮȢ, ȝȚĮ ȑȝʌȡĮțIJȘ șİȫȡȘıȒ ȝĮȢ IJȦȞ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ remoto Christo țĮȚ ȝȚĮ ıIJȐıȘ ȝĮȢ «ʌĮȡȐ ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ» ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȦȞ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ ʌȠȣ ȜĮȕĮȓȞȠȣȞ ȤȫȡĮ ıIJȘȞ țĮșȘȝİȡȚȞȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ ȝĮȢ (ȩȤȚ ȩȝȦȢ ıIJȘ įȚțȒ ȉȠȣ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ, IJȘȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ par excellence). Ȃİ IJȑIJȠȚȠ IJȡȩʌȠ țĮIJĮijȐıțȠȣȝİ ȑȝʌȡĮțIJĮ IJȘȞ ʌIJȫıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ İȞ «ĮįȐȝ ʌİıȩȞIJȚ», ȩȤȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞȐıIJĮıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ «İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ ĮȞĮıIJȐȞIJȚ», ʌĮȡĮȖȞȦȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞĮ IJȘȞ «İȞ» țĮȚ «İȚȢ ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ ĮȖȚȠʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ įȦȡİȐ IJȘȢ ȆĮIJȡȚțȒȢ ȣȚȠșİıȓĮȢ, IJȘȞ ȩȞIJȦȢ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ. ȀĮIJĮijȐıțȠȣȝİ -ĮșȑȜȘIJĮ țĮȚ ĮȞİʌȓȖȞȦıIJĮ ȓıȦȢ ʌȜȘȞ ȑȝʌȡĮțIJĮ- IJȘȞ ĮįĮȝȚĮȓĮ įȚȐıʌĮıȘ, IJȠȞ įȚĮȤȦȡȚıȝȩ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȐįȚțȘ ĮȞIJȓșİıȘ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ıȣȞ-ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ, ıȣȞ-ijȪȜȦȞ țĮȚ ıȣȞ-ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȫȞ, ĮȢ IJȠ ʌȠȪȝİ ȑIJıȚ. ȆȡȐȖȝĮ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİȚ ȝȑıĮ ȝĮȢ ijȩȕȠ (Ȓ țĮȚ ȝȓıȠȢ) ʌȡȠȢ țȐșİ ȝȠȡijȒȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ıIJȠȣȢ «ȐȜȜȠȣȢ» (ıĮȞ ȐȜȜȠȚ ıȣȞȐȞșȡȦʌȠȚ), ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ «ȑȝijȣȜȠ» IJȠȣ ȐȜȜȠȣ ıȣȞȐȞșȡȦʌȠȣ (ıĮȞ ȐȜȜȠ ȑȝijȣȜȠ) ĮȞ ȩȤȚ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ IJȠ ȑȝijȣȜȠ IJȘȢ ijȪıȘȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ (ıĮȞ ȑȝijȣȜȠ), IJȘȢ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ țĮȚ İȚȢ ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȐ ĮȞĮįȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝȑȞȘȢ. ȅ «İȞ» țĮȚ «İȚȢ» ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ, «IJȦ» ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ țĮȚ «ʌȡȠȢ» IJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ, IJȡȩʌȠȢ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, ıIJȘ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ, ȦȢ ʌĮıȤȐȜȚĮ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȩȢ IJȡȩʌȠȢ ĮȖĮʌȘIJȚțȒȢ țĮIJȐijĮıȘȢ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ĮȖĮʌȘIJȚțȐ țȡȚIJȚțȒȢ ĮʌȠįȠȤȒȢ IJȘȢ ʌȠȚțȚȜȠȝȠȡijȓĮȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ «ıȣȞ-ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ», ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ Ȓ IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ șĮ ȒIJĮȞ ıȣȞİʌȑȢ ȞĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ, Įʌȩ ʌȜİȣȡȐȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȫȞ İțțȜȘıȚȫȞ țĮȚ șİȠȜȠȖȚȫȞ, IJȘ ȕȐıȘ ıIJȒȡȚȟȘȢ IJȦȞ įȚțĮȓȦȞ ĮȚIJȘȝȐIJȦȞ țȐșİ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠȪ țȚȞȒȝĮIJȠȢ ʌȠȣ įİȞ ıȣȝȕȚȕȐȗİIJĮȚ ȝİ ıİȟȚıIJȚțȑȢ, ijȣȜİIJȚțȑȢ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȑȢ țĮIJĮʌȚȑıİȚȢ İȚȢ ȕȐȡȠȢ IJȦȞ ȐȜȜȦȞ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ. īȚĮ IJȠȞ țȐșİ «ıȣȞ-ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ», ıIJȘ ȕȐıȘ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ IJȘȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒȢ ȤȡȚıIJȠȝȠȡijȓĮȢ IJȠȣ, ĮȣIJȩȢ Ƞ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȩȢ IJȡȩʌȠȢ țȡȚIJȚțȒȢ țĮIJȐijĮıȘȢ țĮȚ ĮȖĮʌȘIJȚțȒȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ʌȠȚțȚȜȓĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ șĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪıİ ʌȡȠijȘIJȚțȒ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıIJĮȣȡĮȞĮıIJȐıȚȝȠ ȝĮȡIJȪȡȚȠ. ȂĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ țĮȚ ȝĮȡIJȪȡȚȠ IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ ȠȚ ȤȡȚıIJȠİȚįİȓȢ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȚ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȤȡȚıIJȠİȚįİȓȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ ȦȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ -įȘȜ. ȦȢ «İȞ» țĮȚ «İȚȢ» ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ ȤȡȚıIJȠ-ȝȣıIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ «IJȦ» ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ ȣijȚıIJȐȝİȞİȢ țĮȚ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ

254

Chapter Seventeen

ȦȢ IJȑIJȠȚİȢ «ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ» ȆĮIJȑȡĮ ıIJȡİijȩȝİȞİȢ- șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȞ ȞĮ įȓįȠȣȞ ȑȝʌȡĮțIJĮ ȝʌȡȠȢ ıİ țȐșİ İȓįȠȣȢ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ İȚȢ ȕȐȡȠȢ IJȦȞ ȐȜȜȦȞ, țĮIJĮʌȓİıȘ Ȓ ĮįȚțȓĮ.

CHAPTER EIGHTEEN UNIQUE BODIES, UNIQUE GIFTS: TOWARDS A LITURGY THAT DEIFIES ȂARIA GWYN MCDOWELL

Abstract: Current discussion of the full liturgical participation of women rarely focuses on bodies and capabilities as they are. Opposition presumes a sexual binary which genders roles; ordained roles are essentially gendered. Support often focuses on speculative theories regarding the eschatological body, rather than bodies as they are. Ordination and its scope of service involves real bodies and real capabilities. Likewise, theosis is an ongoing practice of embodied virtue in which one’s capabilities are used to better love God and one’s neighbor. Orthodox doctrinal commitments which shape our understanding of the incarnation and icon support a liturgical practice which recognizes the unique capabilities and gifts of embodied human persons. In short, the ordination of women and the allowance of their full liturgical service flows from Orthodox incarnational theology, and allows the liturgy to better serve as a locus for theosis.

This short paper argues that ordaining women to the full ministries of the Church is essential to the shared deification of the Orthodox sacramental and liturgical life. Deification, or divine-human communion, is here understood as the ongoing practice of embodied virtue in which one’s capabilities are used to love God and one’s neighbor. The liturgical support of deification requires first and foremost that we are able to see uniquely embodied persons as materially diverse. According to Theodore the Studite, this diversity is to the greater honor and glory of God. I will begin by highlighting Theodore the Studite’s emphasis on bodily diversity as a reason to praise God more magnificently. From this, I will posit three principles of embodiment central to understanding deification. I will then note the integral connection between deification and the exercise of embodied virtue and capacities. Finally, I will conclude by arguing that the current liturgical exclusion of women is a failure to recognize the creative material diversity of the deifying presence of God. This failure

256

Chapter Eighteen

limits the ways in which the Church can effectively fulfill its calling to encourage its members to more fully love God and neighbors. Theodore the Studite’s (759-826) defense of icons against the second wave of iconoclasm recognizes bodily differences, including sex, as constituent elements of human uniqueness. In accordance with Gregory of Nazianzus’s principle that “what is not assumed is not saved,” Theodore the Studite argues that Christ assumes the entirety of our human nature (Ref. III.A.4).1 Human nature can only be recognized “with the mind and thought” because it is seen in a particular, embodied individual (Ref. III. A. 16, 4).2 Physical traits help us to distinguish individuals and recognize each person as distinct. Theodore, in a rare patristic reference to Christ’s maleness, views biological sex as one of many distinguishing marks that help us to recognize a particular person (Ref. III.A.4).3 Valerie Karras notes that Theodore’s arguments make it impossible to extrapolate the maleness of Christ into the second person of the Trinity.4 It is likewise impossible to extrapolate from Theodore any assertion that either biological characteristics or icons show us archetypal masculinity and femininity. Biological sex is not, for Theodore, a window into a shared common nature from which we can then extrapolate a set of expected inclinations, capacities, or social roles. Rather, biological sex is one of many physical traits that make it possible to circumscribe Christ as distinct from other persons. Having established the necessity of physical attributes in which we see unique persons, Theodore then makes two crucial points: first, a seal which is not stamped into wax fails; it is ineffective. Christ, without an image, fails as a prototype (Ref. III.D.9).5 Here, Theodore argues for the necessity of icons and, from this, declares: 1

Theodore’s work is a series of Refutations, thus the abbreviated use of “Ref.” followed by the number, section and paragraph. The volume referenced here is Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons, trans. Catherine Roth (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001). 2 Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons, 83, 78. 3 Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons, 94. Theodore is not the only theologian to refer to the maleness of Christ. Nonna Harrison discusses other examples, among them Gregory the Theologian, in Or. 45, 13. Harrison’s article is a careful and thorough discussion of the nuanced use of gendered language, imagery and allegory in patristic sources. See Nonna Verna Harrison, “The Maleness of Christ,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 2 (1998). 4 Valerie A. Karras, “The Incarnational and Hypostatic Significance of the Maleness of Jesus Christ According to Theodore of Stoudios,” Studia Patristica 32 (1997). 5 Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons, 112.

Unique Bodies, Unique Gifts: Towards a Liturgy that Deifies

257

The seal shows its desire for honor when it makes itself available for impression in many different materials. In the same way, although we believe that Christ’s own image is in Him as He has a human form, nevertheless when we see His image materially depicted in different ways, we praise His greatness more magnificently. For the failure to go forth into a material imprint eliminates His existence in human form (Ref. III.D.10).6

Here is the second crucial point. Not only must Christ’s image be portrayed in icons,7 but the diverse materials with which Christ is portrayed result in greater glory being given to God. Variety and diversity from person to person, body to body, is a reason for praise and delight. Theodore’s emphasis on the importance of bodily particularity leads to three essential points for an Orthodox theology of bodies. This aligns with an understanding of people as irreducible, unique, and free that is characteristic of the “personalism” of the 20th century.8 First, bodies themselves are an essential factor in unique human personhood. Second, bodily characteristics contribute to uniqueness. Third, bodily diversity expands our vision of the magnificent creativity of God. Taking bodies into account as essential to unique personhood is affirmed by the incarnation. Our bodies are a part of what makes each of us a unique image of God. Biological sex is an essential aspect of this uniqueness. Orthodox who discuss biological essentialism often rely on the hope of eschatological freedom from bodily particularity and the degree to which this future hope can be lived out in the present. Karras highlights how answers very much depend on the way one views the relationship between fall, redemption and resurrection.9 Yet I think we 6

Theodore the Studite, On the Holy Icons, 112. Patrick Henry points out that Theodore’s terminology is Aristotelian, even as he retains the neoplatonic commitments of both Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and John of Damascus. Patrick Henry, “What Was the Iconoclastic Controversy About,” Church History 45, no. 1 (1976), 27. 7 A central concern of second wave iconoclasm was not whether icons could be “written.” This point had long been conceded, and icons were displayed in churches. However, they were displayed out of reach, where they could not be “touched” with gestures of worship. They could be seen but not “used” since the issue was not their existence but improper worship. Here, the Studite counters his opponents’ assertion that icons were not necessary. See Patrick Henry, “The Formulators of Icon Doctrine,” Schools of thought in the Christian Tradition (1984), 78-79. 8 See especially John Zizioulas, Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, Vladimir Lossky, and Olivier Clement. 9 Valerie A. Karras, “Orthodox Theologies of Women and Ordained Ministry,” in Thinking Through Faith: New Perspectives From Orthodox Christian Scholars, ed.

258

Chapter Eighteen

must take the role of our bodies in personhood seriously, without then becoming gender essentialists. Our bodies and the way they serve us, fail us, and garner us honor or rejection, are not natures we must overcome but an essential aspect of our unique and irreducible personhood. Rather than decrease diversity via eschatological speculation, we ought to increase diversity beyond simple and inaccurate binaries. This is possible in light of the second point: bodies are unique. The assumption of natural law, a form of reasoning quite common among opponents of female ordination, is that biological sex provides a uniform ground from which principles can be derived. These principles then delineate the acceptable capacities of sexed persons. Yet this assertion is not only undermined by very different cultural assumptions regarding what is natural to sexed bodies, and the obvious reality that capabilities do not seem so neatly restricted to the appropriate body, but also the growing recognition that sex distinctions in the body are not neatly binary.10 Further, the growing field of epigenetics reveals the body and its genetics to be fluid, changing over a single lifetime and passing down genetic shifts to subsequent generations. This should caution us against making universal assumptions about particular characteristics. Acknowledging the diversity and fluidity of bodies works against the temptation to reduce a person, her gifts, or her expression, to archetypes or stereotypes that do not correspond with someone as a unique, embodied person. Finally, the response to this disturbance of our supposedly defined natural world ought to be one of delight. The certainty that the body is a stable ground for reasoning is more comfortable than it is true, and so we often react in fear to the prospect of losing such a stable ground of theological reflection. But why are we taken aback at the realization that the body might be as surprising and unexpected as the one in whose image it is made? In light of this reasoning, bodily diversity does not demand conformity as a means to end division. Rather, bodily diversity reorients us towards the far more important question: how do we better love God and our neighbor by embodying virtue towards one another? This is, after all, the central invitation of our shared participation in divine-human communion: to become better lovers of God and our neighbor in and through our bodies. Recent work in ethics and theology emphasizes an Orthodox framework for understanding human flourishing as the progressive realization of deification, marked by embodying the full

Aristotle Papanikolaou and Elizabeth H. Prodromou (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2008). 10 For instance, see the work of Anne Faust-Sterling.

Unique Bodies, Unique Gifts: Towards a Liturgy that Deifies

259

range of human virtues and capabilities.11 Deification is not simply something that happens to us, but a process in which we participate, with our bodies, by relating to one another in virtue according to our capacities. I do not mean that we only practice the virtues of which we are capable, though this is certainly true. Rather, I am referring to capabilities as those internal capacities which can be exercised, provided there is a willing environment and situation.12 All human persons are called to practice all virtues, the fruits of the Spirit. However, these virtues are practiced via our particular capacities, those gifts or charisms granted by God for the building up of community. The manner in which we love one another is shaped by these particular, unique capacities and gifts. We can thus say that the man who bakes bread for the community and the woman who preaches the Gospel are both loving their neighbors, but they are doing so according to their gifts. 1 Corinthians argues that the same God gives a diversity of gifts for the building up of the body of Christ. It is this bodily metaphor that allows Paul to argue that the many gifts required by a flourishing community are both distinct and essential. Just as a seal that is not stamped into wax fails, so too does a gift or capability that is not exercised. This point cannot be overemphasized: gifts must be exercised, that is their purpose. Without exercise they fail. Indeed, 1 Peter reminds us that good stewardship requires that we serve one another with whatever gift we have been given (1 Peter 4:10). Our sex, gender, race, class, citizenship or family status will certainly color the way we love one another, since all of these factors affect and shape our bodies which, in turn, shape our capacities and their reception. Just as the diverse materials in which we see icons of Christ portrayed manifest the creative glory of God, so too does the diverse material of human bodies with which we love and serve one another. Failing to exercise the capacities of our embodied personhood is a failure to practice virtue according to our unique capacity. It is a failure to pursue an aspect of deification that has perhaps been uniquely granted to us by God. However, deification is not an individual pursuit, as we share in one another’s struggle and failure.13 Human flourishing as growth into virtue is cultivated through liturgy as well as individual ascesis. The ability to exercise one’s capabilities requires that one has the capacity, but also that 11

See the August 2013 Special Issue of Studies in Christian Ethics. Martha Nussbaum argues that the ability and freedom to exercise one’s capability is essential to human flourishing. 13 See especially the work of Dumitru Staniloae, who consistently emphasizes the shared nature of deification. 12

260

Chapter Eighteen

one lives and worships in an environment and situation where one is able to exercise and cultivate one’s capacity. Does a liturgy which excludes female bodies from the exercise of certain capacities actually cultivate the full range of possible human flourishing? Certainly the first, and most ancient, objection to women priests is that women lack the capacity. Yet women are indeed able to preach, teach, pastorally care for others, administrate, and serve the sacraments. Nothing about their bodies excludes these capacities. Arguments which dismiss the capacity of women typically rely on metaphorical descriptions of the priesthood, mistaking a metaphorical description for a delimiter of capacity. Emphasizing the priest as a “father” appears to rule out women. But this literalizes the metaphor, and misses its essential, relational point. Gregory of Nazianzus describes his tongue as the nipple of nursing mother, and his Trinitarian teaching its life-giving milk.14 If Gregory can be a “mother”, surely a woman can be a “father”, in the metaphorical sense? Priestly metaphors describe the essential virtues, skills and functions necessary for the relationship in which ordination places the ordinand.15 The many gendered metaphors used in scripture hardly emphasize conformity to their “material” reference. Rather, these “verbal icons”16 point to the diversity and fluidity of the ways in which God is present to our bodies, in our bodies, and through our bodies. Misusing these “verbal icons” results in an emphasis on physical resemblance, forgetting that icons point to unique persons whose relationship is particularly demonstrative of God’s love. Yet current liturgical practice is built around the exclusion of female bodies, whether due to lack of capacity, insufficient sacrality or iconic ability. The liturgy as it is currently practiced, jeopardizes our understanding

14

Suzanne Abrams Rebillard, “Speaking for Salvation: Gregory of Nazianzus and Poet and Priest in His Autobiographical Poems,” (PhD Diss., Brown University, 2003), 23. For an extended discussion of Gregory of Nazianzus’s use of female metaphors to describe his priesthood, see Maria Gwyn McDowell, “The Joy of Embodied Virtue: Toward the Ordination of Women to the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood,” (PhD Diss., Boston College, 2010); Maria Gwyn McDowell, “The Iconicity of the Priesthood: Male Bodies or Embodied Virtue?” Studies in Christian Ethics 26, no. 3 (2013). 15 See in particular Sarah Coakley, “The Woman At the Alter: Cosmological Disturbance or Gender Subversion?” Anglican Theological Review 86, no. 1 (2004); Sarah Coakley, “'In Persona Christi': Gender, Priesthood and the Nuptual Metaphor,” Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift 82, no. 4 (2006). For a longer discussion of priesthood and virtue, see McDowell, “Iconicity of Priesthood.” 16 Nonna Harrison.

Unique Bodies, Unique Gifts: Towards a Liturgy that Deifies

261

of both icon and incarnation.17 Or, perhaps it is more accurate to say that such exclusion has already diminished our ability to truly incarnate God to one another. The liturgy teaches us, among many good things, that in order to preach and teach publicly, to lead in worship, and to prepare and distribute the body of Christ, one must be a man. Surely, Miriam wonders at our unwillingness to be led in song and dance by a woman. Surely, Thecla does not understand why the Church fails to eagerly welcome enthusiastic preachers of the Gospel. Surely, the Theotokos wonders why hers is the only female body able to prepare and offer the body of the Lord. Women’s bodies stand in our altars, but only in wood and paint, not flesh and blood. All arguments against female priests ultimately reduce the capacities of women. Most arguments rise from an attempt to explain or defend existing practice. It makes sense that reductive arguments derive from a reductive practice. The question that should drive the conversation regarding women’s participation in the Church is the same question that should drive the participation of anyone: how can this unique person serve the Church according to her embodied capacities and virtues? Further, as members of the Church, how should we receive, encourage and be taught by such a person? A church, and a liturgy, that excludes the real capacities of embodied women and men can only ever hope to encourage in its midst a partial deification, a partial human flourishing. At worst, it may frustrate the work of God in and through a particular person and community. Salvation as deification may not entirely be dependent on the community of God, as it is ultimately God who deifies. Yet the Church is called to participate in this work. When it fails to even see the work of God in a unique person, it fails in that moment and to that person, to be the Church. Met. John Zizioulas’s point that private Eucharistic services “which exclude in one way or another those of a different race or sex or age or profession is a false Eucharist” should be extended to exclusionary liturgical practices: a church that fails to invite participation based on real embodied capacities risks losing her catholicity.18 She is a church only for those she chooses to recognize as bearers of God, not those in whom God chooses to be borne.

17

For a more lengthy discussion, see Maria Gwyn McDowell, “Virtuous Ordinations: Gender, Priesthood and Virtue,” Journal for the Study of Christan Ethics 33, no. 2 (2013). 18 John Zizioulas, “Communion and Otherness,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38, no. 4 (1994), 355.

262

Chapter Eighteen

Biblography Abrams Rebillard, Suzanne. “Speaking for Salvation: Gregory of Nazianzus and Poet and Priest in His Autobiographical Poems,” PhD Diss., Brown University, 2003. Coakley, Sarah. “The Woman At the Alter: Cosmological Disturbance or Gender Subversion?” Anglican Theological Review 86, no. 1 (2004): 75–93. Coakley, Sarah. “'In Persona Christi': Gender, Priesthood and the Nuptual Metaphor.” Svensk teologisk kvartalskrift 82, no. 4 (2006): 145–54. Harrison, Nonna Verna. “The Maleness of Christ.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 2 (1998): 111–51. Henry, Patrick. “What Was the Iconoclastic Controversy About?” Church History 45, no. 1 (1976): 16–31. —. “The Formulators of Icon Doctrine.” Schools of thought in the Christian Tradition (1984): 75–89. Karras, Valerie A. “The Incarnational and Hypostatic Significance of the Maleness of Jesus Christ According to Theodore of Stoudios.” Studia Patristica 32 (1997): 320–24. —. “Orthodox Theologies of Women and Ordained Ministry,” In Thinking Through Faith: New Perspectives From Orthodox Christian Scholars, edited by Aristotle Papanikolaou and Elizabeth H. Prodromou, 113–58. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2008. McDowell, Maria Gwyn. “The Iconicity of the Priesthood: Male Bodies or Embodied Virtue?” Studies in Christian Ethics 26, no. 3 (2013): 364– 77. —. “Virtuous Ordinations: Gender, Priesthood and Virtue.” Journal for the Study of Christan Ethics 33, no. 2 (2013): 73–92. —. “The Joy of Embodied Virtue: Toward the Ordination of Women to the Eastern Orthodox Priesthood,” PhD Diss., Boston College, 2010. Theodore the Studite. On the Holy Icons. Translated by Catherine Roth. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001. Zizioulas, John. “Communion and Otherness.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 38, no. 4 (1994): 347–61.

CHAPTER NINETEEN REJUVENATING THE DIACONATE: BUILDING UP THE BODY OF CHRIST TEVA REGULE

Abstract: Since biblical times, women have participated in the diaconal ministry of the Church. Women continue to serve similarly today. This paper will highlight the ways women are serving Christ and His Church through diaconal work today, focusing primarily on the work women are doing in the Western context (i.e. the United States). I will begin by contextualizing this topic, exploring how the Church structures its participation in the one priesthood of Christ and how we understand the meaning of “ordination” in that context. I will then address the need for a fully functioning diaconate in the Church. Lastly, I will explore what an ordained female diaconate could offer the Church by building on the ministries in which women are engaged today.

First of all, I would like to say how honored I am to be among you today, albeit remotely. I would also like to preface my remarks by saying that, in some instances, they speak to the ecclesial situation in America more particularly, in which the Orthodox community is in a somewhat different milieu than our brothers and sisters in countries where the majority of the population identifies as Orthodox Christian. In the United States, we are a small minority of the population and great distances often separate us from one another. Women have always participated in the diaconal ministry of the Church. In the early Church, they participated in both ordained and nonordained capacities—as consecrated virgins and widows, and as ordained deacons. In an ordained capacity, the deaconess ministered to women much as the male deacon ministered to men. She assisted with baptism, took the Eucharist to those unable to attend liturgy, mediated between the faithful and the clergy, and taught, counseled, and guided the faithful on their Christian journey, especially those new to the faith. Women continue to serve in many of these same ways today. In the United States, they

264

Chapter Nineteen

serve as chaplains, spiritual directors, chanters, readers, homilists, philanthropic outreach coordinators and parish administrators. In addition, they are often missionaries and Christian educators. These are just a few of the many diaconal ministries in which they actively participate. However, today they do so without an ordination. There have been numerous calls for over 150 years to reinstitute the ordained diaconate for women [See Appendix V]. Still, when addressing the issue of the deaconess today, the response is often mixed. For those who recognize that the Church once had deaconesses, a common refrain can be summarized as follows: “Well, all the deaconess really did was assist with the baptism of women and since most of us are baptized as infants, we really do not need that now.” Others may recognize that the deaconess did more than just assist in the baptism of women, but still ask: “If women are already doing diaconal work, do they need to be ordained in order to do so?” Others ask, with a sense of alarm: “Does that mean that they could be ordained to the priesthood [i.e. the presbytery]?” Or, put more colloquially: “Does this mean that we could have women priests?”

First of all, I would suggest that if we had a clearer understanding of the diaconate and the presbytery as distinct ministries of “priesthood,” then this need not be a question, concern, or fear. The call for the rejuvenation of deaconess is not some kind of sleight of hand for women to step into the presbytery or episcopacy. Therefore, I would like to begin by reframing the debate, in particular by exploring what an ordained diaconal ministry could offer the Church. I will first explore how the Church structures its participation in the one priesthood of Christ and how we understand the meaning of an “ordination” in that context. Then, I will address the need for a fully functioning diaconate in the Church. Lastly, I will explore what an ordained female diaconate could offer the Church, by building on the ministries that women are performing today.

Ordination There is only one ministry in the Church: Christ’s ministry. We are all called to participate in it. In fact, we are all “ordained” into the ministry of Christ—the Royal Priesthood—at our baptism and chrismation. It is here that we are anointed as priest, prophet and king, participating in the life of the Priest, Prophet, and King. As John Chryssavgis says in his book, Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia: “As prophet, priest, and king, Christ invites [all in] the Church to participate in his ministry of

Rejuvenating the Diaconate: Building up the Body of Christ

265

reconciliation and redemption, of service and salvation.”1 He further explains that, in the early Church, ministry was understood as giving “form and embodiment to Christ in the world [and] in that respect, it was informed by and conformed to the life of Christ as servant.”2 Those who exercised ministry in the nascent Church did so according to their various gifts and within the context of the community, in order to build up the body. Eventually, certain people were set aside for ministry through ordination. What did it mean to be “ordained”? There is little reflection on this question, per se, in the first millennium of Christianity. There are treatises explaining the roles of various ministers (e.g. John Chrysostom’s advice to episcopal candidates, “On the Priesthood,” as well as other early Church documents such as the Apostolic Constitutions), and canons regulating age, marital status, and other attributes of the candidates, but none (to my knowledge) speak specifically to what an ordination actually means. Generally speaking, it was a setting apart of people for ministry in a particular community. Having been recognized by the community, their gifts were enlivened by the grace of the Holy Spirit. Those elevated to “priesthood” (i.e. bishop, priest, and deacon) were ordained in the context of the Eucharist, at the altar and by the bishop. Their service was tied to the liturgy and the altar as the source and summit of their ministry. Later, in the medieval Roman Catholic world under the influence of scholasticism, ordination came to be understood as a power that could be exercised within any community. Moreover, it was understood to change the candidate ontologically by conferring an “indelible character on the soul that marked [the ordained] as different from other Christians.”3 In present Roman practice, an ordination is still typically needed for appointment to office in the Church and for practical matters, such as preaching or participating in church governance.4 Reacting to this understanding in the Roman Catholic realm, the protestant reformers insisted that ordination was primarily a functional category. In the 1

John Chryssavgis, Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia: The Diaconate Yesterday and Today (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2009), p. 79. Henceforth: Chryssavgis, Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia. 2 Chryssavgis, Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia, p.30. 3 Gary Macy, “Women Deacons: History” in Gary Macy, William T. Ditewig, and Phyllis Zagano, Women Deacons: Past, Present, Future (New York: Paulist Press, 2011), p.34. 4 Phyllis Zagano, “Women Deacons: Future” in Gary Macy, William T. Ditewig, and Phyllis Zagano, Women Deacons: Past, Present, Future (New York: Paulist Press, 2011), p.79, 81.

266

Chapter Nineteen

Orthodox realm, metropolitan John Zizioulas has explained the meaning of ordination in more personal and relational categories, emphasizing both its functional and communal attributes.5 An ordination sets one aside for service and changes one’s relationship in and with the community. So, how are the three expressions of “priesthood” (bishop, presbyter, deacon) understood and how do they relate to one another? According to the understanding of the Church, the bishop (or episcopos) is the overseer of the community. He is the “center of the visible unity” of the Church and a “spokesman for traditional doctrine.”6 The priest or presbyter has a primarily sacerdotal function; it is through his hands that we offer our sacrifice of praise to God and from whose hands we encounter the peace of Christ in the liturgy. According to Chryssavgis, he “manifest[s] and celebrate[s] the presence of Christ within the local community through the joyful sacrifice of the Eucharist.”7 The deacon, Chryssavgis says, “complete[s] the circle of unity and community, dispensing the gifts of the Spirit and serving ‘the least member’ of the local church as the Body of Christ.”8 Historically, the diaconate has been a ministry focused on service and has included pastoral care and reconciliation (especially reconciling penitents or those who left the Church during times of persecution), philanthropic outreach, ecclesial administration, the ministry of the word, and liturgical service. In particular, it is grounded in the way the Church meets the world. There has always been a close connection between liturgy and service, between leitourgia and diakonia. For instance, in Deuteronomy, the Hebrew people not only worshipped and ate in the presence of the Lord, but were also commanded to share their food with others in the community, including widows, orphans, and resident aliens (i.e. nonHebrews).9 In the Christian sphere, the liturgical and social ministry was continued by the deacon. From the assembly, the deacon brings the thoughts and prayers of the gathering, the energies of God in the body of Christ embedded in the sacramental life of the Church, and material goods to the community outside of the gathered assembly, especially to those in need. Through their ministry of service, they then bring the concerns (and joys) of those they encounter in the world to the community at the gathered assembly, leading the assembly in prayer/petition on their behalf. 5

See: John D. Zizioulas, Being as Communion (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), pp.209–246. 6 Chryssavgis, Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia, p.6. 7 Chryssavgis, Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia, p.6. 8 Chryssavgis, Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia, p.6. 9 Dt. 14: 26–29.

Rejuvenating the Diaconate: Building up the Body of Christ

267

They function as a vehicle for communion and reconciliation; a servant to the people of God. As one can see, the deaconate is a ministry with its own identity and charism; it is separate from the presbyterial office. Unfortunately, at present, the ordained diaconate in the Church has greatly de-evolved from this vision of ministry. In many quarters, the male diaconate is merely a stepping-stone to the presbytery or serves as only a liturgical functionary. The female diaconate has fallen into disuse.

Need? So, does the Orthodox Church really need a rejuvenated diaconate and, in particular, a restored female diaconate? To help answer this question, it is instructive to understand the responsibilities of a typical parish priest. Fr. Alexander Garklavs outlined a number of functions expected of today’s parish priest in his presentation at a pastoral conference held at St. Tikhon’s Monastery in June, 2004. In addition to all the liturgical duties of the priest (Sunday, and any daily liturgical services, baptisms, weddings, funerals, etc.), he enumerated some of the priest’s responsibilities in parish life in America: Pastoral visitations, educational work, Bible study, adult study, youth work, teen work, working with choirs and choir directors, marriage preparation, marital counseling, visiting shut-ins, grief counseling, [hospital visits], office work, preparing and printing bulletins and schedules, parish mailings, aspects of parish administration: parish council meetings, budgets, agendas, PR, building committees, sunshine committees, yard work, etc.10

It is clear that the modern day “job description” of a priest is overly broad. In addition, it includes functions that have traditionally been the responsibility of the deacon. Priests who try to “do it all” will most likely not be able to do everything well or will soon suffer from severe burnout and not be able to help anyone. Moreover, as far back as 1953, Archbishop Michael of the Greek Orthodox Church in North and South America realized that there was so much to do in each community that the endeavors of these priests alone would not suffice. Should the priest wish to know (as he must) his spiritual

Rev. Alexander Garklavs, The Orthodox Pastor in the 21st century. Talk presented at the 2004 Pastoral Conference (OCA) at St. Tikhon’s Monastery, South Canaan, PA, June 2–4, 2004. Accessed via www.oca.org. 10

268

Chapter Nineteen

children by name, their problems, and their spiritual and moral needs, this would certainly be beyond his physical and spiritual resources.11 Clearly, a rejuvenated diaconate, a ministry that has service as its primary focus, is necessary in the Orthodox Church today. No one person can fill all the duties necessary for the building up of the body of Christ, the Church. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians: “Each of us has been given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good.”12 In particular, I suggest that a female diaconate is needed to be able to serve fully all of the faithful. For instance, there is still a need for a ministry of women for women. Furthermore, the Church could and should avail itself of the talents and gifts of half of the faithful, to build up the body. The diaconate is not merely a “stepping stone” to higher orders. It is, as Dr. Kyriaki FitzGerald explains in her book, Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church, “a full and parallel order of ordained ministry to which both men and women are called by God.”13 Practically speaking, I think a reinstituted ordained female diaconate could help to rejuvenate the entire diaconate in the Church, since stepping into the presbytery is not an issue in this case (or, at least, is not assumed to be, since the Church has not had this practice in its history). Women can focus on modeling what a real diaconal ministry might look like in the Church by building up the ministry that women are already performing (in some instances) and encouraging men to do likewise.

What could an ordained female diaconate offer the Church? How can the diaconal work that women are already doing in the Church be enhanced by ordination? What would this mean for the building up of the Church? I would like to offer four ways in which a fully functioning diaconate could benefit the Church. First, by strengthening the 11

Quoted in Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness and Ministry (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998), p.154–5. Henceforth: FitzGerald, Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church. In this instance, he goes on to advocate for the reestablishment of the female diaconate. He continues, “These tremendous needs of the Greek Orthodox Church in America has urged us to make a fervent appeal such as this to our daughters-in-Christ […] With the future welfare of our Church and membership at heart, we are considering the establishment in this country of an order of deaconess.” 12 1 Cor. 12:7, NRSV. 13 FitzGerald, Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church, p.165.

Rejuvenating the Diaconate: Building up the Body of Christ

269

pastoral care of the faithful and enhancing this care through the sacramental life of the Church. Second, by recapturing the philanthropic dimension of liturgy. Third, by focusing on the word of God more particularly. And fourth, by connecting the pastoral, social, and liturgical dimensions of the diaconate more fully.

Strengthening the Pastoral Care of the Faithful As mentioned earlier, women are serving today as chaplains in hospitals, hospices, and in other settings. They bring solace to the sick and dying through their prayers and words of comfort. However, their lay status prevents them from offering Holy Communion (or perhaps, unction) to the faithful. As a deaconess, a chaplain could connect the ill or infirm to the power of the sacramental life of the Church. As a representative of the Church, she could also bring the thoughts and prayers of the entire assembly to those in need. Furthermore, through petition in the gathered assembly, she could bring the concerns of those in need to the attention of the faithful for prayer. This connects the sick and dying to the community and the community to the ill in ways that are tangible and life affirming, strengthening the unity of the body of Christ. I have seen a need for this type of ministry in my own experience. When I was in seminary, I spent six weeks one summer at a nursing home with many Orthodox residents for my pastoral care residency. I had nine women and one man on my rounds. As is typically the case in these kinds of facilities, women vastly outnumbered the men. As a representative from the seminary, I had some authority for my visits; they were not just social visits, important as those visits may be. I got along well with the residents and as my visits continued, I found out that many of them wanted to talk about important things in their lives. Many of the women wanted to talk about “women-type” things, such as reproductive issues, the loss of a child, problems they may have had with their husbands, etc. They also wanted to talk about more general concerns: if they had things that were unsettled in their lives; regrets that they might have had; or thoughts about what may lie ahead for them when they leave this world. Frankly, I took a lot of “confessions.” In general, I felt a bit “in over my head,” not having received any training in this area. I also felt that our encounters would have been enhanced if I had been able to bring to them the healing power of Christ through the sacraments of the Church. Likewise, I would suggest that they might have felt more comforted knowing that through my intercession, a community was praying and caring for them as well. Both of these actions would more concretely manifest to them that healing in

270

Chapter Nineteen

Christ is the healing of mind, body, and soul, both personal and communal. Some residents had been in the nursing home for years, while others had been there for only a short time. However, I was quite saddened to learn that none of them had received a pastoral visit by their parish priest (or deacon) during the time that they had been there. Unfortunately, this was not the exception to the rule. Clearly, there is a need for women to engage in this type of ministry in the Church. Similarly, a spiritual director can provide pastoral care to many in need of guidance in their lives. Although the faithful would still receive absolution for remission of their sins through the agency of a priest, those engaged in spiritual direction can benefit from a relationship with a trained director to help them reflect on their lives. This guidance can help us to better understand ourselves in order to be able to see our sins more clearly and open a path for repentance and growth. Additionally, it can help us to move forward with our lives and grow in our relationship with God, both individually and in a community, in ways that are healthy and life affirming. In the ecclesial realm, many seek guidance in the monastic context. But, not all monastics are good spiritual directors by virtue of their monastic vows. To be honest, some of the advice they give can be quite dubious and damaging to those who seek it. Anecdotal evidence suggests that women particularly have been the recipients of such advice and on occasion, abuse. The Church could benefit from women who are immersed in the spiritual life of the Church (inside or outside the monastic context), who are also trained in psychology and Orthodox anthropology, in order to minister more fully to those in its care. An ordination would emphasize the reciprocal relationship of this ministry. Those trained and ordained in this ministry have the authority and support of the Church, but also have a responsibility to the Church and are accountable to Her (in the person of the bishop). In other words, there are no “loose wheels.” Furthermore, an ordained deaconess could provide pastoral care as an intercessor between the clergy (or hierarchy) and laity for those in need of their efforts. She could be an official but neutral observer or moderator of private conversation, to guard against abuse or false charges of the same, protecting both parties in the conversation, both clergy and laity. In the wake of the sexual scandals that have affected various quarters of the Christian Church, to which the Orthodox Church has not been immune, such a person could protect all involved. Additionally, if the deaconess is someone to whom the faithful has looked for guidance, she could also be a qualified advocate in a spiritual court.

Rejuvenating the Diaconate: Building up the Body of Christ

271

Recapturing the Philanthropic Dimension of the Liturgy A rejuvenated diaconate can recapture this dimension of the liturgy more particularly by connecting service to God with service to one’s neighbor. Justin the Martyr reports that in the early Church, all Christians contributed to the offering, each one depositing their contribution with the president of the assembly. The president would then use the offerings to take care of “the orphans and widows, and those who are needy because of sickness or other cause, and the captives, and the strangers who sojourn among us.”14 In the East, the gifts of the faithful were deposited in the Skeuophylakion (outer area) prior to the celebration of the liturgy. The deacons would then select the portion to be offered to God and carry it to the altar area at the beginning of the “Liturgy of the Faithful”, what we now know as the “great entrance”. The remaining gifts would be blessed and distributed to orphans, widows, the poor and anyone else in need. This was the responsibility of the bishop and usually carried out by the deacon or deaconess as agent of the bishop. As the Orthodox Church in America transitions from an immigrant church struggling to survive to one that is more established in its local setting, it is beginning to serve those around Her. For instance, efforts such as the “FOCUS” initiative is ministering to the poor and needy by providing: “Food, Occupation, Clothing, Understanding and Shelter.” Many of these types of philanthropic initiatives are run by women. However, these efforts are not normally connected with our liturgical life. A fully functioning diaconate would help to connect our liturgy and service to the world.

Focusing on the Word of God The diaconate is a ministry closely associated with the word of God, proclaiming it in word and song. In particular, the Church could benefit greatly from those who study the scripture and use their education to help edify the lives of those assembled. Although preaching is also an area of ministry in which some theologically-trained laypersons participate, it can be controversial in some places, especially when a woman is in this position. Even in those contexts where an expansion of this ministry has been welcomed, the arrival of a new priest with a different understanding of who can and cannot participate in this ministry, or a complaint from a disgruntled 14 Justin the Martyr, Apology 67 in Bard Thompson, Liturgies of the Western Church (Philadelphia, Pa.: Fortress Press, 1980), p.9.

272

Chapter Nineteen

parishioner, can often trump the wishes of the silent majority and cause the person who has been participating in the ministry to be disallowed from doing so. The congregation is then deprived of hearing their voice and the perspective they bring to the reading. This would be an inherent part of the ministry of the deacon or deaconess. This does not mean that they would take on all preaching duties, but it would allow other voices and studied perspectives to contribute more regularly to the edification of the faithful.

Connecting the pastoral, social, and liturgical dimensions of the diaconate more fully As I have mentioned above, the ministry of the deacon is to more fully connect the pastoral and social dimensions of Christ’s work in the world, in and through the gathering of the assembly. I have intimated how a future deaconess could continue to strengthen this connection. However, a formal liturgical role is the least developed area of diaconal ministry for women as there is little historical precedent for this. As Chryssavgis reminds us: “The decision as to whether or not women deacons perform liturgical functions arguably remains the exclusive prerogative of bishops in synod, in order that the catholic mind of the Church may gradually mature in and collectively seal this critical aspect of the female diaconate.”15 In my opinion, it is a distortion of the office to have the male deacon serve only during the liturgy, but not within the community and, conversely, to have a future female deacon serve within the community, but not during the liturgy. As Dr. FitzGerald reminds us: It is important to remember that in the past women deacons did have important responsibilities in the Eucharist assembly as well as in the administration of baptism, in praying with and for those in need, and in bringing Holy Communion to those unable to attend the Eucharist […] Today, these expressions of ministry can certainly continue. At the same time, we also need to examine how women deacons can participate in the Eucharist and other liturgical services in a manner which is expressive of the living Tradition of the Church and which is not defined by cultural norms of another time.16

15 16

Chryssavgis, Remembering and Reclaiming Diakonia, p.19. FitzGerald, Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church, p.197.

Rejuvenating the Diaconate: Building up the Body of Christ

273

Conclusion The diaconate is a ministry of service that connects our communal gathering with the liturgy of our lives more particularly. In the divine liturgy, we offer our sacrifice of praise to God and encounter the joy and peace of the Trinity more fully. As we leave our communal gathering, we continue to share this joy with others, ministering to our neighbor. When we assemble again as the body of Christ, we bring our encounter with our neighbor with us. Our task is to continue this dance, drawing all to a life in Christ. Equipping and recognizing the diaconal ministry of men and women can help to strengthen our mission for the building up of the body and the life of the world.

274

Chapter Nineteen

Appendix Calls for the Rejuvenation of the Female Diaconate in the Modern Era •

•

•

17

c. 1855 — Sister of Czar Nicholas I tried to restore the Office. Other prominent Russians also lobbied for its restoration, including Alexsandr Gumilevsky and Mother Catherine (Countess Efimovsky).17 1905–6 — According to numerous sources, several bishops, archbishops, and metropolitans of the Russian Orthodox Church encouraged the effort. According to a report on the consultation of Orthodox Women in Agapia in 1976, this issue was to be a major topic at the Council of the Russian Church beginning in 1917 but, due to the political turmoil in Russia at the time, the Council’s work was not addressed.18 1953 — In 1953, Archbishop Michael of the Greek Orthodox Church in North and South America called for its re-establishment in the United States. He realized that there was so much to do in each community that the endeavors of these priests alone would not suffice. Should the priest wish to know (as he must) his spiritual children by name, their problems, and their spiritual and moral needs, this would certainly be beyond his physical and spiritual resources. These tremendous needs of the Greek Orthodox Church in America urged us to make a fervent appeal to our daughters-in-Christ. With the future welfare of our Church and membership at heart, we are considering establishing an order of deaconess in this country.19 • The call to re-establish the female diaconate has been made at almost all international conferences of Orthodox women including: Agapia, Sophia, Rhodes, Crete, Kerala, Levadia, Vendee, Damascus, and Istanbul.20

Ellen Gvosdev, The Female Diaconate: An Historical Perspective (Minneapolis, Minn.: Light and Life Publishing), p.49. 18 Constance J. Tarasar and Irina Kirillova, eds., Orthodox Women: Their Role and Participation in the Orthodox Church (Report on the Consultation of Orthodox Women, Sept. 11-17, 1976, Agapia, Romania) (New York: World Council of Churches Press), p.27. 19 Kyriaki K. FitzGerald, Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church (Brookline, Mass.: Holy Cross Orthodox Press), p.154-5. 20 Consultation Reports available via the Mary Martha website: http://members.iinet.net.au/~mmjournl/MaryMartha/CONSULTATIONS%20and %20REPORTS/

Rejuvenating the Diaconate: Building up the Body of Christ

•

•

•

•

•

•

275

Agapia, 1976 — “In the early centuries of the Church and in Byzantine times, the deaconess played a significant role in fulfilling the service, ie., the true “diakonia” of the Church. In some churches — in Egypt for example, where there are over 150 women fulfilling a diaconal function, this important form of service has been restored to the life of the Church, and in others, a need is felt for providing women with a responsible and full-time vocation in the service of the Church.” Sophia, Bulgaria, 1987 — “Serious consideration must be given to the re-Introduction of the ancient order of Deaconess by the hierarchies of the local churches.” Rhodes, 1988 — “The apostolic order of deaconesses should be revived. It was never altogether abandoned in the Orthodox Church though it has tended to fall into disuse […] The deaconess was ordained by the bishop in the sanctuary during the Divine Liturgy with two prayers, she received the Orarion (the deacon’s stole) and received Holy Communion at the Altar.” Crete, 1990 — “the urgent need for a renewal of women’s ministries, particularly the diaconate […] the presence of the deacon or deaconess to lead the people in prayer, to give spiritual counsel, and to distribute Holy Communion where possible […] The renewal of the diaconate for both men and women would meet many of the needs of the Church in a changing world […] catechetical work […] pastoral relations […] serving the same needs for monastic communities without a presbyter […] reading prayers for special occasions […] performing social work […] pastoral care […] engaging in youth and college ministry […] counseling […] anointing the infirm […] carrying out missionary work […] ministering to the sick […] assisting the bishop or presbyter in the liturgical services […] creative restoration of the diaconate for women, which we hope will lead in turn to the renewal in the diaconate for men.” Damascus, 1996 — “This Conference also recognizes the important ministry of deaconess as a response to the Holy Spirit for various needs of this present age.” Istanbul, 1997 — “His Beatitude [Patriarch Karekin II] mentioned the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church has taken the initiative in ordaining women to the Order of the Diaconate, an order in which both men and women are

276

•

•

•

21

Chapter Nineteen

ordained and perform similar duties [...] There is no difference between the ordination service for women and men. Women deacons care for orphans, assist women at baptism, serve liturgically at the altar, read the Gospel and bring the host to the priest. Many of us believe the incorporation of female deacons in the life of the Church will help contribute to the atmosphere of love and learning, and to the life of the Church.” 2000 — In July of 2000, after over a year of careful review of the subject, a formal letter was sent to the Ecumenical Patriarch by more than a dozen members of the Orthodox community in Paris, including such noted Orthodox theologians as Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, Fr. Boris Bobrinskoy, Olivier Clément, and Nicolas Lossky. The letter traced the history of the female diaconate and noted that the Patriarch himself stated that there is “no obstacle in canon law [that] stands in the way of the ordination of women to the diaconate. This institution of the early Church deserves to be revitalized.”21 It also states that the order should “involve more than a simple and archaeological reconstitution of the ancient ministry of the deaconesses […] it is a question of its revitalization, in other words, of its realization in the context of the culture and requirements of the present day.”22 2006 — In July of 2006, the Fellowship of St. John the Baptist held their annual conference focusing on “Women and Men in the Church” and resolved to write to the different Orthodox bishops with pastoral responsibilities in the British Isles, urging them to work actively for the restoration of the diaconate for women in the Orthodox Church. 2014 — St. Catherine’s Vision published a call for the rejuvenation of the ministry of the ordained deaconess, addressed to His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I and the Secretariat of the Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church. The proposal reviewed the history of the deaconess, emphasized that it was never disallowed, pointed to various calls for its rejuvenation, highlighted the ordination prayers of the Byzantine rite, and illustrated the need for the ministry today.

An Orthodox Diaconate for Women? Reported in Sobornost 23:1 (2001), pp.6063. 22 Ibid.

CHAPTER TWENTY THE ORDER OF DEACONESSES AND LITURGICAL RENEWAL IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH: HISTORICAL, TELETURGICAL AND THEOLOGICAL ASPECTS SRBOLJUB UBIPARIPOVIû

Abstract: Liturgical renewal in the Orthodox Church has initiated very thorough and significant examination of lex orandi of Orthodox Christians. In a wide range of topics concerning the strengthening and improvement of women’s role in the logiki latreia of the body of Christ, sui generis belongs to the potential renewal of the order of deaconesses. Liturgical renewal* as an unstoppable process in the Orthodox Church has initiated very thorough and significant examination of the lex orandi of the Eastern Church. In a wide range of topics concerning the strengthening and improvement of women’s role in the logiki latreia (Rom. 12, 1) of the body of Christ, specific and very important place belongs to potential renewal of the order of deaconesses. The goal of this scientific work is, from a liturgical point of view, authentic analysis and comparative examination of plenty of historical, teleturgical and theological aspects, in an effort to answer the question: is it possible, under what circumstances, and how could the order of deaconesses be reaffirmed?

* I would like to express, once again, my gratitude to the organizers for allowing me to take part in the International Theological Conference to Honor Prof. Emeritus Evangelos Theodorou, “Deaconesses, Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology.” It is a great honor, not just for me personally, but above all for the Faculty of Orthodox Theology of the University of Belgrade (Serbia), to have the chance to honor Prof. Theodorou, a well-known and remarkable Orthodox theologian.

278

Chapter Twenty

1. Theological aspects The contemporary world’s many needs and demands, along with numerous challenges concerning the actual liturgical renewal, are providing the Orthodox Church with an opportunity for adequate theological and soteriological witnessing.1 The question of equality between genders, the problem of women’s ordination in Protestant communities and, of course, the themes of the Pan-Orthodox Council in 2016, should be understood as precious inducement for authentic liturgical and theological answers for the Eastern Church, primarily based on her tradition.2 The ontological identity and equality of the honor of male and female, according to the order of creation, whereby not only the man but also the woman were created in the image and likeness of the creator, enjoy a determinate significance for the theological approach to the issue of improving women’s role in the worship of the Orthodox Church.3 But, a starting point for a genuine explanation of the role of woman and man should be an ecclesiological perspective, the goal of which is the 1

For a full examination of liturgical renewal in the Orthodox Church, see īİઆȡȖȚȠȢ ȃ. ĭ઀ȜȚĮȢ, ȆĮȡ‫ޠ‬įȠıȘ țĮ‫݋ ޥ‬ȟ‫ޢ‬ȜȚȟȘ ıIJ‫ ޤ‬ȁĮIJȡİަĮ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıަĮȢ, ਫțįંıİȚȢ īȡȘȖંȡȘ, ਝș੾ȞĮ 2006; Ȇ੼IJȡȠȣ ǺĮıȚȜİȚ੺įȘ, Lex Orandi. ȁİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț‫ ޣ‬ĬİȠȜȠȖަĮ țĮ‫ޥ‬ ȁİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț‫݃ ޣ‬ȞĮȖ‫ޢ‬ȞȞȘıȘ, ੍ȞįȚțIJȠȢ, ਝșોȞĮȚ 2005; ‚ȁĮIJȡİުıȦȝİȞ İ‫ރ‬Įȡ‫ޢ‬ıIJȦȢ IJࠜ Ĭİࠜ‘. ȉި Į‫ݫ‬IJȘȝĮ IJ߱Ȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț߱Ȣ ܻȞĮȞİެıİȦȢ ıIJ‫ޤ‬Ȟ ‫ݽ‬ȡșިįȠȟȘ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıަĮ, ȆȡĮțIJȚț੺ Ǻૼ ȆĮȞİȜȜ੾ȞȚȠȣ ȁİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȠ૨ ȈȣȝʌંıȚȠȣ ȈIJİȜİȤ૵Ȟ ੊İȡ૵Ȟ ȂȘIJȡȠʌંȜİȦȞ (22-25 ੗țIJȦȕȡ઀Ƞȣ 2000, ȈȣȞİįȡȚĮțં Ȁ੼ȞIJȡȠ ੊İȡ઼Ȣ ȂȘIJȡȠʌંȜİȦȢ ǻȘȝȘIJȡȚ੺įȠȢ țĮ઀ ਞȜȝȣȡȠ૨, ǺંȜȠȢ), ȈİȚȡ੺ ȆȠȚȝĮȞIJȚț੾ ǺȚȕȜȚȠș੾țȘ 7, ਝʌȠıIJȠȜȚț੾ ǻȚĮțȠȞ઀Į IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘı઀ĮȢ IJોȢ ਬȜȜ੺įȠȢ, ਯțįȠıȘ ǹૼ, ਝș੾ȞĮ 2003; ǻȘȝ੾IJȡȚȠȢ Ǻ. ȉȗ੼ȡʌȠȢ, ȁİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț‫ܻ ޤ‬ȞĮȞ‫ޢ‬ȦıȘ. ǻȠțަȝȚĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț߱Ȣ ܻȖȦȖ߱Ȣ țȜ‫ޤ‬ȡȠȣ țĮަ ȜĮȠࠎ ǹࠢ, ਫțįંıİȚȢ ȉ੾ȞȠȢ, ਝș੾ȞĮ 2001; ɉɪɨɬ. ɇɢɤɨɥɚɣ Ȼɚɥɚɲɨɜ, ɇɚ ɩɭɬɢ ɤ ɥɢɬɭɪɝɢɱɟɫɤɨɦɭ ɜɨɡɪɨɠɞɟɧɢɸ, ɋɟɪɢɹ: „ɐɟɪɤɨɜɧɵɟ ɪɟɮɨɪɦɵ. Ⱦɢɫɤɭɫɫɢɢ ɜ ɉɪɚɜɨɫɥɚɜɧɨɣ Ɋɨɫɫɢɣɫɤɨɣ ɐɟɪɤɜɢ ɧɚɱɚɥɚ XX ɜɟɤɚ. ɉɨɦɟɫɬɧɵɣ ɋɨɛɨɪ 1917-1918 ɝɝ. ɢ ɩɪɟɞɫɨɛɨɪɧɵɣ ɩɟɪɢɨɞ“, Ʉɪɭɝɥɵɣ ɫɬɨɥ ɩɨ ɪɟɥɢɝɢɨɡɧɨɦɭ ɨɛɪɚɡɨɜɚɧɢɸ ɢ ɞɢɚɤɨɧɢɢ, Ⱦɭɯɨɜɧɚɹ ɛɢɛɥɢɨɬɟɤɚ, Ɇɨɫɤɜɚ 2001. 2 Concerning the correct understanding of tradition in the Orthodox Church, see Bible, Church, Tradition:An Eastern Orthodox View, Volume One in the Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Emeritus Prof. of Eastern Church History Harvard University, Nordland Publishing Company, Belmont (Massachusetts) 1972. 3 For a convenient survey of this issue, see Vlassios Phidas, The Question of the priesthood of women, in: ĬİȠȜȠȖ઀Į, ȉંȝȠȢ ȄȈȉૼ, ȉİ઄ȤȠȢ 2, ਝș੾ȞĮ (1995), 240274. See also Valerie A. Karras, Orthodox Theologies of Women and Ordained Ministry, in: “Thinking Through Faith. New Perspectives from Orthodox Christian Scholars,” edited by Aristotle Papanikolaou-Elizabeth H. Prodromou, The Zacchaeus Venture Series: Volume 1, St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York 2008, 113-158.

Order of Deaconesses and Liturgical Renewal in the Orthodox Church

279

sacramental construction of the body of Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit, and an improvement of the gifts of Paraclete. The Orthodox ecclesiology or rather, Eucharistic ecclesiology,4 as the all-encompassing theological perspective, is given a key role in balancing theological disciplines seeking to re-define and re-examine every topic, even the order of deaconesses. So, it can be said that the female deaconate has never been altogether abandoned by the East, but has survived in different ways in the lex orandi and lex credendi of God’s Church. All in all, only returning to the liturgical and theological sources of our faith as hypostasis in Christ,5 which are the richest treasury of all goodness and tradition, can give us the right answers our uncertainties.

2. Historical aspects There isn’t any doubt that from the apostolic years, ਲ įȚ੺țȠȞȠȢ (diakonos), or the deaconess (ਲ įȚĮțંȞȚııĮ - diakonissa)6 played some kind of a role in the life of the Church. The deaconess and her role became more evident and significant from the first half of the 3rd century A.D. ਺ įȚĮțંȞȚııĮ had various duties in the early Church, offering pastoral diakonia and charity work, as well as distinctive liturgical functions.7 This last remark, as with many others, should bring our attention once again to the firm statement that the holy liturgy or divine Eucharist as the all-encompassing mystery of the Church8 was, is and will indeed remain

4

See, e.g., ȂȘIJȡȠʌȠȜ઀IJȠȣ ȆİȡȖȐȝȠȣ ੉ȦȐȞȞȠȣ [ǽȘȗȚȠȪȜĮ], Ǽ‫ރ‬ȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮȢ ‫ݑ‬ȟİȝʌȜ‫ޠ‬ȡȚȠȞ ‫ݛ‬IJȠȚ ȀİަȝİȞĮ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚț‫ ޠ‬țĮ‫ ޥ‬Ǽ‫ރ‬ȤĮȡȚıIJȚĮț‫ޠ‬, ਫțįંıİȚȢ Ǽ੝İȡȖ੼IJȚȢ, Ȃ੼ȖĮȡĮ 2006; ੉ȦȐȞȞȠȣ ǽȘȗȚȠȪȜĮ, ȂȘIJȡȠʌȠȜ઀IJȠȣ ȆİȡȖȐȝȠȣ, ‫ݒ ݠ‬ȞȩIJȘȢ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ ĬİަĮ Ǽ‫ރ‬ȤĮȡȚıIJȓߠ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJࠜ ‫ݑ‬ʌȚıțȩʌ࠙ țĮIJ‫ ޟ‬IJȠީȢ IJȡİȓȢ ʌȡȫIJȠȣȢ Į‫ݧ‬ȫȞĮȢ, ǻȚĮIJȡȚȕ੾ ਥʌ઀ įȚįĮțIJȠȡ઀઺ ਫ਼ʌȠȕȜȘșİ૙ıĮ İੁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚț੽Ȟ ȈȤȠȜ੽Ȟ IJȠ૨ ȆĮȞİʌȚıIJȘȝ઀Ƞȣ ਝșȘȞ૵Ȟ, ǻİ઄IJİȡȘ ਭțįȠıȘ, ਫțįંıİȚȢ īȡȘȖંȡȘ, ਫȞ ਝșોȞĮȚȢ 1990. 5 See, ȂĮȟȓȝȠȣ ੘ȝȠȜȠȖȘIJȠ૨, ȆȡާȢ ĬĮȜȐııȚȠȞ ʌİȡ‫ ޥ‬įȚĮijȩȡȦȞ ܻʌȩȡȦȞ IJ߱Ȣ ݄ȖȓĮȢ īȡĮij߱Ȣ, ਫȡȫIJȘıȚȢ ȀǼૼ, Scholia, 2-3, in: Maximi Confessoris Opera, Quaestiones ad Thalassium I-LV una cum latina interpretatione Ioannis Scotti Eriugenae iuxta posita, CCSG 7, ediderunt: Carl Laga et Carlos Steel, Turnhout Brepols – Leuven University Press 1980, 167. 6 For the liturgical dimension of the words: diakonia, diakonos, diakonissa, see Rev. Anastasios D. Salapatas, The liturgical role of the Deaconess in the Apostolic Constitutions, in: ĬİȠȜȠȖ઀Į, ȉંȝȠȢ ɈǺૼ, ȉİ઄ȤȠȢ 2, ਝș੾ȞĮ (2001), 566-569. 7 Ibid, 562. 8 Regarding the divine Eucharist as the all-encompassing mystery of the Church, see Nenad Milosevic, To Christ and the Church. The Divine Eucharist as the AllEncompassing Mystery of the Church, translated by Fr. Gregory Edwards and

280

Chapter Twenty

the root and goal par excellence of every order and sacred act of God’s people. Only in this light we can understand the words from the very interesting text of the early Church, “Didascalia apostolorum” (3rd century A.D.), which describes liturgical nature and the place of the deaconess as follows: “hic loco Dei regnans sicuti Deus honoretur a vobis, quoniam episcopus in typum Dei praesidet vobis. Diaconus autem in typum Christi adstat; ergo diligatur a vobis. Diaconissa vero in typum sancti spiritus honoretur a vobis. Presbyteri etiam in typum apostolorum spectentur a vobis”.9

Nevertheless, another very important early Christian text, the Apostolic Constitutions (4th century A.D.), says: “The female diaconos should be honoured like the Holy Spirit, doing or saying nothing without the diaconos, as the Paraclete does or says nothing on his own, but glorifying Christ awaits His will, and as it not possible to believe in Christ without the teaching of the Spirit, likewise no woman approaches the diakonos or the episkopos without (going through) the female deacon”.10

In addition to these examples, there are reliable facts, beginning with patristic11 and canon law’s12 tradition, the third novella of the Emperor Justinian13 (from April 535 A.D.) the novella of the Emperor Heraclius14 Dushan Radosavljevic. Edited by Bishop Maxim Vasiljevic, Contemporary Christian Thought Series, Number 13, Sebastian Press, Los Angeles, 2012. 9 Didascalia id est Doctrina catholica duodecim apostolorum et sanctorum discipulorum salvatoris nostri, Lib. II, XXVI, 4-7 (L); in: “Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum”, edidit Franciscus Xaverius Funk, Volumen I, Paderbornae in Libraria Ferninandi Schoeningh MDCCCCV (=1905), 104. 10 Apostolic Constitutions II, 26, 6. [= ǻȚĮIJĮȖĮަ IJࠛȞ ܻȖަȦȞ ܻʌȠıIJިȜȦȞ įȚ‫ޟ‬ ȀȜ‫ޤ‬ȝİȞIJȠȢ, ǺȚȕȜ઀ȠȞ Ǻૼ, XXVI, 6; in: “Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum”, op. cit., 105.], translation of extract in English from Rev. A. D. Salapatas, op. cit., 563-564. 11 See, Ǽ੝ĮȖȖ੼ȜȠȣ ǻ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, ‫ ݾ‬șİıȝާȢ IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟ࠙ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮ țĮ‫ ݘ ޥ‬įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘȢ ܻȞĮȕȚȫıİȦȢ Į‫ރ‬IJȠࠎ, in: ĬİȠȜȠȖ઀Į, ȉંȝȠȢ ȄǺૼ, ȉİ઄ȤȠȢ 4, ਝș੾ȞĮ (1991), 623-626. 12 Ibid., 627-628. 13 Novela III, Caput I, in: “Corpus Iuris Civilis, Editio stereotypa, Volumen Tertium,” “Novelae, Recognovit: Rudolfus Schoell,” Opus Schoellii morte interceptum absolvit Guilelmus Kroll, Apud Weidmannos, Berolini MDCCCXCV (=1895), 21. 14 ĭȦIJ઀Ƞȣ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȚȞȠȣʌંȜİȦȢ, ȈުȞIJĮȖȝĮ țĮȞިȞȦȞ, ȉ઀IJȜȠȢ ǹૼ, Ȁİij੺ȜĮȚȠȞ ȁૼ, PG 104, Parisiis 1896, 556B.

Order of Deaconesses and Liturgical Renewal in the Orthodox Church

281

(first half of the 7th century A.D.) and, above all, the rites of ordination and/or consecration in the Byzantine,15 Georgian16 and Eastern-Syrian17 euchologions, as well as the euchologions of the Western Church.18 These show without doubt that female deacons had a specific liturgical role in the Church. After the Islamic conquest of the Patriarchates of Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria in the first half of the 7th century A.D.,19 and a period of iconoclasm20 and strengthening of monasticism in the East,21 15

See, L' Eucologio Barberini Gr. 336 [the end of the 8th century A.D.], 163-164, Seconda edizione riveduta, Con traduzione in lingua italiana, A cura di Stefano Parenti ed Elena Velkovska, CLV - Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 2000, 172-174; Eilitarion or Kondakion Sinai ʋ 956, from the 10th century A.D., in: Ⱥ. Ⱦɦɢɬɪɿɟɜɫɤɚɝɨ, “Ɉɩɢɫɚɧɿɟ ɥɢɬɭɪɝɢɱɟɫɤɢɯɴ ɪɭɤɨɩɢɫɟɣ ɯɪɚɧɹɳɢɯɫɹ ɜɴ ɛɢɛɥɿɨɬɟɤɚɯɴ ɩɪɚɜɨɫɥɚɜɧɨɝɨ ɜɨɫɬɨɤɚ, ” Ɍɨɦɴ II, “Ǽ੝ȤȠȜંȖȚĮ,” Ɍɢɩɨɝɪɚɮɿɹ ɂɦɩɟɪɚɬɨɪɫɤɚɝɨ ɍɧɢɜɟɪɫɢɬɟɬɚ ɋɜ. ȼɥɚɞɢɦɢɪɚ, Ʉɿɟɜɴ 1901, 16; Ǽ‫ރ‬ȤȠȜިȖȚȠȞ Paris BN Coislin ʋ 213, written in 1027 A.D., in: Ⱥ. Ⱦɦɢɬɪɿɟɜɫɤɚɝɨ, op. cit., 996; Euchologium Constantinupoleos XI ineuente saeculo, Chapter XXIV (b24 = c16), in: Miguel Arranz, “Opera Selecta de re Liturgica, Tomus III: Euchologium Constantinupoleos XI ineuente saeculo et Officium Asmaticum Juxta Rituale metropolitae Cypriani,” Pontificium Institutum Orientale-Sancti Thomae Institutum, Roma-Moscovia 2003, 158-160; Jacobus Goar, Ǽ‫ރ‬ȤȠȜިȖȚȠȞ sive rituale graecorum, Editio secunda, Venetiis M.DCC.XXX (=1730), Akademische DruckU. Verlagsanstalt, Graz 1960, 218-222; Ǽ‫ރ‬ȤȠȜިȖȚȠȞ Alexandria ʋ ȡȝșૼ (104), from the 14th century A.D., in: Ⱥ. Ⱦɦɢɬɪɿɟɜɫɤɚɝɨ, op. cit., 346-347; Eilitarion ȄİȞȠijިȞIJȠȢ ʋ 163, from the 14th century A.D., in: Ⱥ. Ⱦɦɢɬɪɿɟɜɫɤɚɝɨ, op. cit., 361. 16 See, Georgian manuscript from the 10th century A.D., in: Ʉɨɪ. Ʉɟɤɟɥɢɞɡɟ, Ʌɢɬɭɪɝɢɱɟɫɤɢɟ ɝɪɭɡɢɧɫɤɢɟ ɩɚɦɹɬɧɢɤɢ ɜ ɨɬɟɱɟɫɬɜɟɧɧɵɯ ɤɧɢɝɨɯɪɚɧɢɥɢɳɚɯ ɢ ɢɯ ɧɚɭɱɧɨɟ ɡɧɚɱɟɧɢɟ, Ɍɢɩɨɝɪɚɮɿɹ „Ȼɪɚɬɫɬɜɨ“, Ɍɢɮɥɢɫ 1908, 24-25. 17 See, Ǽ. ǻ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, op. cit., 638-639. 18 See, Ǽ. ǻ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, op. cit., 639-641; The Leofric missal as used in the Cathedral of Exeter during the episcopate of its first bishop, A.D. 1050-1072, Together with some account of the Red book of Derby, the Missal of Robert of Jumièges, and a few other early manuscript service books of the English church. Edited by F. E. Warren, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1883, 226. 19 See, John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions. The Church 450680 A.D., St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, Crestwood, New York 1989, 356-361. 20 See, e.g., ǺȜ੺ıȚȠȣ ੉Ȧ. ĭİȚį઼, ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț‫ݰ ޤ‬ıIJȠȡަĮ ǹࠢ, ݃ʌ’ ܻȡȤ߱Ȣ ȝ‫ޢ‬ȤȡȚ IJ‫ޤ‬Ȟ Ǽ‫ݧ‬țȠȞȠȝĮȤަĮ, ȉȡȓIJȘ ਭțįȠıȘ, ਫțįંıİȚȢ “ǻȚ੾ȖȘıȘ,” ਝșોȞĮȚ 2002, 764-803; Leslie Brubaker, John Haldon, Byzantium in the Iconoclast Era (ca 680-850): The Sources: An Annotated Survey, With a section on The Architecture of Iconoclasm: the Buildings by Robert Ousterhout, Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies - University of Birmingham, Ashgate, Aldershot 2001; Thomas F. X. Noble, Images, Iconoclasm, and the Carolingians, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 2009.

282

Chapter Twenty

only the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople (along with the clerics of the Great Christ’s Church of St. Sophia (਺ ȂİȖȐȜȘ IJȠ૨ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨ ਬțțȜȘıȓĮ IJોȢ ਞȖȓĮȢ ȈȠijȓĮȢ) could keep the charismatic institution of deaconesses continuously alive. By the second half of the 12th century A.D., the order of deaconesses could not survive. After the fall of Constantinople at the hands of the Crusaders in 1204 A.D., it had vanished.22

3. Teleturgical aspects The most important liturgical services were offered by the deaconesses during the process of cathecumenate and specially during the celebration of the sacrament of baptism.23 It is well known that deaconesses assisted at the baptisms of adult women. One of the most precise and relevant descriptions of this can be found in the Apostolic Constitutions: “For we need a woman (female) deacon for many functions. To start with, during the enlightenment of women, the diakonos will anoint, with the holy oil, only their forehead, and after him the female deacon will anoint them; for there is no need for the women to be seen by men. But the bishop will anoint her (their?) head only during the laying on of hands, in the same way that the priests and kings were anointed before [...] You then, O bishop, according to that type, anoint the head of those to be baptized, whether they are men or women, with the holy oil, in type of the spiritual baptism; then, either you the bishop, or the presbyter under you, saying over them and pronouncing the holy epiclesis, of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, will baptize them in the water; and let the diakonos receive the man, and the female diakonos the woman, that the conferring of this inviolable seal may take place with becoming dignity; and after this let the bishop anoint the baptized with the chrism.”24

21

See, ǺȜ੺ıȚȠȣ ੉Ȧ. ĭİȚį઼, ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț‫ݰ ޤ‬ıIJȠȡަĮ Ǻࠢ. ݃ʌި IJ‫ޤ‬Ȟ Ǽ‫ݧ‬țȠȞȠȝĮȤަĮ ȝ‫ޢ‬ȤȡȚ IJ‫ ޤ‬ȂİIJĮȡȡުșȝȚıȘ, ȉȡȓIJȘ ਭțįȠıȘ, ਫțįંıİȚȢ “ǻȚ੾ȖȘıȘ,” ਝșોȞĮȚ 2002, 717-723. 22 One of the last witnessings of the institution and ordination of the deaconesses in the Orthodox Church before the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople (29th May 1453 A.D.), was given in the “Syntagma of Hieromonk Matthew Blastares” from the 14th century. See ȂĮIJșĮ઀Ƞȣ ǺȜ੺ıIJĮȡȘ, ȈުȞIJĮȖȝĮ țĮIJ‫ ޠ‬ıIJȠȚȤİަȠȞ, īૼ, Ȁİij੺ȜĮȚȠȞ ǿǹૼ, PG 144, Parisiis 1863, 1173ABCD. 1176AB. 23 See, Ǽ. ǻ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, op. cit., 649. 650. 651; Rev. A. D. Salapatas, op. cit., 569572; Valerie A. Karras, Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church, in: Church History, Vol. 73, No. 2 (June 2004), 277. 24 Apostolic Constitutions III, 16, 2-4. [= ǻȚĮIJĮȖĮަ IJࠛȞ ܻȖަȦȞ ܻʌȠıIJިȜȦȞ įȚ‫ޟ‬ ȀȜ‫ޤ‬ȝİȞIJȠȢ, ǺȚȕȜ઀ȠȞ īૼ, XVI, 2-4; in: “Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum”

Order of Deaconesses and Liturgical Renewal in the Orthodox Church

283

Another conspicuous liturgical function of the deaconess was “guarding the doors” at the entrance of women.25 In fact, the text of the

Apostolic Constitutions says: “Let the doorkeepers stand at the entrances of men guarding them, and the female deacons at those (entrances) of women, like the ship’s stewards.”26 “A deaconess does not give a blessing, nor even performs anything of those (things) performed by the presbyters or the deacons, apart from (the function of) guarding the doors and offering service to the presbyters in the baptism of women, for the sake of propriety.”27

Despite the above mentioned service, it should be pointed out that deaconesses had to arrange women’s places within churches and were required to look after them well. The already-cited text describes such a liturgical role of the deaconess: “If a poor, or a local man, or a stranger come suddenly (or unexpectedly), old man or young in age, and there is no place (for him), even for them the deacon wholeheartedly will make place, in order not to be partial towards a man, but for the diakonia to be acceptable to God. And let the female diakonos do the same for the woman who come suddenly (or unexpectedly) either poor or rich.”28

It is clear and indisputable that these sacred activities of the deaconesses were not the only ones.29 In the group of their sacramental duties, connected op. cit., 209. 211.], translation of extract in English from Rev. A. D. Salapatas, op. cit., 570. 25 See, e.g., Rev. A. D. Salapatas, op. cit., 572-574. 26 Apostolic Constitutions II, 57, 10. [= ǻȚĮIJĮȖĮަ IJࠛȞ ܻȖަȦȞ ܻʌȠıIJިȜȦȞ įȚ‫ޟ‬ ȀȜ‫ޤ‬ȝİȞIJȠȢ, ǺȚȕȜ઀ȠȞ Ǻૼ, LVII, 10; in: “Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum,” op. cit., 163], translation of extract in English from Rev. A. D. Salapatas, op. cit., 572-573. 27 Ibid., VIII, 28, 6. [= ǻȚĮIJĮȖĮަ IJࠛȞ ܻȖަȦȞ ܻʌȠıIJިȜȦȞ įȚ‫ ޟ‬ȀȜ‫ޤ‬ȝİȞIJȠȢ, ǺȚȕȜ઀ȠȞ Ǿૼ, XXVIII, 6; in: “Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum,” op. cit., 530], translation of extract in English from Rev. A.D. Salapatas, op. cit., 573. 28 Ibid., II, 58, 6. [= ǻȚĮIJĮȖĮަ IJࠛȞ ܻȖަȦȞ ܻʌȠıIJިȜȦȞ įȚ‫ ޟ‬ȀȜ‫ޤ‬ȝİȞIJȠȢ, ǺȚȕȜ઀ȠȞ Ǻૼ, LVIII, 6; in: “Didascalia et Constitutiones Apostolorum,” op. cit., 169. 171], translation of extract in English from Rev. A. D. Salapatas, op. cit., 574. 29 As for public liturgical functions of women deacons, the one most commonly mentioned is that of chanting. See V.A. Karras, Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church, op. cit., 283-285. Also, the deaconesses were taking part before and during the funerals of Christian women and sometimes as mourners. See, e.g., Ǽ. ǻ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, op. cit., 652; V.A. Karras, Female Deacons in the Byzantine

284

Chapter Twenty

to the divine Eucharist, was the conveyance of holy gifts to the ill or pregnant women,30 or even to the Christians captured by the Saracens (Arabs).31 It also seems teleturgically reasonable and possible that deaconesses were helping during the Holy Communion of women at the holy liturgy, probably in Constantinople. As matter a fact, the rubrics of the oldest rite of ordination of deaconesses in the Orthodox Church, written in the Byzantine Euchologion Codex Barberini 336 (end of the 8th century A.D.), maintain that the archbishop gives the chalice to the newlyordained deaconess, and that she is obliged to put it away at the holy table.32 According to our opinion, this can be regarded as evidence of the former practice of deaconesses distributing the holy blood to women. Such a fact can be seen, for example, in the letter from Monk Nikon of the Black Mountain (1025? - beginning of the 12th century A.D.) to Abba John, which contains information about the ancient custom of women deacons entering the altar and taking the chalice for the purposes of giving the holy blood to women.33

Conclusion Comparative liturgiological examination of the theological, historical and teleturgical aspects that have been discussed here provide firm ground from which to present relevant conclusions. The disappearance of the institution of women deacons in the Orthodox Church was caused by several factors: 1) Continuous decline of the catechumenate, and the baptism of adult women with the universal adoption of practices of infant baptism,34 limiting (and finally abolishing) the very important liturgical functions and pro-baptismal and baptismal services of deaconesses. 2) Continuous liturgical decadence, a period of iconoclasm and the strengthening of the spirit of Old Testament worship in the Church, op. cit., 284. 30 See, Ǽ. ǻ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, op. cit., 652. 31 See, V.A. Karras, Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church, op. cit., 278. 32 See L' Eucologio Barberini Gr. 336, 164, op. cit., 174. 33 See, ĬİંįȦȡȠȢ Ȅ. īȚ੺ȖțȠȣ, ‫ ݠ‬ȖȣȞĮަțĮ ıIJ‫ ޣ‬įȘȝިıȚĮ ȜĮIJȡİަĮ IJȠࠎ ĬİȠࠎ, in: ȆȡȦIJ. ਝșĮȞ੺ıȚȠȢ īț઀țĮȢ, ȂȚȜIJȚ੺įȘȢ Ǻ੺ȞIJıȠȢ, ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJ૙ȞȠȢ Ȇ. ȀȦIJıȚંʌȠȣȜȠȢ, ĬİંįȠȡȠȢ Ȅ. īȚ੺ȖțȠȣ, ǻȘȝ੾IJȡȚȠȢ ȃȚțȠȜĮț੺țȘȢ, īİઆȡȖȚȠȢ ȋ. īțĮȕĮȡį઀ȞĮȢ, „ĬİȠȜȠȖ઀Į țĮ੿ ı઄ȖȤȡȠȞȘ ਥțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț੾ ȗȦ੾“, ਫțįંıİȚȢ, ȂȣȖįȠȞ઀Į“, ĬİııĮȜȠȞ઀țȘ 2014, 421. 34 See, V.A. Karras, Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church, op. cit., 277.

Order of Deaconesses and Liturgical Renewal in the Orthodox Church

285

liturgical life of Eastern Christians, as well as a differentiation between ritual purity and impurity. This changed the place of deaconesses in churches.35 The legislation of canon number 69 at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in Trullo (691/692 A.D.), which forbade lay people from entering into the altar,36 along with the rise of ritual impurity notions between the 8th and 12th centuries A.D.,37 meant that deaconesses were not allowed to stay at, or even enter into, the altar. Literal affirmation of this argumentum ex silentio can be found in the answer given by the exiled Patriarch of Antioch, Theodore Balsamon, to question number 35, asked by the Patriarch of Alexandria Mark in the 12th century A.D. In that answer, the menstruation cycle is assigned as the main reason for the place of deaconesses outside of the altar (ਥțIJંȢ ȕ੾ȝĮIJȠȢ).38 3) Between the 11th and 14th centuries A.D., the practice of lay people receiving Holy Communion had slowly changed, with the introduction of the spoon,39 followed by a decline in the numbers of deacons, as seen from the 12th century A.D. onwards.40 This was also one of the reasons that the former liturgical role of distributing Holy Communion to women could not be performed by deaconesses. 35 For a convenient survey of this issue, see V.A. Karras, Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church, op. cit., 312-314. 36 See, Concilii Trullani Constantinopolitani Canones CII, ȟșࠢ, in: “Iuris Ecclesiastici Greacorum Historia et Monumenta” Iussu Pii IX Pont. Max., J. B. Pitra, S.R.E. Card., Tom. II, a VI ad IX saeculum, Typis S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, Romae M.DCCC.LXVIII (=1868), 58. 37 See, e.g., Ĭ. Ȅ. īȚ੺ȖțȠȣ, ‫ ݠ‬ȖȣȞĮަțĮ ıIJ‫ ޣ‬įȘȝިıȚĮ ȜĮIJȡİަĮ IJȠࠎ ĬİȠࠎ, op. cit., 425. 429; V.A. Karras, Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church, op. cit., 313-314. 38 See, ĬİȠįઆȡȠȣ ǺĮȜıĮȝ૵Ȟ, ݃ʌȠțȡަıİȚȢ țĮȞȠȞȚțĮަ ȉȚȝȠș‫ޢ‬Ƞȣ ݃ȜİȟĮȞįȡİަĮȢ, ਫȡઆIJ. Ȝİૼ, PG 138, Parisiis 1865, 988AB. 39 For a full examination of the change in the old practice of receiving Holy Communion in the East, see Robert F. Taft, Byzantine Communion Spoons: A Review of the Evidence, in: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 50, Washington D.C. (1996), 209-238. Above all, St. Symeon of Thessalonika (†1429 A.D.) testifies clearly that the practice of distributing Holy Communion to lay-people by the spoon was introduced in the Orthodox Church because of some incidents. See ȈȣȝİઅȞ ĬİııĮȜȠȞ઀țȘȢ, Ȇİȡ‫ ޥ‬IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݨ‬İȡߢȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖަĮȢ (MS Zagora 23), 95, in: St. Symeon of Thessalonika, “The Liturgical Commentaries,” edited and translated by Steven Hawkes-Teples, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Studies and Texts 168, Toronto 2011, 224. 40 See, ੉Ȧ੺ȞȞȠȣ Ȃ. ĭȠȣȞIJȠ઄ȜȘ, ݃ʌĮȞIJ‫ޤ‬ıİȚȢ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ ȁİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț‫ޠ‬Ȣ ܻʌȠȡަĮȢ, ǻૼ (301400) ĬİııĮȜȠȞ઀țȘ 1982, 293-294.

286

Chapter Twenty

Nevertheless, the ancient order of deaconesses should be revived in the Orthodox Church, but very slowly and patiently. The first possible place of renewal could be in nunneries, where some nuns are already serving in churches in ways similar to women deacons, but without the rites of consecration or ordination. However, the renewal of the order of deaconesses in parishes, according to the ancient liturgical practice of the Orthodox Church, is unthinkable without widespread and strong liturgical and baptismal renewal. Maybe such a statement sounds pessimistic, but a revival of women deacons without a renewal of their unique liturgical role would not be good enough and could lead to other problems. At the same time, the importance of other forms of female participation in the liturgical41 and philanthropic act of God’s people should not be overlooked.

41

See, e.g., Valerie A. Karras, The Liturgical Functions of Consecrated Women in the Byzantine Church, in: Theological Studies, Vol. 66, No. 1 (February 2005), 96116.

CHAPTER TWENTY ONE THE THEOLOGICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF PERICHORISIS: ITS CONSEQUENCES FOR THE ORDINATION OF DEACONESSES IOANNA SAHINIDOU

Abstract: Dualisms result in unhealthy relationships within our beings, with other humans and with the rest of creation. I address the human problem as a split in our own being (mind/soul) and submit that the way out of “split selves” is to move towards “whole selves.” My goal is for a healed relationship among humans and between humans and the earth, which will lead to a holistic perichoretic consciousness and a culture opposing domination systems.

Introduction All forms of domination share certain features: 1. Exclusion, which implies that we come to know the “other” as both inferior and separate. 2. Domination, which appears as natural. 3. Women and nature act as backgrounds to masculine activities. 4. Incorporation, which identifies the other in relation to man as central. This substructure offers an analytical tool. Domination is rooted in an ideology based on the control of reason over nature and on the separation of the spiritual from the material world, based on the separation of our being into soul and body.1 Plato defined the primal dualism of reality: its division into the invisible eternal, original realm of thought and the unshaped matrix of the 1

Val Plumwood, “Androcentrism and Anthropocentrism: Parallels and Politics,” The 21st Annual Richard Baker Philosophy Colloquium on Ecofeminist Perspectives (University of Dayton, OH, 30 March 1995), 12-13 in Heather Eaton, Introducing Ecofeminist Theologies (T & T Clar International: London, New York 2005), p.59.

288

Chapter Twenty One

visible temporal realm of corporeality. In between the two realms was the creator. The hierarchy of mind over body is reflected in the hierarchy of male over female, of human over animals, and in the class hierarchy of rulers over workers. Male domination, class hierarchy, and regarding nature as inferior were all parts of the social order that expressed a primal division of reality into soul and body. Plato adds the cultural attitude of alienation from the body and the earth as the lowest level of a cosmic hierarchy.2 Christianity, influenced by Neoplatonism, imbibed Plato’s eschatology of the soul’s escape from the body and its return to a world outside earth. According to this understanding, the God of the Bible was thought to exist outside the physical dimension of bodies; this idea fused with Greek philosophical dualism of spirit/matter became the identity myth of the Western male ruling class.3 The mechanistic thought suggested that the domination of nature and women, and the religious justification for exploiting nature, were linked. Conquering nature was seen through the metaphor of conquering women. Feminist theology breaks open the conceptual cage of dualisms4 and offers an analytical tool.

Interrelatedness The interrelatedness and interdependence of all cosmic beings with everything else that exists, uncovers body/soul dualism, creating a theological anthropology as a reality of all. Interrelatedness as a cosmic condition — as a religious experience (giving up anthropocentrism and androcentrism) — knows the world as our widest cosmic reality. Differentiation of the cosmic beings can be understood, if we take into consideration that any being is a unique cosmic manifestation (unity in diversity). We question the autonomy of the human person for its individualistic limits and its dependence on everything else. One of my motivations for focusing on perichoretic relations as the coinherence in Christ of human and divine natures, is that it illustrates the 2

Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gaia and God, An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing (HarperCollins Publications: New York 1992), 24-6. 3 Val Plumwood, “Androcentrism & Anthropocentrism: Parallels and Politics,” The 22nd Annual Richard Baker Philosophy Colloquium on Ecofeminist Perspectives, (University of Dayton, OH, 30 March 1995):12-13, cited in Heather Eaton, Introducing Ecofeminist Theologies (Routledge: London New York 1993), 59. 4 Val Plumwood, Feminism and the Mastery of Nature (Routledge: London 1993), 55, 190-4.

The Theological Significance of Perichorisis

289

authentic relationship between God the creator and creation. The theological problem is one of humanity being in a non-perichoretic relationship within itself, other human beings, God, and the rest of creation. To heal this rift requires a process of cultivating perichoretic relations between them, in Christ. I briefly trace the development of the concept of “perichoresis” as a preliminary to studying its promise, potential, and implications for the ordination of women.

Perichoresis The Definition of Perichoresis The noun «ʌİȡȚȤȫȡȘıȚȢ» identifies the process of making room for another around oneself, or of extending one’s self. August Deneffe linked perichoresis to the stoic concept of “mixture,” which means a mutual interpenetration of two substances that preserves the identity and property of each intact.5 The Eastern Church Fathers contextualized “ʌİȡȚȤȫȡȘıȚȢ” from Anaxagoras’s cosmological, mechanistic context, to use it in a Christological and Trinitarian one.6 Gregory of Nazianzus preached of one God, three in unity and equal, but each distinct in the person’s own property, and one God because of consubstantiality. There is, in the Godhead, an identity of hypostatic substance which is distinct because each differs in relation to origin.7 If there are no hypostases in God of one essence, the indwelling of the Godhead is questioned. Gregory of Nyssa wrote the treatise, To Ablabius, to prove that “there are not three gods.” He explains that in trying to know the divine nature, we do not express what the essence of that nature is.8 The divine nature rejects diversity in essence. In God’s 5

Verna Harrison, “Perichoresis in the Greek Fathers”, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 35/1 (1991), p.53. 6 Henry Liddell and Robert Scott, ȁİȟȚțާȞ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݒ‬ȜȜȘȞȚț߱Ȣ īȜȫııȘȢ, IJ. 3 ȁ-Ȇ (ਫȞ ਝșȒȞĮȚȢ: ȉȣʌȠȖȡĮijİ૙Ƞ ǹ. ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȚȞȓįȘ, 1902), ıİȜ.570. 6 The concept of perichoresis, concerning the relations of the persons of the Trinity, as well as the divine and human natures of Christ, permeates the treatise of John of Damascus ੉ȦȐȞȞȠȣ ǻĮȝĮıțȘȞȠઃ, ‫ݕ‬țįȠıȚȢ ݃țȡȚȕ‫ޣ‬Ȣ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ȆȓıIJİȦȢ (ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ: ਫțįȩıİȚȢ ȆȠȣȡȞȐȡĮ, 1989). 7 Leo Donald Devis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) their History and Theology (Collegeville Minnesota: A Michael Glazier, 1983), pp.116-7. 8 Gregory of Nyssa argues that one person is distinguished from the others with respect to cause, which indicates existential differentiation. The Godhead is one and God is one. Gregory of Nyssa, On Not Three Gods, ȉȠȣ īȡȘȖȠȡȓȠȣ ǼʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ ȃȪııȘȢ, Ȇİȡȓ IJȠȣ ȝȘ İȓȞĮȚ IJȡİȓȢ ĬİȠȪȢ, PG, IJ. 45, 121.

290

Chapter Twenty One

manifestation to the cosmos, it is three divine persons in “ʌİȡȚȤȫȡȘıȚȢ.” The Son fills and contains all things contained in the Father who fills and contains all things, while contained in the Son.9

The Use of Perichoresis by Modern Theologians The defence of a social conception of the Trinity started with Moltmann10 who retrieved John Damascene’s doctrine of Trinitarian ʌİȡȚȤȫȡȘıȚȢ.11 For him, through the idea of perichoresis, the social doctrine of the Trinity expresses the eternal indwelling and community of the divine persons as a basis for differentiation and unity of God (John 14:11, 10:30). Trinitarian perichoresis can be the starting point for an account of all analogously dualistic relations, reflecting the mutual indwelling and interpenetration of Trinitarian perichoresis: God in the world, the world in God; heaven and earth in God’s kingdom; soul and body as a whole in the life giving Spirit; woman and man as whole human beings. For Moltmann, life as perichoresis designates an ecological doctrine of creation.12 Some of Moltmann’s ideas served as reference points for feminist theologians struggling against dualisms in patriarchal structures. Masculinity, femininity and all dualistic relations are sinful, requiring holistic healing processes and redemption. For him, the ecumenical and ecological resonance in God’s incarnated wisdom and the indwelling Spirit as Trinitarian perichoresis, embodies justice for women and the entire creation.13

Challenging the Social Doctrine of the Trinity The use of social analogies in the Trinity is problematic. For modern theology, “person” is a technical term in the Trinitarian formula. For social theorists, our society’s meaning of “person” should return to the Trinitarian idea because today, personhood leads to individualism.

9

ȃİȓȜȠȢ ਝȕȕȐȢ ੥ʌİȡȑȤȚȠȢ Epistolarum Lib. 2 ȁĬǯ PG IJ. 79, 213. Karen Kilby, “Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity”, New Blackfriars 81:956(2000), 432-45. 11 Jürgen Moltmann, The Trinity and the Kingdom (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), pp.174. 12 Jürgen Moltmann, God in Creation (London: SCM Press, 1997), pp.15-7. 13 Catherine Keller, “Pneumatic Nudges: The Theology of Moltmann, Feminism, and the Future”, in Volf (ed.), The Future of Theology Essays in Honor of Jürgen Moltmann (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996) pp.142-53. 10

The Theological Significance of Perichorisis

291

A ruler’s monarchy does not accord to the Trinity. According to Moltmann, we can adopt a social doctrine of the Trinity in order to avoid absolutism of the monarchy. Trinitarian persons are comprised in their relationships, yet the divine perichoresis is beyond our experience. Projection is doubtful: what is projected onto God is reflected back onto the world. The doctrine is not a descriptive of God, but a Christian structuring principle. Theologians must not use it to claim an insight into God’s life and promote social, political or ecclesiastical regimes.14 Gregory of Nyssa’s Trinitarian theology is about the unity of divine will and action, not probing into the details of the Godhead’s nature. The tack is of “communion” between the persons, not “community.” Gregory’s analogies for the Trinity stress the indivisibility of the persons and the fluidity in their bounds. An apophatic sensibility attends any talk of God’s essence.15 In my view, it is not Trinitarian, as Moltmann claims, but Christological perichoresis that can be taken as a starting point for an ecological doctrine of creation. I reclaim the patristic Christological use of perichoresis by showing how, in bringing together different entities, such as God and humanity, and God and creation, and looking at them in unity as the one person of Christ, we can acknowledge the perichoresis between the divine, humanity and creation. Christological perichoresis supports the idea that the whole creation is included in God’s recreated cosmos, in response to the redeeming power of Christ; it goes further than the eco-feminist model of scientific interrelatedness among the cosmic beings, as it speaks of the creator who sustains and recreates creation. Christological perichoresis is seen as Trinitarian manifestation extending to include all created beings in a co-inherence with God and each other. Preserving distinctiveness, it enables interchange of life between various levels of reality as a Christian ontology of love.16

Christological Perichoresis In Christology, perichoresis shows how the Saviour’s two natures are united while distinct, making His human sufferings salvific. The Fourth 14 Karen Kilby, “Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity”, first published in New Blackfriars 81:956, (October 2000), pp.432445. 15 Sarah Coakley, “Persons”, in Powers and Submissions, Spirituality, Philosophy and Gender (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), pp.112-120. 16 Verna Harrison, “Perichoresis in the Greek Fathers”, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 35/1 (1991), pp.63-65.

292

Chapter Twenty One

Ecumenical Council ruled that Jesus Christ is “in two natures”. The unity of person is “by reason of this unity of person to be known in both natures, the Son of Man has come from heaven when the Son of God took flesh from the virgin from whom he was born.” The Council of Chalcedon distinguished between person and nature; the person of Christ being one, his natures two, remaining forever mutually present. Even after his death, Christ comes as one, both in humanity and in divinity. The Christ confessed by Christians exists eternally, one and the same, both before and after the salvation economy. When Maximus applies perichoresis to Christology, it means reciprocity of action. Maximus tries to explain the singleness of action and effect proceeding from the two natures in Christ’s person. He calls the process perichoresis of the two natures “to” one another. This may suggest that the penetration of the created into the uncreated cannot be an exhaustive one. Divine nature, having penetrated flesh, offers to flesh a perichoresis with itself flowing from the divinity, a one-sided process. The Chalcedonian Creed (451) expresses the union of Christ’s natures negatively, united “inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably,”17 yet without explaining how this can be. Christianity is a communion with the living God in Christ, beyond explanation, affirmation or negation. The apophatic dimension of the unity of Christ’s natures remains. The term perichoresis was used by the Church Fathers to defend the one God in three hypostases and the one Christ in two natures against heresies. ȁȩȖȠȢ is both creator and re-creator of the world. We can thus face both incarnation and creation of the world as Christological perichoresis towards the world, to create and recreate the cosmos. In applying perichoresis to Christology, Maximus speaks of the interchange at the moment of uttering the spoken word and the idea it expresses. Both of these are named ȜȩȖȠȢ in Greek,18 and are concepts that lead to creation when the latent words are spoken. This approach opens up the cosmic dimensions of the continuous Trinitarian work in creation through Christ. Neither Trinitarian nor Christological perichoresis are insights into Christ’s divine nature. Any biblical or patristic reference to the unity of the divine and human natures of Christ shows an apophatic sensibility about the unity, exposing the limits of what we say about God and the cosmos in Christ.19 Perichoresis is a Christian structuring principle. An encounter with Jesus involves a radical shift in ourselves as if we are reborn (John 17

Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1983), p.176. 18 Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, p.292-3. 19 Coakley, “Persons” in the “Social Doctrine of the Trinity”, pp.124-9.

The Theological Significance of Perichorisis

293

3:5).20 What brings us nearer to Christ’s truth does not come into our awareness through scientific reflection on cosmic structures, but through an encounter with the ultimate reality, allowing us to sense a further dimension of pain as separation from creator, ȁȩȖȠȢ, the reality of our lives. The entire creation is waiting for the unity to be achieved.21 Maximus refers to the time when “all will be in all,” as the culmination of human ascent.22 For him, “creation will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God” (Rom. 8:19, 21-2), revealing God the Father’s mystery of will according to God’s purpose, set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, “to unite all things in heaven and on earth, in Him” (Eph. 1: 9-10).23

Patristic Ideas related to Christological Perichoresis A patristic, holistic idea that opens up a cosmic Christological perichoresis uniting creation, incarnation and recreation, is met in Maximus’s theology of ȁȩȖȠȢ-ȜȩȖȠȚ. ȁȩȖȠȢ. It is identified with Christ as the origin of creation and revelation through whom all things came into being. Salvifically, Christ is the re-creator of the world. ȁȩȖȠȢ is the proof of the reforming reality of God’s presence in creation that communicates to the creatures the ability to commune with God and one another. We realize each being as a ȜȩȖȠȢ existing in communion with the ȁȩȖȠȢ, and all ȜȩȖȠȚ. Beings are the result of the creative act of God. We cannot survive as self-existent beings, cut off from the creator and other beings. Any configuration in creation is elicited by the ȁȩȖȠȢ who offers the milieu for all communication in the world.24 Maximus the Confessor refers to cosmic interrelated beings, as well as to relatedness as a religious experience of union with the divine and the whole world. God brought into being, upholds and encompasses all that exists, as their cause, origin, end and origin of relatedness, uniting all that differ in nature and leading them to common being. All come into being, receiving their nature according to the relationship and care of the only

20

‘Ȇİȡȓ ǼȞĮȞșȡȦʌȓıİȦȢ’, ıİ Ȃ. ǹșĮȞĮıȓȠȣ ȑȡȖĮ, 1,8, 9-11 (ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ: ǼțįȩıİȚȢ «īȡȘȖȩȡȚȠȢ Ƞ ȆĮȜĮȝȐȢ», 1973), ıİȜ. 260-61. 21 Chris Clarke, Living in Connection (Warminster: Creation Spirituality Books, 2002), pp.225, 9, 31. 22 Andrew Louth, Maximus the Confessor: The Early Church Fathers (London: Routledge, 1996), p.162. 23 Ibid. p.163. 24 Gregersen, “Three varieties of Panentheism”, p.26.

294

Chapter Twenty One

origin and cause who is God.25 In uttering the truth of God as transcendent yet immanent, as beyond yet everywhere, present and filling everything, Maximus thought in terms of ȁȩȖȠȢ-ȜȩȖȠȚ. ȁȩȖȠȢ has many meanings in Greek, all used for Christ, the ȁȩȖȠȢ: word, reason, cause, meaning, possibility to communicate and relate. Christ, the creator ȁȩȖȠȢ has implanted in every being a ȜȩȖȠȢ that is God's intention, its inner being that makes it itself, and draws it towards the creator ȁȩȖȠȢ. By virtue of the indwelling ȜȩȖȠȚ, each created being is not an object but a ȜȩȖȠȢ, addressed to the world by ȁȩȖȠȢ, as a unifying cosmic presence.26 If the world is the Trinity’s manifestation of the creative inner principle of ȁȩȖȠȢ as ‘ȜȩȖȠȚ’, the wisdom revealed in creation empirically confirms the creative presence of ȁȩȖȠȢ in all ‘ȜȩȖȠȚ’.27 ȉhrough the ȜȩȖȠȚ, we are directed to the cause, passing over the dispersion of cosmic ȜȩȖȠȚ. ȁȩȖȠȢ binds all into harmony. To experience ȜȩȖȠȚ as communion with all beings, we must stop subjugating other beings for our use, convert from our self-centred relations with God and the ȜȩȖȠȚ, and nourish mutual healing relations. Everything interacts with all else at all points, in all conditions, as God’s creative, communicative ȁȩȖȠȢ, within the creation as ‘ȜȩȖȠȢ’. The truth of the ȜȩȖȠȢ depends upon love, not upon a rational objective, conceived by itself. This identifies the ȜȩȖȠȚ of things with the loving will of God, who does not know things by their own nature but as the realizations of God’s will and love.28 Humans can discern the ȜȩȖȠȚ of creation: the depth of meaning found in creation. Because of their sin, they fail to find meaning. ȁȩȖȠȢ incarnated renews humanity as a bond of the cosmos from within.29 The renewed ones can discern the ȜȩȖȠȚ of creation and see the cosmos as God intended it to be. The ȜȩȖȠȚ expresses the divine will. In the view of Maximus, we cannot trace the idea of dominion.

25

ȈȦIJȘȡȩʌȠȣȜȠȣ, Ǿ ȂȣıIJĮȖȦȖȓĮ IJȠȣ ǹȖȓȠȣ ȂȐȟȚȝȠȣ IJȠȣ ȅȝȠȜȠȖȘIJȠȪ, 1993, ıİȜ.151-2. 26 Kallistos Ware Bishop of Diokleia, “God Immanent yet Transcendent: The Divine energies according to Saint Gregory Palamas” Clayton and Peacocke (eds.), In Whom We live and move and have our Being, p.160. 27 Keselopoulos quotes from Gregory of Nyssa: Anestis Keselopoulos, Man and the Environment (New York: St Vladinir’s Seminary Press, 2001), translation from Greek by Elizabeth Theokritoff, pp.103-10. 28 Quaest. Ad Thal. 60. 29 Andrew Louth, “The Cosmic Vision of Saint Maximos the Confessor”, Clayton and Peacocke (eds.), In Whom We live and move and have our Being, p.189. Louth, Maximus the Confessor, p.68, 113-15.

The Theological Significance of Perichorisis

295

Christ: ȅȓțȠȢ of the Cosmopanentheism For centuries, the verb ȤȦȡȫ (to contain) expressed the idea of the pervasion of all created things by God; the all-pervasive Spirit omnipresent in space, containing the cosmos. Extending this idea, ȤȦȡȫ was applied to the mutual relations of divine persons. Father and Son are mutually receptive and permeative, containing one another. The claim of panentheism for the relationship of God and the world in patristic thought, parallels Christological perichoresis as reciprocity of Christ’s human and divine natures. There is a co-mingling of creator and creature in a text by Athanasius.30 As long as interest in “all things” and in “the whole of creation” exists, the possibility of a full-bodied panentheism also exists. God in all and all in God suggests a divinity irreducible to unitary simplicity or selfcontained tri-unity. The ȁȩȖȠȢ of the incarnation expresses an intimate cosmological vastness.31 Basil the Great’s idea of infinity becomes a trace of new science, where all the divided are divisible to the infinite.32 According to Basil, without the endless presence of God in creation, nothing would remain in existence, even for a moment.33 The model of God as creation’s ȅǿȀȅȈ opens up an ecological, panentheistic view of creation within God. God in all — “İȞ”, in whom the cosmos unfolds, the divinity that unfolds “İȞ” — echoes the Trinitarian insight of relationality, immanent to God and personalized in the oikonomia of creation.34 “ǼȞ” shows duration and dimensionality in space/time and builds up the panentheistic view. The word İȞ is met in biblical passages, such as: “İȞ-in [Christ] all things were created” (Col 1:16). The bedrock of the cosmos can be applied to God. “Everything that is, is in God and God is in all things and yet God is not identical to the cosmos, for the cosmos is dependent on God while God is not dependent on the cosmos;”35 “It is in God that we live and move and have our being.”36

30

Athanasius, Christology of the Later Fathers, Library of Christian Classics, Vol. III, E.R. Hardy (ed.), (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1954), p.f. cited in Catherine Keller, Face of the Deep (London: Routledge, 2003), p.63. 31 Catherine Keller, Face of the Deep, pp.63-4. 32 Capra, The Web of Life, pp.30-1. 33 Kallistos Ware, “God Immanent yet Transcendent”: Clayton and Peacocke (eds.), In Whom We live and move and have our Being, p.159. 34 Keller, Face of the Deep, p.219. 35 McFague, The Body of God, pp.149-50. 36 Acts 17.28.

296

Chapter Twenty One

Kenosis In the Trinity, opening itself towards creation and in the creator ȁȩȖȠȢ becoming a creature,37 we realize incarnation as divine, kenotic contextualization towards creation when the ȁȩȖȠȢ is spread out over the cosmos by virtue of connectivity with all ‘ȜȩȖȠȚ,’38 uniting them in Him.39 The Trinity in Christ opens itself in love towards creation in a sacrificial movement. The biblical foundation of the kenotic Trinity is seen in Col. 2.9: “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,” that is the heartbeat of the vision for a transformed, flourishing cosmos. Kenosis refers to a process of self-emptying.40 Christ, through God, humbled himself and took the form of a slave, becoming obedient unto death.41 Jesus speaks to his disciples about the constant mirroring of love descending from the greater to the lesser, where each is contained in the other. Both are seen as a context of love where one moves.42 The creator and re-creator is the source of love and openness towards the world, held within the loving events of creation43 and incarnation that are the radical experiences upon which the world is built, leading beyond logical, scientific, evolutionary categories. The divine ȁȩȖȠȢ is incarnated not in the body of one human being alone but in humankind as a whole and in creation as a whole.

Creation out of “no thing”, God being “no thing” Some theologians reject as heretical the idea that God creates the world within God because natural relations between God and creation appear, leading to pantheism and to idolizing creation. They argued that God created the world “out of nothing,” a constructed formula which is not biblically supported. They think they escape both the problem of recognizing God as intrinsically present in creation, leading to pantheism, and that of a dualism that asserts that something existed prior to creation out of which God created the world. The acceptance of creatio ex nihilo leads to the double order of truth, and becomes a step toward promoting

37

ǻĮȝĮıțȘȞȠȪ, ǯǼțįȠıȚȢ ǹțȡȚȕȒȢ, ǻǯ 18, ıİȜ. 402, 4,6. Clarke, Living in Connection, pp.105, 177. 39 Ephesians: 1.7-12, Colossians: 1.20. 40 Phil. 2.5-11. 41 Grey, Sacred Longings, pp.72-80. 42 John: 15.9-12. 43 Clarke, Living in Connection, p.235. 38

The Theological Significance of Perichorisis

297

the desecration of the created world.44 Time characterizes the created world; there is no “prior” until creation appears.45 ǿf God exists beyond creation, if in God creation exists, if God is omnipresent, what then is nothingness? To speak both about God’s omnipresence and nothingness is a paradoxical dualism. Some Eastern Church Fathers argued that God calls into existence beings “ਥȟ Ƞ੝ț ੕ȞIJȦȞ”, “out of non-being”. Theofilus writes: “all things God has made out of things that were not into things that are.”46 “ਫȟ Ƞ੝ț ੕ȞIJȦȞ” could refer to Romans 4.17b: “God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.” The Fathers discern the noncreated creator from creation, stressing their mutual relations because of the willing activities of the non-created, on which creation depends. Neither of these relations and the will of God refer to either creation out of pre-existent matter, or to creatio ex nihilo. Matter did not pre-exist: “God created the heavens and the earth.”47 In Hebrews 11.3 we read: “the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.” A nihilo that corresponds to a reality is the latent state of beings prior to differentiation in the unrevealed potentiality of God. The spirit never exists without matter, nor matter without spirit.48 The hovering Spirit,49 as the source of life in creation,50 creates ੕ȞIJĮ from Ƞ੝ț ੕ȞIJĮ, life from nonlife, being from non-being; it creates living beings, human, or non-human. The phenomenal world is a self-revelation of God, through which God both knows God’s self in creation and is known by it.51 Identifying nihilo with the undifferentiated, unknowable ground of the divinity, we do not end up with pantheism. The distinction remains: creation is what the creator creates; creation is not the creator. Creation “ਥȟ Ƞ੝ț ੕ȞIJȦȞ” refers to what in God is envisaged as the fathomless, incomprehensible depths of God’s uncreated possibilities, the pre-ontological nihilo from which all proceed. The idea of creation “ਥȟ Ƞ੝ț ੕ȞIJȦȞ” deconstructs and subverts

44

Sherrard, Christianity Lineaments of a Sacred, 234-5. Ibid, 235-8. 46 ĬİȠijȓȜȠȣ ʌȡȠȢ ǹ੝IJȩȜȣțȠȞ, ǺȚȕȜȓȠȞ ǹ’, țİij. 4, PG IJ. 6, 1050. Translation mine. 47 Genesis 1.1. 48 Sherrard, Christianity Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition, 240. 49 Genesis 1.2. 50 Mark Wallace, Finding God in the Singing River (Fortress Press: Minneapolis, 2005), 44. 51 Sherrard, Christianity Lineaments of a Sacred Tradition, 241. Maximus the Confessor, To Thalassius, on Various Difficulties 13, PG 90, 296B. 45

298

Chapter Twenty One

the dualism of both a spiritual and materialistic cosmos, of psyche and matter and of all dualisms.

The Word made Flesh Jesus was the word made flesh.52 “ȈȐȡȟ” is used in the Bible to denote the entire living creation:53 “I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all flesh under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it;”54 “Not all flesh is alike; there is one flesh for humans, another for animals, for birds, for fish. There are heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendour of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendour of the earthly bodies is another.”55 The human ıĮȡȟ of a woman or of a man, white or black, or of any human being, could be different, but not of a lower or upper class. The splendor of earthly or heavenly bodies is not estimated hierarchically, but differently. ȁȩȖȠȢ the creator, entered the “web of life” he created as flesh in order to save the entire web from corruption and death. Christ became a human being, but nowhere do we read that he became a man. We understand Christ’s divine nature as supernatural, while his human as natural. Yet, Christ received genes only from his mother, while any human being receives genes from both of his/her parents. Christ’s incarnation is a mystery; it does not make sense to discuss his gender.

Epilogue Boundaries vanish when we uncover the web of underlying relations and interactions. We exist in an open cosmic system where all beings depend on and exist in complex systems of interrelationships, energies and fields, because all beings are interrelated among themselves, while also related with and dependent on our creator and source of all life. Christological perichoresis strives for dialogue towards all ȜȩȖȠȚ of creation existing panentheistically within God, the ȁȩȖȠȢ. ȆİȡȚȤȫȡȘıȚȢ names the process of making room for another around oneself, or to extend one’s self round about, not creating closed systems or marginalizing. The idea of creation “ਥȟ Ƞ੝ț ੕ȞIJȦȞ” subverts and deconstructs all dualisms. The divine ȁȩȖȠȢ is incarnated in the entirety of 52

Ann Brown, Apology to Women (Leicester: Inter-Varsity-Press, 1991), p.41. ȁİȟȚțȩ ǺȚȕȜȚțȒȢ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, ıİȜ.888. 54 NIV Genesis 6:17; see also the biblical verses: Psalm 135:25 LXT Sirach 40:8. 55 NIV 1 Corinthians 15:39-40. 53

The Theological Significance of Perichorisis

299

humanity and in creation as a whole. The perichoretic worldview dissolves any discrimination against women and any being; relationships of domination and subordination disappear. All beings are created by the creator as members of the life-web. For him who is perfect in love and has reached the summit of dispassion there is no difference between his own or another’s, or between Christians and unbelievers, or between slave and free, or even between male and female. But because he has risen above the tyranny of the passions and has fixed his attention on the single nature of man, he looks on all in the same way and shows the same disposition to all. For in him there is neither Greek nor Jew, male nor female, bond nor free, but Christ who “is all, and in all.”56

56

https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=196046943751116 ȅȝȠȜȠȖȘIJȒȢ, On love 2d Century, PG.90 Ȝ’. Col. 3:11; cf. Gal. 3:28.

ȂȐȟȚȝȠȢ

CHAPTER TWENTY TWO “WOMAN FROM MAN… JUDGE AMONG YOURSELVES”: I COR 11:8B,13A— SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION, DEMYTHOLOGIZING FEMALE DEITIES OR PASCHAL REVERSAL? EVANTHIA ADAMTZILOGLOU

Abstract: This study has as its starting point the Pauline verse, “woman from man,” and poses questions about the biblical creation of Yahwist. Is it about the social transformation or demythologization of the female deities, or does it declare the paschal reverse of male deification? For those who intend to revive the ancient cult of the Mother Goddess, bringing forward female priesthood, the Pauline verse is a frontal attack on female dominion. In the social approach, biblical creation is supported by the dominance of patriarchy against matriarchy. A critical approach to the old biblical tradition of Yahwist points out that the writer is not hostile to women. He demythologizes the elements of fertility that were worshipped, such as deities, the earth, moon, snakes and motherhood. The Yahwist demythologizes the deified female but by revealing the name of God as “Yahweh” he also places the male with his deified superego, reflected in the deified royal authority of the Pharaoh, in his place. On this course of paschal reversal of the deified male authority, the royal authority is democratized among God’s people. On this line belongs the sacrifice of all the firstborn sons to God, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and the male priesthood in the Church. The place of the two sexes in the worship of the Church manifests the paschal reversal of the deified male authority in social life and the demythologization of the deified female in religious life.

I would like to begin this paper with a presupposition, which has resulted from my long-term study on the subject of women in the Bible.1 1

This study presents the important points of the scientific resources of my books:

302

Chapter Twenty Two

The dispute about the priesthood of women has obscured many other theological issues that could lead Christians to unity instead of increasing the division among them. In this process, not only could the feminine perspective make a difference, but women could also serve in special kinds of ministry. These ideas also emerge from research on the phrase “woman from man,” which I have chosen to analyze in terms of its social and religious background. It was written by St. Paul but has drawn much criticism, mainly from those who aim at a resurgence of the cult of Magna Mater.2 According to these radical and feminist theories, the phrase “woman from man”3 is a frontal attack4 by St. Paul on the female kyriarchy, which wasn’t even ventured into by the Yahwist, the writer of the biblical creation, Gen. 2-3. Other reformers examine the biblical text critically: they point out that the phrase “woman from man” comes from the Greek translation of Septuaginta (O`), which has obscured the Hebraic text about the myth of Pandora for ages, even though the original text contains many interesting secrets.5 In addition, the use of this biblical phrase by St. Paul raises many questions.6 Was it St. Paul’s intention to support the subjugation of women, as reflected by the head cover? What do all of those ideas have to do with the Gospel of Jesus? Did St. Paul introduce a new approach with what can be regarded as an important aberration from the liberating message of Jesus Christ for women? Clearly, the issue can be easily compounded and extended on many levels. However, the apostle Paul prompts us to “judge among

Woman in the Theology of Apostle Paul. Hermeneutical Analysis of I Cor. 11,2-16 (Diss. in Greek), EEThThS vol. 29/62 Thessaloniki 1989; “Many Women were there…” Biblical and Theological Studies about Women. Interventions to the actual Feministic Theology (in Greek), ed. SIMBO: Thessaloniki 1997; and “Neither male nor female.” The Royal Charismata of the two Sexes (Gal. 3,28c, Gen. 1,26-27), (in Greek), University Studio Press, Thessaloniki 1988. 2 Christa Mulack, Die Weiblichkeit Gottes. Matriarchale Voraussetzungen des Gottesbildes, Kreuz Verlag Stuttgart 1983² makes an effort to introduce the resurgence of Magna Mater in the Christian Faith, 263f. 3 I Cor. 11,8b. 4 Christa Mulack, ibid. 158-159. 5 Helen Schüngel-Straumann, Die Frau am Anfang. Eva und die Folgen, Herder Freiburg im Breisgau 1989. 6 For questions about the theology of St. Paul, see my dissertation, Woman in the Theology of Apostle Paul.

“Woman from Man…Judge among yourselves”

303

yourselves.”7 He calls us to put all matters in order and to examine and consider them. The social hermeneutical approach to the phrase “woman from man” suggests the patriarchal relationship8 that the Yahwist9 intends to impose upon life between the two sexes, or to justify the patriarchal status quo in society. So, the male is created first as a collective person who is dominant, while the female appears as a subordinate and servant who is dependent on the male.10 It is conspicuous that the kyriarchy type relationship of this approach is connected to the creative will of God and not considered as a consequence of the Fall. This is a great mistake with grave repercussions and the sociological perspective thus loads the image of God with patriarchal elements which come from the patriarchal structure of society. Therefore, every social transformation would change the image of God, too.11 Such a change in the image of God in relation to social transformations has been found in the Babylonian epic of Enuma Elish. Historical research has acknowledged this work as the background of Genesis 1.12 It was probably composed in the early part of the second millennium B.C.; the biblical text of Gen. 1 is dated in the 5th century B.C. The Babylonian creation story originates from the cosmogony and Theogony of the Sumerian world. According to them, the beginning of all things is the Mother Goddess who brings forth the deities, humans and all of creation.13 Enuma Elish was reworked from earlier creation stories to celebrate the ascendancy of the city of Babylonia and its deity Marduk, over the other cities during the first Babylonian dynasty (19th to 16th centuries 7

I Cor. 11,13a. Rosemary Radford Ruether, Gaia and God. An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing, SCM Press Ltd London 1993, 21. Christa Mulack, ibid.138f. 9 The name of God in Gen. 2-3 is Yahweh Elohim. Christa Mulack notices that two traditions are assimilated in this text, with the patriarchal tradition prevalent, while matriarchal elements are traced in the consequences of the Fall, ibid, 144f. 10 Radford Ruether, ibid. 21f. 11 Christa Mulack poses the question: Since liberal theology can create several theologies, such as those of the death of God, why can’t it deconstruct the idols of patriarchal culture by introducing new images of God? Ibid. 8f. 12 My response to these opinions of E. Radford Ruether is published in my book, Neither male nor female, 92-93. I argue that in ancient Egyptian tradition, the female body of the goddess Nut is stretched across the sky, while the God, Ra, in his solar boat, is moving all day long. This means that the female body remains in the heavens according to Egyptian tradition. 13 Radford Ruether, ibid. 16. 8

304

Chapter Twenty Two

B.C.). The ancient female deity, Tiamat, who represents the old ruling class of the city, was killed in battle by the male deity, Marduk, who represents the new ruling class. Marduk then split Tiamat’s body in half “like a shellfish” from which he created the sky and the earth. He then used the blood of her servant, Kingu, mixed with clay, to fashion humans as servants for deities and rulers.14 In the background of Genesis 1, there seems to be some criticism to this Babylonian epic. By this tradition, God, whose name is Elohim, does not oppose Magna Mater who represents the primeval matter. God coexists15 with the matter and lets his Spirit move over the surface of waters, “while the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters” (Gen. 1,2). Strife between the creator and the primeval mother was eliminated, as E. Radford Ruether has suggested.16 However, the matter is formless and responds instantly to the creator’s orders. God created the cosmos in six days and on the seventh day he rested, according to the Ten Commandments. On the sixth day, God created human beings and the animals and all these creatures are vegetarian. Humans are superior to animals in that they are made “in the image and likeness of God.”17 This means that God isn’t in the image of human beings as in idolatry, but humans are created in the image of God.18 This biblical principle is of crucial importance because it reverses the ideology of idolatry and it ought to guide the sociological approach to religion accordingly. Pagans created idols of various gods and goddesses, and the kings used to place images of themselves throughout the kingdom to manifest their authority.19 In contrast, the biblical writer believes that both man and woman were created in the image of God in order to be in charge of creation. That is, there is a kind of democratization of the royal ideology in the society of God’s people.20 14

Radford Ruether, ibid. 17-18. Radford Ruether, ibid. 19. 16 Radford Ruether, ibid. 19. 17 Regarding the patristic interpretations of the verse, see the chapter, “Woman in the biblical Creation” in Many women were there, ibid. 72f, and Neither male nor female, ibid. 87. 18 Gerhard von Rad, The Theology of Israel’s Historical Tradition, Bd.1, New York 1962, 145. See also the chapter, “Woman in the biblical Creation” in Many women were there, 76f and Neither male nor female, ibid. 89. 19 Claus Westermann, Genesis I-II, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1974, 210 see also my book, “Neither male nor female,” ibid. 89. 20 In his Introduction, Claus Westermann (ibid. 11) refers to the opinion of A. Otto, Ägypten 1958, that the text about the imago dei creation of the human being could be a democratization of the divine origin of the King. See also, my book: Neither 15

“Woman from Man…Judge among yourselves”

305

This concerns both sexes, because God created human in the image of Himself. The text goes on to state: “male and female he created them.” In verse 27, God creates human “in the image of God” but, instead of the addition “and in our likeness,” there is mention of two sexes, revealing a special will of God. He asks man and woman to exercise their free will21 in order to approach Him in complete freedom, while drawing all the irrational creatures22 with them. Being in the image of God isn’t, therefore, just something given in human nature; it also depends on the internal struggle of every single person against any opposing inclinations; a struggle to train willpower, so that they approach God in freedom, while guiding all the creation with them.23 The people of God therefore constitute “a royal priesthood.”24 According to the biblical truth, both sexes have a royal position but they may fall, using their free will, into the position of animals. We read in Psalm 48 that “a man being in honor did not understand; He was compared to the senseless cattle, and became like them.”25 Both sexes, together and separated, are created in the image of God and both sexes are co-equal in front of the divine being. The unity between man and woman, which is based on their personal relationship, is not opposite to the monotheism of the Bible from the viewpoint of the divine image, but it points to the unity of equal persons in God as revealed in the Holy Trinity. There is no report of any dominant relation or conflict between the two sexes. The creation of the two sexes isn’t caused by the division26 of a male nor female, ibid. 94.159f. 21 In contrast to the different views about the Fall into sin of several confessions, we must respond with the Orthodox tradition that human nature and its free will suffer from illness and therefore need healing and constant practice, within the grace of God. Ioannis Romanides, The Primeval Sin (in Greek), ed. P. Pournaras, Thessaloniki 1970, 17.147. 22 When St. Gregory the Theologian (beginning from Greek philosophical presuppositions) wonders why God has unified the soul with the body, he mentions two reasons: first, in order for everyone to earn the glory of heaven by personal struggle for virtue; second, in order for the human to bring all of creation along with him. Or. II,17 PG 35,425-428. 23 Ibid. 24 Ex. 19,6 I Petr. 2,9. 25 Psalm 48,13.21. 26 Constantine N. Yokarinis’s opinion that “the division of the human nature in two forms of being, the male and the female, continues to aggravate the relationship of the sexes, which retains a polarity and preserves the demonic element. The timeless war of power between the one sex over the other” The gender of the

306

Chapter Twenty Two

human being in two halves that constantly seek their other half in order to become whole again, as the myth of Aristophanes described in the Symposium, by Plato.27 God doesn’t abolish the oneness28 in his creation: “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good” (Gen.1,31). Both sexes have the same human nature,29 as “omoousia.” They receive the fertility blessing from God30 and the royal charismata for governing genderlessness of incarnated Christ (in Greek) ed. Armos Athens 2011,17, is based on the Gnostic teachings that all numbers (two, three etc.) originate from the Pythagorean One (En in Greek). Salvation is identified with the reversion to One, that is, to “oneness.” See The Apokryphon of Johannes II,1,4.7.13 in Christian Gnosticisms. The Coptic texts of Nag Hammadi in Egypt, ed. Artos Zoes Athens 1989,59. Yokarinis thinks that the fight between the two sexes also features in the marital relationship between Christ and Church, ibid. 220. Yet his reasoning is based on patristic orations, namely, on orations about virginity, by John Chrysostomos PG 48,595 and Basil of Ankara PG 30,669, ibid. 57. It seems that, at the time, it was not known that the birth of a child is created by the union of the two sexes and not from torn flesh i.e. from one sex. John Chrysostomos, Commentary to the Colossians, or. XII 62,388. 27 Plato, Symposium 189-190. 28 K. Yokarinis’s position on “oneness” ibid. 57.172.142 is not compatible with the Orthodox tradition. According to Orthodox thinking, the unity of the Church presupposes that people will struggle to have the same will, to adapt their human nature to Christ’s life and to act in accordance with the will of God. There is no magical reversion to the asexual Adam in eschatology, as mentioned in the protology of the creation story. The hypostasis of every person, either male of female, may only be restored after a struggle following one faith, a sanctioned human nature, will and act, living by the power of the Holy Spirit of the Father. In the Orthodox tradition, the unity of the Holy Trinity is based on the Father’s person and not on vague divine nature. When the apostle Paul compares the relationship between the two sexes – not defining them vaguely as male and female but as man and woman – with the relationship between God and Christ in verse I Cor. 11,3c, he places man first in order for him to be the point of unity as the Father in the Holy Trinity. See my dissertation: Woman in the Theology of Apostle Paul, ibid. 281-290. I think that Yokarinis is at fault because he interprets the verse following the principle of the anthropomorphism of God and not of humans being made in the image of God. Because of this he introduces male features into the Father. Ibid. 95. 29 Clemens of Alexandria, Stromata VIII, IV PG 8,1272. 30 The fertility blessing given by God to humans (Gen. 1,28) is interpreted by K. Yokarinis as the beastlier birth of human generation. Ibid. 102. He cites the opinion of Gregory of Nyssa, The making of Human, orat. XXII, PG 44,205C that the gender form of human is a contrivance of the divine providence to deal with the Fall. The human is supposed to control not only the irrational creatures but also the irrational part of himself, where a spiritual struggle takes place in order for the

“Woman from Man…Judge among yourselves”

307

irrational creation.31 The word “archesthai” does not suggest a relationship of dominion, exploitation, abuse or subjugation of the irrational creation; it refers to the human’s personal responsibility for reasonable handling of (and careful working with) the creation, while offering it to God for the sanctification of all creatures. The fertility blessing, which is given to both sexes, concerns the perpetuation of human life. Since fertility is connected to the perpetuation of human nature, it is actually related to the internal functioning of male and female persons, distinguished for their hypostatic differences. How could anyone suggest, therefore, that the sexes have merely a morphological difference of external anatomic features?32 The chief accusations (that the biblical creation introduces a social structure of patriarchal dominion) are addressed against the Jahwistic tradition of Gen.2-3, which is older than the hieratical tradition of Gen.1. Its final composition dates back to the 9th century B.C. and is characterized by its anthropocentric view and its anthropomorphism of God. Here, the primeval matter (i.e. the earth) is in the hand of God, Yahweh Elohim, not for the creation of the cosmos but for the creation of the human being. The biblical writer skillfully reworks the religious traditions without expressing any severe criticism. The chthonic female deities are no more than material in the hand of God, the one who gives life.33 These female deities were connected to fertility and represented the transition from life to death and back again; they became objects of worship, thus contributing to the shaping of several myths. The biblical writer does not disparage the matter, but demythologizes the elements of nature that were worshipped as such deities. The Jahwist demythologizes all these chthonic deities that were associated with the fertility of the earth.34 “Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living creature.” He created Adam from adamah, which means that the earthen human being is related to the earth and the breath of God. Once again, the breath “Ruah” of God is combined with

human soul to become a residence of the Holy Spirit. 31 Gen. 1,28. 32 K.N.Yokarinis, ibid. 52-53. 33 The followers of the resurgence of Magna Mater’s cult believe that the desacralisation of nature equals the de-sacralisation of woman. They consider gestation and labor as expressing the divine power which is present in everyone, especially the female body. Christa Mulack, ibid. 139. 34 E. Adamtziloglou, “Woman in the biblical creation” (Greek), ibid. 50-51.

308

Chapter Twenty Two

matter;35 it is not above matter but in matter, part of the human being. In contrast to the chthonic powers of death, the breath of God gives life and movement. The next instance of demythologization is located in the creation of the two sexes. It is worth noting that ancient scholars suggested man was created first and woman, second. This order of creation also applied to the evaluation of the sexes; the submission of woman to man was based on this.36 However, the Massoretic text includes some important truths, which remained covered and unknown. First of all, the text distinguishes between humans (both sexes) and animals. The first human is alone and God wants to create a “help fit for him.”37 The Hebrew phrase “ezer genekto” means help “in front of him,” shown in the Greek word for person, “pros-opsis.” Moreover, the woman is created as a person in order to be in a continuous personal relationship with the man. Such a person could not be found among the animals. The process of Adam giving names38 to all the animals reflects his ruling position over all reasonless creation. God insists on creating an equal person for Adam and the biblical story is well known. Adam takes no part in this creation, and is asleep instead. Once again the initiative belongs to God. The creation of woman from the rib of Adam is also relevant to the demythologization of female deities and, namely, the deity of the moon.39 The Sumerian goddess, Ninti, was associated with healing, specifically the healing of the rib, and was also the one who gave life. According to another suggestion, the word for rib, zelah, is connected to the crescent moon,40 which was worshipped as a female deity because its cycles of 29 days may be identified with the woman’s cycle. It should be noted that the liturgical year that coincides with the calendar year does not celebrate the annual cycle of cosmic creation but 35 The eschatological prophesy of Prophet Joel, “I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh” Joel 3,1 and Acts 2,17, pertains to the whole human being including both the soul and the body, according to Judaic beliefs, not to the Greek philosophical duality that divided the human being into an eternal soul and a perishable body. 36 Radford Ruether, ibid. 20-21. 37 E. Adamtziloglou “Woman in the biblical creation” (Greek), ibid. 61-62. 38 E. Adamtziloglou “Woman in the biblical creation” (Greek), ibid. 60-61. 39 E. Adamtziloglou, “Woman in the biblical creation” (Greek), ibid. 51-53. 40 O. Schilling, Mysterium Lunae und die Erschaffung der Frau nach Gen. 2,21, Paderborn 1963, also see K.H. Schelkle, Der Geist und die Braut, Düsseldorf 1977,20 and E. Schüngel-Straumann, ibid.105, and E. Adamtziloglou, “Woman in the biblical creation” (Greek), ibid. 52.

“Woman from Man…Judge among yourselves”

309

the miraculous deeds God performed throughout the history of his people. God enters the biological cycle of humans and guides them to control the opposite inclinations in themselves with self-sacrificing kenosis, following the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. While women have their own biological pace, they are free to take part in the liturgical life according to their strengths. According to the biblical text the two sexes are created as ish and ishah41 simultaneously. The first human becomes male and the second, female, deriving from the first but created by God with special care. Therefore, the two sexes are created in this order, but there is no mention of any kind of kyriarchy relations between them whatsoever. Actually, their relationship is personal, since woman is created as a person for man. Both human hypostases are consubstantial; they are differentiated but also connected by personal koinonia. The biblical writer continues to demythologize the female deities. The snake-shaped deities associated with fertility are also present in Greek mythology. According to an Orphic story,42 Rea appears in the role of Demeter; she forbids Zeus to marry and she transforms into a snake. Zeus becomes a snake too and, while the two serpents tangle, he unites with Rea and impregnates her with Persephone. This story reminds us of Hermes’s staff with the two tangled snakes. Later, Zeus in a serpent’s form seduces his own daughter, Persephone, who gets pregnant with Dionysus. It is also said that during the Eleusinian Mysteries, priests and priestesses reenacted Zeus and Persephone’s mating and that because of this, the ritual of the Mysteries was a secret. Bear in mind that sacred prostitution, widespread in the Near East, was also taking place in Aphrodite’s temples by priestesses and it was common in Corinth at the time of the apostle Paul. The serpent in Genesis is created by God and, according to the biblical writer, is the most cunning creature of all. However, because of its fertility connotations, the snake becomes the most suitable creature to distort God’s command.

41

E. Adamtziloglou, “Woman in the biblical creation” (Greek), ibid. 62-63. The interpretation of the words ish and ishah must be “each one”, in both the male and female gender, and not “aner” and “andris”, since the two Hebraic words come from vernacular dialect and are relevant to the south Arabic word, “js”, which means each one, N.P. Bratsiotis “is” in ThWAT, ed. G.J. Botterweck-H. Riggren, vol. 1, Stuttgart-Berlin-Köln-Mainz 1973, 238-239. 42 K. Kerenyi, The Greek Mythology, trsl. in Greek by D. Stathopoulos, ed. Estia, Athens 2002.

310

Chapter Twenty Two

The pun with the words “arom” (naked) and “arum” (smart) 43 and the importance of the verb “jada” are well known. The pun arom/arum, before and after the Fall, reflects the difference between the two states. Before the Fall, Adam and Eve are naked and have no fear, whereas after the Fall they consider themselves smart but are estranged from God. They can see that they are naked and they hide because of their fear; they are naked from God’s grace and love. At this point, the word “jada”44 signifies trust, intimacy and the marital relationship. If someone loses their loving and trusting relationship to God and deifies other sources of life and knowledge, there comes a complete derangement in their normal state. This is why the first and most important commandment is to love God. There is much dispute about fertility in relation to the uncleanness issue in Leviticus. However, according to the prophetic teachings about uncleanness,45 it is the participation in pagan fertility rites that is unclean, not the human fertility which is a special blessing from God. Cleanness in worship is a different matter, though, since the human is supposed to carry God’s image in himself as clean as possible. Magna Mater46 is also demythologized when Adam gives his wife a name as he did with the animals. This is the final stage of Adam’s fall, when he keeps the position of human for himself but reduces woman to the place of animals. Their personal relationship of love becomes a relationship of dominion and man’s behavior becomes kyriarchy in type and is unreasonable; he gives her a name as if she was an animal and at the same time, treats her as a goddess. This is reflected in the name he gives her, Hawwah (“Life”), a name etymologically related to the holy name of Yahweh:47 “So Adam called his wife’s name Life, because she was the mother of all living.”48 Woman’s name, Hawwah, would be a hymn to motherhood if it hadn’t been used in competition with Yahweh, by those seeking to revive the cult of Magna Mater.49 They suggest that woman should take the initiative to partake in knowledge away from God, and dare to be equal to God. It’s no coincidence that nowadays, various Cabbalists use verbal trickeries to argue that Magna Mater is the origin of Yahweh himself. Their views stem from the Naaseans and the Valentinians, who St. Irenaeus wrote about at 43

E. Adamtziloglou, “Woman in the biblical creation” (Greek), ibid. 68-69. E. Adamtziloglou, “Woman in the biblical creation” (Greek), ibid. 68-69. 45 Isaiah. 52,11. 46 E. Adamtziloglou, “Woman in the biblical creation” (Greek), ibid. 54-55. 47 E. Adamtziloglou, “Woman in the biblical creation” (Greek), ibid. 54. 48 Gn. 3, 20. 49 Christa Mulack, ibid. 146. 44

“Woman from Man…Judge among yourselves”

311

around the end of the 2nd century ǹ.C.50 Various Gnostics believe that the fall of the female from the divine Monad resulted in the creation of the plethora of beings.51 In our time, such Gnostic interpretations are arising with the revival of certain perceptions from the European Middle Ages. These views are intricately intertwined with several scientific findings from the fields of history, psychology, anthropology, sociology and religious studies. In this sense, they are shrouded in scientific authority and are gradually, methodically and subconsciously imposed onto the masses.52 The reasoning of those who support the resurgence of the cult of Magna Mater53 is directly connected to the priesthood of women and the sanctification of the female body, especially during pregnancy and labor. However, this persistence in the sociological conflict between patriarchy and matriarchy that some scholars detect in the biblical narration of the Jahwist, as well as in the theology of St. Paul, could have another interpretation. It might pertain to the psychological Father complex which reveals several layers of suppressed guilt. I prefer not to discuss this problem, as it would open old wounds. I insist on the historical research of the biblical story. Yahweh,54 who declares to Moses that he is the God of the Fathers, is not hostile to 50

Christa Mulack, ibid. 147. Christa Mulack, ibid. 146 and The Apokryphon of Johannes II,1,24 in Christian Gnosticism, ibid. 75. 52 Christa Mulack, ibid. 41-167. 53 The resurgence of the cult of Magna Mater is connected with the claim to change of the male names of the Holy Trinity, the Father and the Son. If this claim is seen in the context of scholastic Western nominalism, then the change of names is not necessary because they are not relevant to reality but to ideas that don’t exist. According to Nominalism, and in contrast to Idealism and Realism “the general ideas don’t exist in reality […] but they are just names that exist in the human mind ‘post rem’. The real beings are only the objects”. J. Anastasiou, Ecclesiastical History, vol. II, 179. The names of the members of the Holy Trinity were revealed by Jesus Christ and, according to the teachings of the Holy Fathers, they indicate the same substance and the loving relationship of the persons in the Trinity, not gender characteristics. It is no coincidence that according to modern mysticism, the mystical union with God is visualised as a union with a beautiful woman identified with God’s Wisdom. On this basis, Western mysticism opens up to the mysticism of Cabbalists and to the various pantheistic beliefs of other religions about female deities. See more in Thomas Schipflinger, Sophia-Maria. Eine ganzheitliche Vision der Schöpfung, Verlag Neue Stadt München-Zürich 1988. 54 Yahweh is the God of the fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He also manifests himself as the God of the desert and not of the vegetation because he nourishes his 51

312

Chapter Twenty Two

women. He demythologizes the deified female but he also puts the male with his deified superego, as it is reflected in the deified royal authority of the Pharaoh, in his place. God reveals himself to Moses near the burning bush declaring that he is the real being and he entrusts to Moses, the liberation of the Hebrew people from slavery.55 The strife between Yahweh and the deified authority of Pharaoh is intense and happens through miraculous events. Moses comes and goes to Pharaoh, obeying God’s instructions. According to the earliest Yahwist tradition,56 it is not Moses that performs the miraculous events, but God the liberator himself. Moses goes to Pharaoh ten times and comes back, and God responds to Pharaoh’s cruelty with the ten plagues. Finally, all the firstborn sons of the Egyptians are killed.57 On this course of paschal reversal of the deified male authority, the royal authority is democratized among God’s people. Belonging within this is the sacrifice to God of all the firstborn sons.58 The same sacrifice is made by Jesus Christ, when he offers himself as a paschal lamb with his kenosis on the cross and his descent to Hades. It is of great interest that during the Christological conflict, our Church gave prominence to the Mother of Jesus Christ as Theotokos. The grand mystery of the incarnation of Jesus Christ reveals the will of God to dwell through the Holy Spirit in Mary’s flesh in a unique way. What a great mystery! How are the power of God and the Holy Spirit unified with Mary’s flesh and blood? In this great mystery, Joseph is merely a servant of God. He manages other matters but he is just an observer of the great mystery that happens in Mary’s body. What is more important?59 The continuous incarnation of God in people’s material body or a mere observation of this mystery by the stewards of the mysteries of God? The ministers of God as keepers of God’s mystery are those who guide every

people in the desert with manna and gives water from the stone, thus he demonstrates that he is the true creator. Ex.16,3f. I Cor. 10,4. 55 Ex. 3,4f. 56 E. Adamtziloglou, Neither male nor female, ibid. 126. 57 Ex. 12,29-36. 58 Ex. 13,11-16. 59 “The redemptive and deificating power of God concerns the whole human nature, both the soul and the body, because the whole human nature of Jesus Christ was deified at his conception in Mary’s flesh through eternity” writes fr. Johannes Romanides, in Dogmatic and Symbolic Theology of the Orthodox Catholic Church, vol. 1, ed. P. Pournaras Thessaloniki 1973, 18. “At his conception” means that he has also sanctified the female body of Mary.

“Woman from Man…Judge among yourselves”

313

soul to meet the Holy Spirit. However, the sanctification of the male dominion and kyriarchy is a great mistake. Within these guidelines, St. Paul puts the relationship between the two sexes in a Christological framework60 (A` Cor. 11,3). On the one hand is Christ’s relationship to God and, on the other, his relationship with man, whom he calls to experience the paschal reversal61 of the male dominion, through a continuous kenosis and through the demythologization of the female deities. The phrase “gyne ex andros”, which supports the theological argument of St. Paul in verse I Cor. 11,7-9.8b, presupposes the biblical demythologization of the female deities because women don’t seem to be dominant in the social sphere62 (with some exceptions, namely, the Amazons) but in religion.63 Man socially dominates through the ideology of the divine origin of royal sovereignty, which Yahweh has reversed through the miraculous events during the exit of Israel from Egypt and through the paschal kenotic sacrifice of his son. The pre-eminent position of man in the Church marks all our faiths’ history. Nonetheless, woman is responsible for handing over Christ’s authority to man, so that our Orthodox faith is distinguished from idolatry.64 The place of the two sexes in worship points to the paschal reversal of the deified superego, in order to restore the ancient beauty of the first and the second place without any dominant relations in society. Finally, let me summarize the theological questions that emerge from my analysis, based on the dispute about women’s priesthood.

60

E. Adamtziloglou, Woman in the Theology of Apostle Paul, ibid. 265-312. Instead of the paschal reversal, I have developed the reversal of the Rabbinic Adamology in my diss. ibid. 294f. 300f. 62 Regarding the matriarchy as a primitive form of social organization, see: E. Adamtziloglou, Woman in the Theology of Apostle Paul, ibid. 141-142. 63 The excavations at Catal Küyük in South-eastern Turkey brought to light an ancient city where it seems that the two sexes were considered as equal, and lead a peaceful life without any conflicts, due to the prevailing cult of Magna Mater. Christa Mulack, ibid. 119-120 and E. Radford Ruether ibid. 150-155. 64 In my hermeneutical approach of the difficult verse I Cor. 11,10, I maintain that the phrase “because of this a woman should have authority over her head, because of the angels,” does not mean that a woman must wear a head cover in order to be safe from attack from an angel. Based on verse 11,3, I believe the phrase means that woman has a particular responsibility in handing over the power of Christ to man, in order for the Orthodox Church to be distinguished from paganism. See: E. Adamtziloglou, Woman in the Theology of Apostle Paul, ibid. 364-372. 61

Chapter Twenty Two

314

-

-

-

-

-

-

65

The main subject here is God’s relation to matter and to the human as a responsible person. That is, if the human acts as a responsible person, so that the grace of the Holy Spirit may sanctify his existence and his surroundings, or he has displaced God to the metaphysic sphere and prefers to be self-reliant. Does the Church sanctify male dominion and deify the female, or does it reduce women to the level of irrational creation? Is the creation of two sexes considered as a fall from oneness or, are they created in accordance to the will of God, who blesses human fertility and the loving relationship of the two different sexes, which creates new generations of people to experience the perichoresis of love between different persons? Are the two sexes distinguished only by a morphological difference of external anatomic features, or does each one have a different internal manner of function, so that they can be considered different hypostases, even though they have the same human nature? The liturgical life results in the sanctification of humans with exercises that are intended to train the nature, will and acts of a person65 according to the command of love for God and for one’s neighbor. Could woman, with her own biological cycle, be free to participate to these exercises to the extent that her strength permits? Can moral life be achieved independently, or is the help of the Holy Spirit’s grace necessary to aid both sexes in their internal struggle against any opposing inclinations, and to guide themselves and the whole creation to God? Are the human and nature being gradually sanctified through repentance in the framework of the liturgical eschatology, or is the Church magically and automatically identified with the kingdom of God?66

The Christological thematics of ecumenical synods have defined Christian anthropology, which could be formulated in the line “person-nature-willing– acting.” In accordance with this, the human is considered as a unity of soul and body, leading a Christian life while training his nature, will and action as a responsible person, either male or female. Even if we take Greek philosophical thinking as a starting point, which makes a distinction between the body and the soul, there is still no duality because a person’s soul is connected to the body; the logical part of the soul is located in one’s head; the emotional part in one’s heart and the appetitive part in one’s stomach and lower abdomen. The problem is that in the Roman Catholic tradition, there was an erroneous view that if someone disposed of their appetites and emotions, they would be eternally blissful. Romanides, Dogmatic, ibid.102. 66 The teachings about the identification of the kingdom of God with the Church

“Woman from Man…Judge among yourselves”

-

315

Finally, has idolatry invaded society and does it provoke the Church of Christ with the issue of female priesthood as a spearhead?

The issue of women’s priesthood is indeed a challenge for the Christian churches that have to deal with all the above questions.

were introduced by Augustine and the Franco-Latins, and have displaced the Orthodox teachings of theosis from the Roman Catholic tradition. I think that K. Yokarinis follows this Western tradition with his view of eschatology, ibid. 201204, 304.

CHAPTER TWENTY THREE THE ROLE OF HERESIES IN THE FORMATION OF THE PATRISTIC TEACHING ON WOMEN: ENCOUNTER AND MUTUAL INFLUENCE BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND HETERODOXY— A DIALOGUE BETWEEN RELIGIONS, MENTALITIES AND CULTURES ON THE SUBJECT OF WOMEN IN THE FIRST CENTURIES AD. A HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL STUDY

EVANGELIA VOULGARAKI-PISINA

Abstract: This study concerns possible influences from heretical movements on the formation of patristic teaching on women. It is historical in character, focusing on the first centuries AD and late antiquity, but of course includes contemporary theological questions as points of reference. Furthermore, the tool kit of religious studies helps in understanding aspects of this diverse religious phenomenon. Taking a historical-critical approach to the sources, we study the context, investigate the spirit of the times (zeitgeist) and look at the basics of the ongoing construction of societies. Over the entire range of this research, we have not been able to establish one-way influences from heresies, positive or negative, which could have played a significant role in shaping patristic teaching on women. Similarly, we would have grave reservations about formulating a theory of mutual influences. When groups co-exist in the same social milieu, one can identify interactions, sometimes obvious and sometimes implicit, born from the same womb of the spirit of the times. The explanation for the gradual exclusion of women from public activity is consequently complex and depends on a number of factors. The connection of women with sexuality in a period when Encratite tendencies were generally on the increase was one factor. Activities on the part of heretical sects complicated the situation, but were not the defining factor. Beyond Encratite tendencies and beyond the development and formalization of worship, on the social level, the main body of the Christian community was of ever greater importance for Rome itself even before the Edict of Milan, not to mention after it. As a consequence, the issue of institutionalization, authority and control of power became ever more pressing, and not always in harmonious co-operation with the

318

Chapter Twenty Three

variety of spiritual gifts (ȤĮȡȓıȝĮIJĮ). Ultimately it was the temptation to seek power that contributed mostly to restricting the place and activity of women, as is documented in detail in the present study. What we see is essentially aspects of secularisation, in contrast with the transformative dynamic that the eschatological vision of the kingdom should exercise upon society and its institutions, something that the great Fathers attempted to achieve.

1. Introduction The subject of the present study1 is basically historical. When we operate in the historical realm, we confront the diversity and complexity of historical reality. In contemporary historical writing, it is frequently pointed out that it is not possible to have a linear historical narrative, a definitive view of the whole and much less, a more or less “objective” reconstruction of this reality, all of these being aspirations and characteristic mistakes of an outdated historicism.2 This is all the more true when the subject-matter involves situations and persons on the fringes of the grand narratives, who get lost in the bright light that is focused elsewhere, so that it takes complex oblique lighting and skillful handling to allow them to be revealed. This applies both to women and to heresies, enormously varied as they are. In the few exceptional cases where ecclesiastical or historical literature shines light on named female figures, they also cast ample shadow on the question of the general rule, the reality of life for the unseen and nameless women who gave life to the Church and formed the overwhelming majority of its membership, particularly in the first centuries. Again, our knowledge and study of the heresies is principally based on the story told by their opponents. This difficulty is 1

This paper was originally composed for the International Conference in Honour of Prof. Emeritus Evangelos Theodorou on the theme: “Deaconesses, Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology”, organised by the Theology Faculty of the University of Thessaloniki, Holy Cross School of Theology, Brookline, and the Metropolitan Panteleimon Papageorgiou Centre of Ecumenical, Missionary and Environmental Studies. The paper was first given in a preliminary form on December 16, 2013, in the conference hall of the Theology Faculty of the University of Thessaloniki, as part of a postgraduate seminar that took place regularly for two semesters, organised by Prof. Petros Vassiliadis as part of the preparations for the conference. In a more developed, almost final form, it was given on 23 January 2015, in amphitheatre III, at the Aristotle University Centre for the Dissemination of Research in Thessaloniki, during the international conference. 2 For a critique of historicism, see for example Goff, History and Memory and Dosse, L'Histoire en miettes…

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

319

counteracted, in part, by the second leg of the topic we are exploring, which explicitly defines it while also restricting it to the influence of heretical sects on patristic thought and writing. But here a new difficulty arises. When one is looking for relevant references in patristic literature, there is the risk of forgetting about the non-explicit, unacknowledged influences which are (possibly unconsciously or for reasons of readilyunderstandable policy and tactics) passed over in silence. It is assumed from the outset, then, that our subject will be broken down into particular questions, most of which will remain, in the present context, altogether unanswered since they require further research. Besides, no less important than the collected facts and evidence are the hypotheses that may be put forward; scholarly hypotheses that might lead to new areas of research. In brief, the field of indeterminacy is broader than the field that can be clearly defined. Our exploratory questions certainly have their starting point in the concerns and stimuli of our own times; times that are already passing beyond post-modernity,3 although they clearly include modernity as well as all previous stages of culture. There has been a series of social advances for women, and people also understand themselves differently today, beyond the stereotypical social constructs; women have a new consciousness of self, probably for the first time in history, as historical subjects. It is clear that all this sets new priorities and leads to historical research in a new light, or lights. It should also be noted that we will apply a view of historical writing that is more “paradigmatic” than “syntagmatic.”4 Furthermore, we should state at the outset that we will take a dual approach to the subject. On the one hand, this is a historical study based on the principles of history. On the other, the questions have their starting point in my capacity as a theologian; they touch on a more general concern that these historical questions and answers, with all their similarities and dissimilarities to our own day, might yet inspire and guide modern thinking, and even acquire a normative character for theology today and contemporary church life. In an attempt to do justice to both these methodological paths, we will try not to iron out conflicts and contradictions or round-off corners. The questions arising for theology will be touched on only in conclusion. We are moving 3

Bauman, Postmodernity and its Discontents, passim. Idem, Beyond Postmodernity…, passim. ǹıȘȝȐțȘ, ȀȠȣıIJȠȣȡȐțȘȢ and ȀĮȝĮȡȚĮȞȩȢ, “ȅȚ DzȞȞȠȚİȢ IJȘȢ ȃİȦIJİȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȂİIJĮȞİȦIJİȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ…” [Asimaki, Koustourakis and Kamarianos, The Concepts of Modernity and Post-Modernity…], 116. 4 Cf. Liakos, “The Transformation of Historical Writing from Syntagmatic to Paradigmatic Syntax”, 48.

320

Chapter Twenty Three

between a theological orthodoxy and a variety of heterodoxies which exist independently of the main body of the Christian community or at its margins, or which are excluded (or perhaps exclude themselves) from it, and we want to be honest to a historical reality. So, we have found the methodological tool kit of religious studies exceptionally helpful for our treatment of the subject.5 We note however that the use of the term “heresy”, as in the title, points in a certain direction and also creates certain problems, at least from the viewpoint of historical observation, methodologically speaking, and in terms of religious neutrality.6 Anyway, remaining consistent with the terms of our title for the sake of mutual understanding, despite all reservations one might keep in mind, we will venture to set out our conclusion right from the start and then attempt to substantiate it inductively.

2. The Influence and its Aspects “If there is an influence, it cannot be thought of as one-way.” This statement deductively summarizes the conclusion of our study. We maintain that we cannot detect any special or one-way influence from the heretical sects on the formation of patristic teaching concerning women. Besides, the historical environment that spawned the various other religious identities and groups, philosophical trends, Gnostic-type religions and mystery cults (otherwise known as Eastern cults)7 of the Greco-Roman era that point towards a universal henotheism, shifting the center of gravity of the Gentile world,8 is the same environment that both 5

ȆĮȤȒȢ, ȆĮȞĮȖȚȫIJȘȢ, “Ǿ ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ DzȡİȣȞĮȢ IJȦȞ ĬȡȘıțİȚȫȞ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȘȞȚıIJȚțȒȢ ǼʌȠȤȒȢ…” [Panagiotis Pachis, The History of Research on Religions in the Hellenistic Era…], 449-546. In this article, the author maps the history of research relating to his specific field of expertise. He also gives us a normative principle, or rather shows us a path, by praising the so-called “French School”, which has extended its influence to the Anglo-Saxon world, too. The representatives of this school “no longer restrict themselves to presenting the religious data only, but expand their research into the socio-political context of the era”, 504 (cf. also p.464 ff.). 6 Cf. in this regard the questions raised by ǺĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘȢ, “ǹȚȡȑıİȚȢ Ȓ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ȉȐıİȚȢ…” [Vassiliadis, Heresies or Theological Tendencies…], 445-470. 7 ȆĮȤȒȢ, ibid., 483. 8 The most striking example is the attempted restoration of paganism by the emperor Julian, and his personal view of the ancient religion. It took on the characteristics of a henotheistic worship of the sun and provided for the creation of a priesthood resembling the universal structures of the Christian Church. Cf.

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

321

gave rise to the tendencies and heretical sects within Christianity and also shaped the framework within which the Church developed. More specifically, we should note that despite the (inevitable, and many would say desirable9) mingling of people and religious groups within the same society, which could usefully be looked at in terms of relational dynamics (and, still more, in systemic terms, such mutual influences), seem not to form a repeated motif pointing to a specific influence, understood in a one-sided way.10 On the contrary, it seems that the main factors in the progressive marginalization of women in church life lie elsewhere, and we will attempt to identify them at a later stage. This is the thesis that we will attempt to clarify and substantiate inductively in what follows, examining on the one hand the general ǹșĮȞĮıȚȐįȘ, ǿȠȣȜȚĮȞȩȢ. ȂȚĮ ǺȚȠȖȡĮijȓĮ [Athanassiadi, Julian. A Biography], 255272 and elsewhere. (One could consult an older and shorter version in English: Athanassiadi-Fowden, Julian and Hellenism. An Intellectual Biography), ȆĮʌĮįȩʌȠȣȜȠȢ, “ȅ ǿȠȣȜȚĮȞȩȢ țĮȚ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩȢ” [Papadopoulos, Julian and Christianism], 215-223. ǺȠȣȜȖĮȡȐțȘ-ȆȚıȓȞĮ, ȆİȚșȫ țĮȚ ǼʌȚȕȠȜȒ. [VoulgarakiPisina, Persuasion and Imposition], in press. 9 Indicatively, ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȢ, Ȇİȡ‫ ޥ‬IJȠࠎ ǻȚĮȕȩȜȠȣ, īǯ, Įǯ | PG 49, 265[C]-266[A]: «ǻȚ੹ IJȠ૨IJȠ țĮ੿ ੒ ĬİઁȢ ਕijોțİ IJȠઃȢ ʌȠȞȘȡȠઃȢ IJȠ૙Ȣ ਕȖĮșȠ૙Ȣ ਕȞĮȝİȝȓȤșĮȚ, țĮ੿ Ƞ੝ț ਙȜȜȘȞ ȝ੻Ȟ IJȠ૙Ȣ ʌȠȞȘȡȠ૙Ȣ ਩įȦțİ ȖોȞ, İੁȢ ਦIJȑȡĮȞ į੻ IJȠઃȢ ਕȖĮșȠઃȢ ȠੁțȠȣȝȑȞȘȞ ਕʌ૴țȚıİȞ, ਕȜȜ੹ ਕȞȑȝȚȟİ IJȠȪIJȠȣȢ ਥțİȓȞȠȚȢ, ʌȠȜઃ IJઁ ȤȡȒıȚȝȠȞ ਥȡȖĮȗȩȝİȞȠȢ. ȅੂ Ȗ੹ȡ ਕȖĮșȠ੿ įȠțȚȝȫIJİȡȠȚ ijĮȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ, ਥȞ ȝȑı૳ țȦȜȣȩȞIJȦȞ Į੝IJȠઃȢ ੑȡș૵Ȣ ȗૌȞ țĮ੿ ʌȡઁȢ țĮțȓĮȞ ਦȜțȩȞIJȦȞ ੕ȞIJİȢ țĮ੿ IJોȢ ਕȡİIJોȢ ਕȞIJȚȜĮȝȕĮȞȩȝİȞȠȚ [...]. ਯıIJȚ į੻ țĮ੿ IJȠ૙Ȣ ʌȠȞȘȡȠ૙Ȣ țȑȡįȠȢ ਕʌઁ IJોȢ ਥʌȚȝȚȟȓĮȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȖĮș૵Ȟ». Chrysostom, On the Devil 3, 1: “On this account God allowed the wicked to be mingled with the good; he did not give one earth to the wicked and appoint the good to colonise another world, but mixed the latter and the former together, conferring great benefit. For the good show themselves more thoroughly approved when they are in the midst of those who try to hinder them from living rightly and entice them towards evil, and yet keep hold of virtue. [For, as Scripture says, ‘there must be also heresies among you that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.’] There is also much gain for the wicked in being mixed in with the good” (patristic quotations are mostly translated by the author, in a few cases they are adapted from NPNF, unless mentioned otherwise in the bibliography). 10 On the study of religion as part of a system, cf. ȆĮȤȒȢ, ibid., 505. The author himself, however, advises and warns: “The perpetual search for interactions creates delusive proposals for research that have no relation whatsoever to historical reality”, ibid., 451. It is hardly necessary to note the extent to which the systemic approach to the phenomenon of religion and to the study of a religious community as part of a broader system, is indebted to systemic psychology as an evolving theory as well as an epigenetic one. See Boscolo and Bertrando, Systemic Therapy with Individuals, 3-40.

322

Chapter Twenty Three

historical formation of the position of women in the early Church, comparing evidence of the activity of women in the heretical sects, and looking into the zeitgeist within which that activity arose. In addition, we will refer briefly to the way the woman is seen as the object of a sinful passion, distinguishing between two different prevailing tendencies in the East and West. We will touch on the issue of the woman being seen as the object of exploitation because of her supposed “gullibility.” Finally, we will particularly look at the theological tradition, and explore the attempts on the part of some of the great Fathers of the Church to articulate a discourse that broke with the dominant culture, and the degree to which their theological discourse influenced either the society of their day or the course of history.

3. The Position of Women in the Early Church and its Historical Formation As early as 1970, Elias Voulgarakis, in his doctoral thesis entitled The Avoidance of Missionary Activity in the Early Church,11 devoted a chapter to the place of women, specifically from the viewpoint of mission. Of course, the missionary perspective is complex and has many levels, since it touches on virtually the whole of women’s activity and presence, involving their participation in worship and the liturgical life of the Church,12 their social and diaconal activity and their teaching work. Through an examination of the books of the canonical New Testament in the first instance, and then the whole of Christian literature from the first three centuries and the Apocrypha, Voulgarakis identifies and documents a progressive restriction of women’s activity in the work of mission during the sub-apostolic age, and more so during the 2nd and 3rd centuries. He sees the Pauline prohibition in 1 Corinthians 14: 34-35 as central to this. The Pauline prohibition certainly made a decisive contribution to crystallizing a trend towards the restriction of women’s activity, but it was not its root cause.13 11

Chapter 2: “The Gradual Exclusion of Women from Missionary Activity”: 56125. 12 The liturgical dimension of mission is generally accepted by missiologists today, especially on the baptism of women and women’s participation in the baptismal rite during this time period, cf. Idem, ǹȚ ȀĮIJȘȤȒıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ȀȣȡȓȜȜȠȣ ǿİȡȠıȠȜȪȝȦȞ... [The Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem...], 504-513. 13 Elias Voulgarakis mentions, as causes, the over-emphasis on virginity, the decline of morals and the activity of women heretics: ǺȠȣȜȖĮȡȐțȘȢ, ǹʌȠijȣȖȒ..., 98-112.

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

323

While the New Testament Apocrypha records a greater freedom of movement for women which, in part, etches itself on some of the heretical movements (especially but not exclusively those of a Gnostic type), the Church progressively restricts women to ever-narrower fields of activity. Specifically, we find: 1. women withdrawing from public activity; 2. the significance of women’s presence in the Church community being restricted, despite their numerical superiority; 3. women’s duties being limited to areas that are regarded as consonant with feminine activities more generally. About two centuries later, at the turn of the 4th to 5th centuries, at the very heart of late antiquity, this process seems to be complete. John Chrysostom (who is much misinterpreted on the subject of women)14 provides much relevant information. His first and highest priority is the work of mission, catechesis and teaching in general; in light of precisely this priority, he protests about women’s participation in missionary work being so restricted. Chrysostom describes an entirely different social reality, in which the women of his day are the object of suspicion and criticism even though they stay at home, in contrast with the women of old who travelled the world without incurring criticism.15 Chrysostom’s

14 Unfortunately, misconceptions about the work of John Chrysostom are widespread. This is possibly due to the range and volume of his writings, which few scholars know as a whole and in depth, and fewer still situate correctly within their context. However, there are studies that accurately reflect his position on women, such as the important treatise by Pasquato, I laici in Giovanni Crisostomo… An extensive treatment of the topic is included in my own dissertation: Voulgaraki-Pisina, Ǿ ȆȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȦȞ ǼșȞȚțȫȞ țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ DZȖȚȠ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ IJȠ ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠ [Approaching the Pagans According to St. John Chrysostom]. Mayer, “John Chrysostom and Women Revisited”, 211-225. Worth mentioning from a specific interpretative angle is the study by Ford, Women and Men in the Early Church, as well as the study by Lariou-Drettaki, more popular in tone, though well-grounded in the sources: ȁĮȡȓȠȣ-ǻȡİIJIJȐțȘ, Ǿ īȣȞĮȓțĮ ıİ ȈȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJȠȞ DZȞįȡĮ țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ ǿİȡȩ ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠ [Lariou-Drettaki, Woman in Relation to Man according to St. John Chrysostom]. 15 «ȉȩIJİ ȝ੻Ȟ Ȗ੹ȡ țĮ੿ ਕʌȠįȘȝȠ૨ıĮȚ Ƞ੝ț ਥȜȐȝȕĮȞȠȞ įȩȟĮȞ ʌȠȞȘȡȐȞ Ȟ૨Ȟ į੻ țĮ੿ ਥȞ șĮȜȐȝ૳ IJȡİijȩȝİȞĮȚ ȝȩȜȚȢ IJĮȪIJȘȞ įȚĮijİȪȖȠȣıȚ IJ੽Ȟ ਫ਼ʌȠȥȓĮȞ»: Ǽ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJާ ȀĮIJ੹ ȂIJ., ȅīǯ, įǯ | PG 58, 677[C-D]. “For then indeed even when they travelled into far countries women did not bring evil report on themselves; but now even though kept in their own room, they hardly escape this suspicion.”

324

Chapter Twenty Three

interpretation of Paul is expansive, even subversive.16 And he uses the example of the women apostles (his own terminology) to encourage the women of his own day to participate more greatly in the work of teaching and mission.17 Chrysostom is one of the Fathers of the Church who also seems not to have had personal difficulties in associating with women and placing confidence in them,18 but rather gives us a model of behavior and theology through his personality and action. Chrysostom tries to restore a state of affairs closer to that depicted in the gospels, and clearly considers that in regard to the position of women in the Church, things have regressed.19 St. Basil similarly interprets St. Paul’s words with a clarification, saying that it is a prohibition only on teaching publicly, and he encourages women “to engage in serious discussion at home about how to be wellpleasing to God”.20 This encouraging attitude on the part of great Fathers of the Church, in combination with other corrective moves which we will explore below, gives the impression of a society such as that described by Chrysostom when he corrects the mentality of some men who wanted their wives to

16

«ੜIJĮȞ ȝ੻Ȟ Ȗ੹ȡ ਙʌȚıIJȠȢ ઝ ੒ ਕȞȒȡ, ʌȚıIJ੽ į੻ ਲ ȖȣȞ੽ įȚįĮıțȑIJȦ, ijȘıȓȞ, ਲ ȖȣȞȒ. ǻȚ੹ IJȓ; ੜIJȚ Ƞ੝ț ਕʌȐIJȘIJĮȚ ʌȚıIJ੽ ȖȐȡ ਥıIJȚ. ȂĮȞșĮȞȑIJȦ IJȠȓȞȣȞ ੒ ਕȞȒȡ ਱ʌĮIJȒșȘ ȖȐȡ ਙʌȚıIJȩȢ ȖȐȡ ਥıIJȚȞ. ਝȞIJİıIJȡȐijȘ, ijȘıȓ, IJ੹ IJોȢ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ ਕȞIJİıIJȡȐijșȦ ȜȠȚʌઁȞ țĮ੿ IJ੹ IJોȢ įİıʌȠIJİȓĮȢ». ȁȩȖ. İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ īȑȞ, Ǽǯ, Įǯ | PG 54, 600[BA]. “When the man is an unbeliever and the woman a believer, the woman, he says, should teach. Why? Because she has not been deceived. The man should therefore learn. Because he has been deceived. Because he is an unbeliever. What concerns teaching, he says, has been reversed. Therefore, what concerns authority, he says, should be reversed, too.” Cf. Ǽ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJާ ȀĮIJ੹ ȂIJ., ǽǯ, ıIJǯ | PG 57, 80[C-D]. Ǽ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJާ ȀĮIJ੹ ੉Ȧ., Ȃǽǯ, İǯ | PG 59, 270[A]. For more, ǺȠȣȜȖĮȡȐțȘ-ȆȚıȓȞĮ, Ǿ ȆȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȦȞ ǼșȞȚțȫȞ..., 224-226 and 238-240. 17 ǺȠȣȜȖĮȡȐțȘ-ȆȚıȓȞĮ, ibid., 229-234, where we elaborate on the meaning of the term ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ (apostle) in Chrysostom, refuting some widespread misconceptions, which ultimately limit and restrict the meaning of apostolicity. (On the latter, cf. also 308-310). For a brief and more popular presentation, see eadem, “ȅ DZȖȚȠȢ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ Ƞ ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȢ țĮȚ Ș ǿİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ǻȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞ” [St. John Chrysostom and the Missionary Activity of Women], 10-12. 18 Wendy Mayer shares the same view on John Chrysostom’s personal relations with women. She elaborates and proves her position by studying the sub-corpus of Chrysostomic correspondence (from his years of exile) with women with whom he maintained long-lasting relations, thus overturning earlier misreadings of his work. Mayer, ibid., 216-225. 19 ǺȠȣȜȖĮȡȐțȘ-ȆȚıȓȞĮ, Ǿ ȆȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȦȞ ǼșȞȚțȫȞ..., 231. 20 ‫ݟ‬șȚțȐ, 73, | ǺǼȆ 53, 121, 33-34.

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

325

stay at home and did not encourage them even to go to church, at least not frequently: As for you, if your wife is always going to church you are severely critical of her. But you yourself spend your days at the theatre and don’t think you merit any criticism. When it comes to your wife’s modesty you are a stickler, to the point of excess, and do not allow her to go out even on necessary errands. But in your own case, you think everything is permitted.21

Before offering any hypotheses to interpret this historical development, and in order to establish the degree and direction of any influence from heretical sects, we will give some examples of the activities of women in the sects.

4. Evidence for the Activities of Sectarian Women A comprehensive and scholarly account of the activity of heretical women, that is virtually exhaustive in terms of the first three centuries, has been compiled by Elias Voulgarakis in the doctoral dissertation already cited,22 which I am basically following here. But even though the source material forms a common basis, which we have supplemented with findings of our own, the appraisal and historical evaluation of the material is not identical with his. A first reference to the activity of a heretical woman is found in the Book of Revelation (Rev 2: 20), where she is given the symbolic name, highly negative in its connotations, of “Jezebel”. This probably refers to a historical person,23 a Nicolaitan sympathiser (cf. the text immediately preceding, in reference to Pergamon, Rev 2: 14-15)24 in the “Church in

21 «Ȉઃ įȑ, ਗȞ ȝ੻Ȟ İੁȢ ਥțțȜȘıȓĮȞ ıȣȞİȤ૵Ȣ ਥȝȕȐȜȜૉ ਲ ȖȣȞȒ, ȕĮȡઃȢ țĮIJȒȖȠȡȠȢ ȖȓȞૉ. Į੝IJઁȢ į੻ İੁȢ șȑĮIJȡĮ įȚȘȝİȡİȪȦȞ, Ƞ੝Ȥ ਲȖૌ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȓĮȢ ਙȟȚȠȢ İੇȞĮȚ. ਕȜȜ੹ ʌİȡ੿ ȝ੻Ȟ IJ੽Ȟ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțઁȢ ıȦijȡȠıȪȞȘȞ Ƞ੢IJȦȢ İੇ ਕțȡȚȕȒȢ, ੪Ȣ țĮȓ ʌİȡȚIJIJઁȢ İੇȞĮȚ țĮȓ ਙȝİIJȡȠȢ, țĮ੿ ȝȘį੻ IJ੹Ȣ ਕȞĮȖțĮȓĮȢ ਥȟȩįȠȣȢ ıȣȖȤȦȡİ૙Ȟ. ıĮȣIJ૶ į੻ ȞȠȝȓȗİȚȢ ʌȐȞIJĮ ਥȟİ૙ȞĮȚ». Ǽ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJާ țĮIJ੹ ȂĮIJ., ǽǯ, ȗǯ | PG 57, 82[ǹ-Ǻ]. 22 ǺȠȣȜȖĮȡȐțȘȢ, ǹʌȠijȣȖȒ..., 102-112. 23 ǹȖȠȣȡȓįȘȢ, Ǿ ǹʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘ IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ… [Agouridis, The Revelation of John…], 71. ȂʌȡĮIJıȚȫIJȘȢ, Ǿ ǹʌȠțȐȜȣȥȚȢ IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȠȣ [Bratsiotis, The Revelation of John], 98. 24 More generally cf. ȀĮȡĮȕȚįȩʌȠȣȜȠȢ, “ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ ȆȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ ǽȦȒ ıIJȚȢ ǼʌIJȐ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȑȢ IJȘȢ ǹʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘȢ” [Karavidopoulos, Church and Spiritual Life in the Seven Epistles in Revelation], 186-206. Idem, “ȊʌȩıȤİıȘ țĮȚ ǼțʌȜȒȡȦıȘ ıIJȘȞ

326

Chapter Twenty Three

Thyateira”, who “calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and beguiling my servants to practise immortality and to eat food sacrificed to idols” (v. 20). The condemnation, however, is levelled not directly at her but at her husband for allowing her to do this (ibid.). Very striking is the linkage of idolatry and harlotry, a connection that goes back of course to the Apostolic Council and has to do with the harmony between dogma and morality but which, as it developed, at least in the actual circumstances of life, seems to have placed the burden particularly on women. At about the same time, we have Simon Magus’s companion, Helena, who was worshipped in their sect as second only to Simon himself.25 Quite close to this time, a woman whose name is not mentioned is said to have prepared the way for Marcion’s visit to Rome by preaching among the women.26 Also, Marcion’s disciple, Apelles, worked with the virgin prophetess, Philoumene, whose prophecies were collected by Apelles into a single volume, entitled “Unveilings” (Phaneroseis). This work is lost but indirect evidence for it is preserved in Eusebius.27 Tertullian refers to the same person and describes her as a virgin who, however, later turned into a prostitute.28 That is Tertullian’s assessment. The famous Marcellina was active at the time of Pope Anicetus of Rome (155-166) and was a follower of Carpocrates.29 The Carpocratians ǹʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘ IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ”. [Promise and Fulfilment in the Revelation of St. John], 164-185 (esp. 184). 25 «ȀĮ੿ ıȤİįઁȞ ʌȐȞIJİȢ ȈĮȝĮȡİ૙Ȣ, ੑȜȓȖȠȚ į੻ țĮ੿ ਥȞ ਙȜȜȠȚȢ ਩șȞİıȚ, ੪Ȣ IJઁȞ ʌȡ૵IJȠ șİઁȞ ਥțİ૙ȞȠȞ ੒ȝȠȜȠȖȠ૨ȞIJİȢ ʌȡȠıțȣȞȠ૨ıȚǜ țĮ੿ ਦȜȑȞȘȞ IJȚȞȐ, IJ੽Ȟ ʌİȡȚȞȠıIJȒıĮıĮȞ Į੝IJ૶ țĮIJ’ ਥțİȓȞȠȣ IJȠ૨ țĮȚȡȠ૨, ʌȡȩIJİȡȠȞ ਥʌ੿ IJȑȖȠȣȢ ıIJĮșİ૙ıĮȞ, IJ੽Ȟ ਫ਼ʌ’ Į੝IJȠ૨ ਩ȞȞȠȚĮȞ ʌȡȫIJȘȞ ȖİȞȠȝȑȞȘȞ ȜȑȖȠȣıȚ»: ੉ȠȣıIJȓȞȠȢ, ݃ʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ǹ’, 26, 3 / ǺǼȆ 3, 174. (“And almost all the Samaritans, and a few even of other nations, worship him and acknowledge him as the first god; and a woman, Helena, who went about with him at that time, and had formerly been a prostitute, they say is the first idea generated by him”). Cf. ȌİȣįȠțȜȘȝȑȞIJȚĮ, ǿǿ, XXIIIff. / ǺǼȆ 1, 72. Ǽ੝ıȑȕȚȠȢ, ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț‫ޣ‬ ‫ݰ‬ıIJȠȡȓĮ, II, 13, 7 / ǺǼȆ 19, 235. 26 Hieronymus, Epistolae, 4 / PL 22, 1153. 27 ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț‫ݰ ޣ‬ıIJȠȡȓĮ, V, 13, 2 / ǺǼȆ 19, 330. Tatian’s disciple Rodon is cited as the original source of this specific testimony. 28 Tertullianus, De praescriptione haereticorum XXX, 6 / CCSL I, 211 țĮȚ VI, 6 / CCSL I, 191. Cf. De carne Christi XXIV, 2 / CCSL, II, 926 and De anima XXXVI, 3 / CCSL II, 838. 29 ǼੁȡȘȞĮ૙ȠȢ, ‫ݕ‬ȜİȖȤȠȢ ȌİȣįȦȞȪȝȠȣ īȞȫıİȦȢ I, 25,6 / PG 7, 685ǜ ʌȡȕȜ. ਫʌȚijȐȞȚȠȢ, ȆĮȞȐȡȚȠȞ, ǹ’, țȗ’, 6 / ǺǼȆ 74, 298,3-299,20: «ਿȜșİȞ į੻ İੁȢ ਲȝ઼Ȣ ਵįȘ ʌȦȢ ȂĮȡțİȜȜȓȞĮ IJȚȢ ਫ਼ʌ' Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ਕʌĮIJȘșİ૙ıĮ, ਴ ʌȠȜȜȠઃȢ ਥȜȣȝȒȞĮIJȠ ਥȞ ȤȡȩȞȠȚȢ ਝȞȚțȒIJȠȣ ਥʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ ૮ȫȝȘȢ, IJȠ૨ ȝİIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ įȚĮįȠȤ੽Ȟ ȆȓȠȣ țĮ੿ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞȦIJȑȡȦ. [...] ਥȞ ȤȡȩȞȠȚȢ IJȠȓȞȣȞ, ੪Ȣ ਩ijȘȝİȞ, ਝȞȚțȒIJȠȣ ਲ ʌȡȠįİįȘȜȦȝȑȞȘ ȂĮȡțİȜȜȓȞĮ ਥȞ ૮ȫȝૉ ȖİȞȠȝȑȞȘ IJ੽Ȟ ȜȪȝȘȞ IJોȢ ȀĮȡʌȠțȡ઼ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ ਥȟİȝȑıĮıĮ ʌȠȜȜȠઃȢ IJ૵Ȟ ਥțİ૙ıİ

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

327

also belonged to the general sphere of Gnosticism, as Irenaeus’s description shows, combining Pythagorean and Neoplatonist elements with worship practices of an orgiastic character that degraded the body. Flora was an approximate contemporary; a learned woman. We know of her from Epiphanius, who quotes a letter to her from Valentinus’s disciple, Ptolemy.30 The letter is dogmatic in character and especially

ȜȣȝȘȞĮȝȑȞȘ ਱ijȐȞȚıİ. țĮ੿ ਩ȞșİȞ ȖȑȖȠȞİȞ ਕȡȤ੽ īȞȦıIJȚț૵Ȟ IJ૵Ȟ țĮȜȠȣȝȑȞȦȞ. ਩ȤȠȣıȚ į੻ İੁțȩȞĮȢ ਥȞȗȦȖȡȐijȠȣȢ įȚ੹ ȤȡȦȝȐIJȦȞ, ਕȜȜ੹ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥț ȤȡȣıȠ૨ țĮ੿ ਕȡȖȪȡȠȣ țĮ੿ ȜȠȚʌોȢ ੢ȜȘȢ, ਚIJȚȞĮ ਥțIJȣʌȫȝĮIJȐ ijĮıȚȞ İੇȞĮȚ IJȠ૨ ੉ȘıȠ૨ țĮ੿ IJĮ૨IJĮ ਫ਼ʌઁ ȆȠȞIJȓȠȣ ȆȚȜȐIJȠȣ ȖİȖİȞોıșĮȚ, IJȠȣIJȑıIJȚȞ IJ੹ ਥțIJȣʌȫȝĮIJĮ IJȠ૨ Į੝IJȠ૨ ੉ȘıȠ૨ ੖IJİ ਥȞİįȒȝİȚ IJ૶ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ȖȑȞİȚ. țȡȪȕįȘȞ į੻ IJ੹Ȣ IJȠȚĮȪIJĮȢ ਩ȤȠȣıȚȞ, ਕȜȜ੹ țĮ੿ ijȚȜȠıȩijȦȞ IJȚȞ૵Ȟ, ȆȣșĮȖȩȡȠȣ țĮ੿ ȆȜȐIJȦȞȠȢ țĮ੿ ਝȡȚıIJȠIJȑȜȠȣȢ țĮ੿ ȜȠȚʌ૵Ȟ, ȝİș' ੰȞ ijȚȜȠıȩijȦȞ țĮ੿ ਪIJİȡĮ ਥțIJȣʌȫȝĮIJĮ IJȠ૨ ੉ȘıȠ૨ IJȚșȑĮıȚȞ, ੂįȡȪıĮȞIJȑȢ IJİ ʌȡȠıțȣȞȠ૨ıȚ țĮ੿ IJ੹ IJ૵Ȟ ਥșȞ૵Ȟ ਥʌȚIJİȜȠ૨ıȚ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚĮ. ıIJȒıĮȞIJİȢ Ȗ੹ȡ IJĮȪIJĮȢ IJ੹Ȣ İੁțȩȞĮȢ IJ੹ IJ૵Ȟ ਥșȞ૵Ȟ ਩șȘ ȜȠȚʌઁȞ ʌȠȚȠ૨ıȚ. IJȓȞĮ įȑ ਥıIJȚȞ IJ੹ ਥșȞ૵Ȟ ਩șȘ ਕȜȜ' ਲ਼ șȣıȓĮȚ țĮ੿ IJ੹ ਙȜȜĮ; ȥȣȤોȢ į੻ İੇȞĮȚ ȝȩȞȘȢ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȞ ijĮı੿ țĮ੿ Ƞ੝Ȥ੿ ıȦȝȐIJȦȞ». “I heard at some time of a Marcellina who was deceived by them, who corrupted many people in the time of Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, the successor of Pius and the bishops before him. […] In Anicetus’ time then, as I said, the aforementioned Marcellina appeared at Rome spewing forth the corruption of Carpocrates’ teaching, and corrupted and destroyed many there. And that made a beginning of the so-called Gnostics. They have images painted with colours—some, moreover, have images made of gold, silver and other material—which they say are portraits of Jesus, and made by Pontius Pilate! That is, the portraits of the actual Jesus while he was dwelling among men! They possess images like these in secret, and of certain philosophers besides—Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, and the rest—and they also place other portraits of Jesus with these philosophers. And after setting them up they worship them and celebrate heathen mysteries. For once they have erected these images, they go on to follow the customs of the heathen. But what are the customs of the heathen but sacrifices and the rest? They say that salvation is for the soul only, and not of bodies,” 113-114. 30 ਫʌȚijȐȞȚȠȢ, ȆĮȞȐȡȚȠȞ, ǹ’, ȜȖ’, 3-7 / ǺǼȆ 74, 411,8-418,6, who gives the following introduction: ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮțȩȜȠȣșȘ İȚıĮȖȦȖȒ (ȜȖ’, 2 / p. 411,1-8): «İੁȢ į੻ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠȞ ਩ȜİȖȤȠȞ IJȠ૨ ਕʌĮIJİ૵ȞȠȢ țĮșİȟોȢ ਫ਼ʌȠIJȐȟĮȢ ʌĮȡĮșȒıȠȝĮȚ IJ੹ ਫ਼ʌ' Į੝IJȠ૨ ijȪıİȚ ȆIJȠȜİȝĮȓȠȣ ĭȜȫȡ઺ IJȚȞ੿ ȖȣȞĮȚț੿ ȖȡĮijȑȞIJĮ ਥʌĮȖȦȖȐ IJİ țĮ੿ įȘȜȘIJȒȡȚĮ ૧ȒȝĮIJĮ, ੆ȞĮ ȝȒ IJȚȢ ȞȠȝȓıİȚİȞ ਲȝ઼Ȣ ਥȟ ਕțȠોȢ ȝȩȞȠȞ IJઁȞ ਕʌĮIJİ૵ȞĮ ਥȜȑȖȤİȚȞ, ȝ੽ ʌȡȩIJİȡȠȞ ਥȞIJȣȤȩȞIJĮȢ IJૌ ʌĮȡ' Į੝IJȠ૨ ʌĮȡĮʌİʌȠȚȘȝȑȞૉ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓ઺ǜ ʌȡઁȢ Ȗ੹ȡ IJȠ૙Ȣ İੁȡȘȝȑȞȠȚȢ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ȞȩȝȠȞ IJȠ૨ șİȠ૨ IJઁȞ įȚ੹ ȂȦȣıȑȦȢ ȕȜĮıijȘȝ૵Ȟ Ƞ੝ț ĮੁıȤȪȞİIJĮȚ, ਘ țĮ੿ ਩ıIJȚ IJĮ૨IJĮǜ ȆIJȠȜİȝĮȓȠȣ ʌȡઁȢ ĭȜȫȡĮȞ». “But next, in further refutation of the fraud, I am going to subjoin and quote the seductive and dangerous words which were actually written by himself to a woman named Flora—lest anyone think that I am refuting the cheat from hearsay only, without becoming acquainted with his phony teaching first. For besides the things I have mentioned, he is not

328

Chapter Twenty Three

concerned with the understanding of the law of Moses and the relationship between the law and the creator. It therefore presupposes an intelligent and educated interlocutor. On the Montanist side, we find references to the founder’s co-workers, Maximilla and Priscilla, who were virgin prophetesses.31 In his fight against Montanism, Apollonius, as preserved by Eusebius, says that Priscilla was a married woman who left her husband.32 Epiphanius himself is dismissive of their prophetic gift, saying that the later Montanists did not prophesy; and because the Holy Spirit is not constrained by time, that means that they never had prophesied.33 The quality of the argument clearly leaves something to be desired, since it could be used in precisely the same way in reference to the Church’s community of later times, which often wonders why miracles no longer happen and why prophecies and manifestations of gifts of the Spirit no longer take place. But this rather threadbare argument is backed up by other, more appropriate, arguments immediately following. The Artotyrites (“bread-and-cheesers,” so named for their liturgical practice) or Pepuzians (from the city of Pepuza in Phrygia, Asia Minor, the center of the Montanist sects), also known as Quintillians and Priscillians, were led by the two women from whom they took their name, according to Epiphanius.34 Epiphanius’s testimony concerning this particular sect is of

ashamed to blaspheme God’s Law given through Moses as well. Here are his words:” 215-216. 31 ਫʌȚijȐȞȚȠȢ, ȆĮȞȐȡȚȠȞ, Ǻ’, țȘ’, 1 / ǺǼȆ 75, 193,5-13. 32 Ǽ੝ıȑȕȚȠȢ, ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț‫ݰ ޣ‬ıIJȠȡȓĮ, V, 17, 4 / ǺǼȆ 19, 336. 33 ȆĮȞȐȡȚȠȞ, Ǻ’, țȘ’, 2 / ǺǼȆ 75, 193,24-194,7. 34 ਫʌȚijȐȞȚȠȢ, ȆĮȞȐȡȚȠȞ, Ǻ’, țȗ’, 1 / ǺǼȆ 75, 208,31-219,14. «ĭĮı੿ Ȗ੹ȡ Ƞ੤IJȠȚ Ƞੂ ȀȣȧȞIJȚȜȜȚĮȞȠ੿ İ੅IJ' Ƞ੣Ȟ ȆȡȚıțȚȜȜȚĮȞȠ੿ ਥȞ IJૌ ȆİʌȠȪȗૉ ਲ਼ Ȁȣ૘ȞIJȚȜȜĮȞ ਲ਼ ȆȡȓıțȚȜȜĮȞ Ƞ੝ț ਩ȤȦ Ȗ੹ȡ ਕțȡȚȕ૵Ȣ ȜȑȖİȚȞ, ȝȓĮȞ į੻ ਥȟ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ੪Ȣ ʌȡȠİ૙ʌȠȞ ਥȞ IJૌ ȆİʌȠȪȗૉ țİțĮșİȣįȘțȑȞĮȚ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ȋȡȚıIJઁȞ ʌȡઁȢ Į੝IJ੽Ȟ ਥȜȘȜȣșȑȞĮȚ ıȣȞȣʌȞȦțȑȞĮȚ IJİ Į੝IJૌ IJȠȪIJ૳ IJ૶ IJȡȩʌ૳, ੪Ȣ ਥțİȓȞȘ ਕʌĮIJȦȝȑȞȘ ਩ȜİȖİȞǜ “ਥȞ ੁįȑ઺, ijȘıȓ, ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ, ਥıȤȘȝĮIJȚıȝȑȞȠȢ ਥȞ ıIJȠȜૌ ȜĮȝʌȡઽ ਷Ȝșİ ʌȡȩȢ ȝİ ȋȡȚıIJઁȢ țĮ੿ ਥȞȑȕĮȜİȞ ਥȞ ਥȝȠ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ıȠijȓĮȞ țĮ੿ ਕʌİțȐȜȣȥȑ ȝȠȚ IJȠȣIJȠȞ੿ IJઁȞ IJȩʌȠȞ İੇȞĮȚ ਚȖȚȠȞ țĮ੿ ੰįİ IJ੽Ȟ ੊İȡȠȣıĮȜ੽ȝ ਥț IJȠ૨ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞȠ૨ țĮIJȚȑȞĮȚ”. įȚȩ ijĮıȚ țĮ੿ ਙȤȡȚ IJોȢ įİ૨ȡȠ ȝȣİ૙ıșĮȓ IJȚȞĮȢ Ƞ੢IJȦ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮȢ ਥțİ૙ıİ ਥȞ IJ૶ IJȩʌ૳ țĮ੿ ਙȞįȡĮȢ, ʌȡઁȢ IJઁ ਥʌȚȝİȚȞȐıĮȢ Į੝IJ੹Ȣ ਲ਼ Į੝IJȠઃȢ IJઁȞ ȋȡȚıIJઁȞ șİȦȡોıĮȚ. ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ȖȠ૨Ȟ ʌĮȡ' Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣ țĮȜȠ૨ȞIJĮȚ ʌȡȠijȒIJȚįİȢ». “For the Quintillianists or Priscillianists say that either Quintilla or Priscilla — I cannot say for certain, but one of them, as I said, slept in Pepuza and, as that deluded woman said, Christ came to her and slept beside her, thus: ‘Christ came to me in the form of a woman,’ she said, ‘dressed in a white robe, imbued me wisdom, and revealed to me that this place is holy, and that Jerusalem will descend from heaven here.’ And so even to this day, they say, certain women —men too— are initiated there

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

329

great value for our topic, from many angles. It becomes clear that, in the teaching of this group, women played a quite outstanding role. Besides the founders and leaders of the group, we find a fully developed priesthood with women holding the rank of bishop. Their missionary dynamism was also great, as was the impression they made on both men and women. New initiations were taking place (as Epiphanius was informed by hearsay) “to this day,” i.e. at least to the time of writing of the Panarion (374 or 375). It should perhaps be said that Ephiphanius uses all his theological armory and his rhetorical irony to pour scorn on this particular sect and indeed, portray it as unworthy of mention, which is self-contradictory in view of the alarm he shows about its dynamism.35 It should be noted, however, that dismissive argumentation of this sort, with particular arguments for the given case, is repeated unfailingly in the refutation of all the heretical teachings, which are regarded as arbitrary ideas and fabrications which are unworthy of mention and aimed at the naïve, etc. But in this case, the element of gender adds a particular tone: he expresses himself in this way because there was an expectation that this would be acceptable to the popular audience. As a consequence, we should not omit the requisite examination of the context or forget to look at the sociological and historical angles — the social realities of the time. Epiphanius goes along with the common ethos, and might even occasionally make use of it; at least in this case, he certainly does not elevate it in accordance with Christian anthropological doctrine. This is not to say that at other points in his work he does not support women, especially the value of marriage and the family, in a sharp break with sects of cathari (“pure ones”), who scorn the body, sexual relations, women etc., as we shall see below. If Epiphanius goes off course in some places, this is because his argumentation is occasionally tailored to the circumstances and are populist in nature. This would seem necessary to note because other, greater figures in ecclesiastical literature avoid such characterizations based on gender. In general, however, Epiphanius’s rhetoric has to be evaluated in the context of the rhetorical standards of late antiquity and specifically of the Second on the site, so that those women or men may await Christ and see him. They have women they call prophetesses,” 22. 35 ȆĮȞȐȡȚȠȞ, Ǻ’, țȗ’, 3 / ǺǼȆ 75, 210,2-11, as an example: «ȀਙȞ IJİ Ȗ੹ȡ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ʌĮȡ' Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣ İੁȢ ਥʌȚıțȠʌ੽Ȟ țĮ੿ ʌȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȚȠȞ țĮșȓıIJĮȞIJĮȚ įȚ੹ IJ੽Ȟ Ǽ੡ĮȞ, ਕțȠȪıȦıȚ IJȠ૨ țȣȡȓȠȣ ȜȑȖȠȞIJȠȢ “ʌȡઁȢ IJઁȞ ਙȞįȡĮ ıȠȣ ਲ ਕʌȠıIJȡȠijȒ ıȠȣ țĮ੿ Į੝IJȩȢ ıȠȣ țȣȡȚİȪıİȚ”». “Even though it is because of Eve that they ordain women to the episcopate and presbyterate, they should listen to the Lord when he says, ‘Thy resort shall be to thine husband, and he shall rule over thee.’” In the same context, there is also extensive argumentation on the question of women’s ordination.

330

Chapter Twenty Three

Sophistic, which most people would be drawing on,36 in which the familiar discourse was one that would today seem over-blown and perhaps unsuitable in the excesses of its rhetorical figures. The sect of the Collyridians was a Mariological heresy widespread in Arabia, whose members would, on certain days of the year, prepare little breads (the so-called kollyrides or kollyria) in honor of the Mother of God. George N. Filias connects this practice with the ancient pagan custom of the Canaanite women, who used to offer “cakes” to the “queen of heaven”, as described by Jeremiah (Jer 7: 18; 44: 19ff. [Hebrew numbering]).37 This sect was founded by a woman. Epiphanius does not neglect to make a negative comment on this fact: “Who are the people teaching this, but women? For the race of women is fickle, unstable and lowly in mind.”38 In its broader context, this is followed by any number of disparaging descriptions of women — an appeal to the manly mind of the faithful — while he also mentions the orders in the Church that a woman may hold. In his effort to restrict women, he even goes so far as to disparage the Mother of God on the basis of Christ’s words in Jn 2: 4.39 Tertullian also falls into similar contradictions. The occasion for his composition of De Baptismo, at the beginning of the 3rd century, was the activity of a woman — a follower of the Cainite sect40 — who was teaching in Africa with great success, especially among women. Her heretical teachings on baptism are refuted in this work. In the introduction to this text, the author refers to the reason for its composition and, this woman whose name is not preserved is given the honor of Tertullian’s scorn: he calls her, inter alia, “monstrosissima” and stresses that she had no right to be teaching at all, let alone teaching such dangerous doctrines. 36

ȀȠȪțȠȣȡĮ, Ǿ ȇȘIJȠȡȚțȒ țĮȚ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȇȘIJȠȡȚțȒ… [Koukoura, Rhetoric and Church Rhetoric…], esp. 123-133. 37 ĭȓȜȚĮȢ, «ĬİȠȝȘIJȠȡȚțȑȢ ǼȠȡIJȑȢ». [Filias, “Marian Feasts”]. 38 ȆĮȞȐȡȚȠȞ, īǯ, Ƞșǯ, 1 / ǺǼȆ 76, 464,28-31. 39 ǵ.ʌ. īǯ, Ƞșǯ, 4 / ǺǼȆ 76, 467,22-468,25. The element of overstatement in Epiphanius’s attitude is pointed out by Elias Voulgarakis, who criticizes Epiphanius for taking the opportunity to condemn all women, “though this woman is the only female heresiarch among the numerous men he mentions as founders of heresies," ibid., p. 111. We note that the Artotyrites Quintilla and Priscilla have escaped the author’s notice, but even with this additional exception, things do not essentially change. 40 According to Epiphanius «ȀĮȧĮȞȠȓ»: ȆĮȞȐȡȚȠȞ, ǹǯ, ȜȘǯ, 1 / ǺǼȆ 75, 58,28. [“Cainites”, 269] Cf. ǼੁȡȘȞĮ૙ȠȢ, DzȜİȖȤȠȢ ȌİȣįȦȞȪȝȠȣ īȞȫıİȦȢ, I, 31, / PG 7, 704. This heresy is connected with Gnosticism: it rejects the Old Testament and God the Creator as an inferior and malevolent god, praises Sophia as a goddess and honors Cain, precisely because he opposed the Old Testament God.

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

331

Because this woman teacher refused immersion in water, Tertullian uses the very beautiful image of Christ as the “fish” (ǿȋĬȊȈ) and Christians as little fishes which, outside of their watery environment, are doomed to writhe to death.41 When this same Tertullian converts to Montanism, however, he speaks in the most positive terms of a woman, a prophetess who strengthened the community with her visions and prophecies; he relied on her revelations in writing his De Anima, the first general treatment of the question of the soul, in which he opposes Platonic and Gnostic influences on Christian teaching.42 41

De Baptismo 1, 2-3 / CCSL I, 277: «adeo nuper conversata istic quaedam de caina haeresi vipera venenatissima doctrina sua plerosque rapuit, imprimis baptismum destruens. Plane secundum naturam: nam fere viperae et aspides ipsique reguli serpentes arida et inaquosa sectantur. [3] sed nos pisciculi secundum ‫ݧ‬ȤșࠎȞ nostrum Iesum Christum in aqua nascimur, nec aliter quam in aqua permanendo salvi sumus. itaque illa monstrosissima, cui nec integer quidem docendi ius erat, optime norat necare pisciculos de aqua auferens». “And in fact a certain female viper from the Cainite sect, who recently spent some time here, carried off a good number with her exceptionally pestilential doctrine, making a particular point of demolishing baptism. Evidently in this according to nature: for vipers and asps as a rule, and even basilisks, frequent dry and waterless places. But we, being little fishes, as Jesus Christ is our great Fish, begin our life in the water, and only while we abide in the water are we safe and sound. Thus it was that that portent of a woman, who had no right to teach even correctly, knew very well how to kill the little fishes by taking them out of the water.” As to the chronology of the work, it was most likely written between 198 and 203 AD. 42 The work is dated between 203 and 213 AD. Tertullian is referring to the woman from whom the revelation comes, after he accentuates the significance of the gifts of the Spirit: “[3] Sed nos corporales quoque illi inscribimus lineas, non tantum ex fiducia corporalitatis per aestimationem, uerum et ex constantia gratiae per reuelationem. Nam quia spiritalia charismata agnoscimus, post Iohannem quoque prophetiam meruimus consequi. [4] Est hodie soror apud nos reuelationum charismata sortita, quas in ecclesia inter dominica sollemnia per ecstasin in spiritu patitur; conuersatur cum angelis, aliquando etiam cum domino, et uidet et audit sacramenta et quorundam corda dinoscit et medicinas desiderantibus sumit. Iamuero prout scripturae leguntur aut psalmi canuntur aut allocutiones proferuntur aut petitiones delegantur, ita inde materiae uisionibus subministrantur. Forte nescio quid de anima disserueramus, cum ea soror in spiritu esset. Post transacta sollemnia dimissa plebe, quo usu solet nobis renuntiare quae uiderit (nam et diligentissime digeruntur, ut etiam probentur), 'inter cetera', inquit, 'ostensa est mihi anima corporaliter, et spiritus uidebatur, sed non inanis et uacuae qualitatis, immo quae etiam teneri repromitteret, tenera et lucida et aerii coloris, et forma per omnia humana. Hoc uisio'. Et deus testis et apostolus charismatum in ecclesia futurorum idoneus sponsor; tunc et si res ipsa de singulis persuaserit, credas”. De

332

Chapter Twenty Three

Having collected some evidence without exhausting the topic,43 we will now try to interpret the variety of attitudes, and possibly the various contradictions between them. But first, we will briefly explore the society within which these phenomena take place.

5. Religion and Society Much has been written about the social position of women in Rome, but without exhausting the topic and without a common insight among scholars as to the general direction. As Balsdon notes in his important work, Roman Women: Anima IX, 3-4 / CCSL, II, 792. “As for ourselves, indeed, we inscribe on the soul the lineaments of corporeity, not simply from the assurance which reasoning has taught us of its corporeal nature, but also from the firm conviction which divine grace impresses on us by revelation. For, seeing that we acknowledge spiritual charismata, or gifts, we too have merited the attainment of the prophetic gift, although coming after John (the Baptist). We have now amongst us a sister whose lot it has been to be favoured with sundry gifts of revelation, which she experiences in the Spirit by ecstatic vision amidst the sacred rites of the Lord's day in the church: she converses with angels, and sometimes even with the Lord; she both sees and hears mysterious communications; some men's hearts she understands, and to them who are in need she distributes remedies. Whether it be in the reading of Scriptures, or in the chanting of psalms, or in the preaching of sermons, or in the offering up of prayers, in all these religious services matter and opportunity are afforded to her of seeing visions. It may possibly have happened to us, whilst this sister of ours was rapt in the Spirit, that we had discoursed in some ineffable way about the soul. After the people are dismissed at the conclusion of the sacred services, she is in the regular habit of reporting to us whatever things she may have seen in vision (for all her communications are examined with the most scrupulous care, in order that their truth may be probed). ‘Amongst other things,’ says she, ‘there has been shown to me a soul in bodily shape, and a spirit has been in the habit of appearing to me; not, however, a void and empty illusion, but such as would offer itself to be even grasped by the hand, soft and transparent and of an etherial colour, and in form resembling that of a human being in every respect.’ This was her vision, and for her witness there was God; and the apostle most assuredly foretold that there were to be ‘spiritual gifts’ in the church. Now, can you refuse to believe this, even if indubitable evidence on every point is forthcoming for your conviction?” 43 We have made no mention of the testimony of the Apocrypha, but refer to Aikaterini Drosia’s paper in this volume, “The Case of Mary Magdalen and the Ordination of Women,” where the extended references to the Apocrypha, especially those of the Nag Hammadi library, cover this area sufficiently. We shall refer more extensively to later testimonies below.

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

333

one has only to reflect on the tremendous contribution to the understanding of social history that has been made for the eighteenth century onwards by the writings of women, to realise that the historian of women in the ancient world lacks the evidence which most of all he needs.44

Balsdon nevertheless guides us deep into the diversity of Roman life through history and everyday life. He mentions a series of “graphic myths” on the subject of women, as well as female figures from a variety of social classes and situations, introducing us to a plurality of viewpoints and, by extension, to the intricacy and complexity of the reality. He concludes that: Complete equality of the sexes was never achieved in ancient Rome because of the survival, long after it was out of date, of a deep-rooted tradition that the exclusive sphere of a woman’s activity was inside the house, the exclusive sphere of a man’s outside it.45

Starting with a predisposition that is extremely favorable towards women, Ernest Borneman, in his book, Das Patriarchat,46 expounds the problem to its full extent. The observations he makes in conclusion are vital: Just as the Romans appropriated the material goods of those peoples [whom they conquered], so they also appropriated their gods. The entire Roman system was a mechanism for exploitation, with an efficiency unprecedented in its day. So when this mechanism reached the point that patrician women started to abandon the privileges of their class and rub shoulders with prostitutes, that was not “decadence”; it was protest. And protest is the opposite of decadence. Protest is a sure sign of a vital opposition – and in Rome, the vital opposition always consisted of women […]. Rome was never so decadent as during the Republic, because precisely that period marked the nadir of the history of Roman women: the “health” of a social system is manifested also in the equality of the sexes.47

Contrary to the positions mentioned above, we would maintain that some over-simplified and idealized historical views that extol and laud the freedom of women in Roman society are not on firm ground. Indeed, they often seem to confuse social freedom with loose morals, which clearly 44

Balsdon, Roman Women…, 283-4. Balsdon, Roman Women…, 282. 46 Borneman, Ǿ ȆĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȓĮ, esp. pp.463-676. [Das Patriarchat. Chapters 6 and 7: Patriarchy in Ancient Rome. (6: The Social Base. 7: The Sexual Superstructure)]. 47 Ibid., p.676. 45

334

Chapter Twenty Three

applied to a part of the female population but not the whole; such license was sporadically chosen by upper class women but it was never a stranger to the bonds of oppression characteristic of any sort of sex industry. Some writers indeed express a nostalgia, considering that a freedom of this sort was destroyed with the advent of Christianity.48 Although we cannot interpret this period one-sidedly in exclusively negative terms, neither is the truth well served by illusions and vapid attempts to paint a rosy picture of the ancient (Greco-Roman) world. The New Testament period and, a little later, the 2nd century, does not cease to be a time of manifest unease and restlessness which found various outlets, and contained the seeds of a transition to a different world view. The enthusiasm and intensity with which people explored novelty in the field of religion, in various and often contrary directions, had to do, if not with disappointment or protest then with the search for a way out of a social and spiritual stagnation that most likely had nothing further to offer historically. So, on the question under investigation, that of mutual influences between heretical sects and the Church community, a perspective that notes similarities and differences may not be enough. In trying to navigate between the conflicting hypotheses that (1) Gnostic-type sects led the Church to marginalize women for reasons of defence and entrenchment, or (2) Encratite-type sects lured the Church in their own direction by exerting a strong influence over it, again at the expense of women, one might propose a third hermeneutic hypothesis.

6. Stepping Back for a Longer View It would therefore be worth exploring this hypothesis, leaving aside for a moment the close-up, wide-angle lens which tries to view the diversity and various tendencies in the Christian world all at once and at close quarters. We need to assume a certain essential distance and take a macroscopic, panoramic view of social and historical development. With this sort of perspective, we can more clearly discern that society’s quest took the form of parallel and repeated waves, while the same basic wave would end up in a variety of bays, inlets and shores – and sometimes strike with force against the rocks.

48

i.e. ȀĮȡȗȒȢ, Ǿ īȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȠ ȂİıĮȓȦȞĮ… [Karzis, Woman in the Middle Ages]. This basic school of thought goes back to Gibbon, The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

335

One could see the formation of communities with women in leadership roles as a wave of protest against the Church (and obviously the coexistence of additional communities led ultimately to conflict, with missionary competition for the same population in an integral geographical region). It is not certain, however, that such was precisely, primarily, or originally the case, because a view of this sort presupposes the historical and theological conviction formed retrospectively concerning the indissoluble unity of the Church and, indeed, in connection and direct affiliation with the Church of Jerusalem. But such a view overlooks the possibility of a variety of spontaneous movements inspired by Christianity or by what people had heard about Christianity, perhaps with the best of intentions, but in combination with superficial knowledge or misunderstanding. In order to better understand this, we will give an analogous example which is less close to us, which will thus allow a more dispassionate observation. The example comes from the formation of Islam: Today, scholars of Islam (the spread of which marked the end of the period known as late antiquity) emphasise two points that are significant for the question that concerns us: 1. on the one hand, Mohammed most likely had no awareness that he was founding a new religion, but regarded his preaching as a message of repentance; and 2. on the other hand, he felt himself to be a continuator and culmination of the work of the prophets, within the logic of a progressive revelation of God’s will through the course of history.49 Even so, his teaching diverges considerably from Christian theology as he turns towards a purer monotheism close to that of the Old Testament.50 Today, it is believed that the explanation for this antinomy lies in ignorance. While Mohammed had quite a profound and experiential knowledge of Jewish thought and belief, 49 The importance of prophets in Islam correlates with antiquity or seniority, on a scale from minor to major, crowned by Mohamed himself. This is the Islamic theory of the “progress” of revelation, Islam’s basic answer in all ancient dialogues between Islam and Christianity to the Christian reproach that Islamic religion is syncretistic in character. Islam is more correct than Christianity, according to this view, precisely because it comes later. Cf. ǹȡȖȣȡȓȠȣ, ȀȠȡȐȞȚȠ țĮȚ ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ. [Argyriou, Koran and History], esp. 170-187. 50 On the relation of the Islamic to the Judaic tradition, see the classical work of Crone and Cook, Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic World. Also, Hoyland, Seeing Islam as Others saw it.

336

Chapter Twenty Three

it seems that his knowledge of Christianity was non-systematic and somewhat haphazard. Since his knowledge of Christianity came through its Nestorian version, Mohammed seems to have known about Jesus but not about the doctrine of the Trinity.51 Analogy is a proper scholarly principle and we consider that the hypothesis we advance is more faithful to the historical reality. In each case, it is more an innocent explanation and less a conspiracy theory. The diversity existed historically, naturally and effortlessly, which is not to negate the exceptional dynamism of the ecclesial community that stemmed from and was directly connected with the Church of Jerusalem and the local churches that were initially in the cities. Right across its domain, across the entire breadth of the Greco-Roman oikoumene, not to mention the Christian communities beyond its borders, the relations between Orthodoxy and heterodoxy only gradually acquired firm boundaries. This view is also based on a partial revision of the history of the expansion of Christianity in the context of missiological studies. Because in parallel with recognition of the importance of the principal figures, especially the catalytic significance of St. Paul, prominence is now given to the participation of the laity. Beyond the area where Paul’s example radiated, the laity took the initiative in teaching, something that comes out in Paul’s Epistles themselves, and still more in the Book of Acts. The historical explanation that we propose requires further through investigation and detailed documentation, perhaps in a future study. For the present, however, we will make some additional initial observations. Women wanting to claim their freedom may have found expression in religious groups and tendencies that provided such freedom openhandedly, or even founded such groups on their own – groups that resonated with both men and women, as Epiphanius records – but equally, it was mainly women who manned the ranks of Christianity and staffed the ranks of the Church. Conversion to the ranks of Christianity was a conscious choice on the part of women and, while the exploration of gender issues should not be down-played, it should equally not be elevated into an exclusive key or axis for all interpretation, which lays itself open to various forms of idolizing and demonizing. Women overwhelmingly outnumbered men and, this held good even in the post-Constantinian period.52 51

This view is sufficiently documented in the study of īȡȣʌĮȓȠȣ, ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩȢ țĮȚ ȀȠȡȐȞȚ… [Grypaiou, Christianity and the Koran]. 52 ǺȠȣȜȖĮȡȐțȘ-ȆȚıȓȞĮ, Ǿ ȆȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȦȞ ǼșȞȚțȫȞ..., 331-337. The unequal numbers of men and women in the ranks of the Church are referred to as a cause

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

337

How do we explain this participation? One line of explanation for which there is ample evidence in ecclesiastical and patristic literature, though it appears in connection with heretical sects, is that women are credulous and more easily led than men, and would be persuaded by any sort of message. But is such a view adequate? Would ecclesiastical writers and Church Fathers accept the same explanation for the overwhelming preference shown by women for the new message of the Gospel?

7. “Is the race of women fickle?” In the Panarion, we have already seen the double-speak and the contradiction involved in belittling women with a leadership profile at the head of groups with evident dynamism, precisely because they are women. On the other hand, the view of women being led astray, following men with devotion and submission and being talked into embracing wild ideas and unbecoming actions, recurs almost as a stereotype not just in Epiphanius but also in later great Fathers, especially in connection with the struggle against Arianism. Let us pause here for a moment. Irenaeus of Lyons describes an attempt to persuade a simple woman who belonged to a sect that she possessed the gift of prophecy. The woman was bewildered, and said, “I’ve never prophesied, and I don’t know how to prophesy.”53 They persuaded her by saying that whatever she said when she opened her mouth would be a prophecy. The heresiarch, whose name was Mark, was regarded as a great magician and a trickster. His disciples “deceived many women and corrupted them, calling themselves ‘perfect ones.’”54 Here it is obvious that dependency was cultivated based on a personality cult. Moving on to the Arian conflict, Athanasius, in his third discourse against the Arians, tries to explain that the son is not a product of the father’s will, but exists “by nature and not from volition”;55 he is “an for the common practice of mixed marriages in canon of the Synod of Elvira (Mansi I, 127-128), which forbids them. 53 ǼੁȡȘȞĮ૙ȠȢ, ‫ݕ‬ȜİȖȤȠȢ ȌİȣįȦȞȪȝȠȣ īȞȫıİȦȢ, 1, 13, 3 / PG 7, 584[A-B]: “ȅ੝ ʌȡȠİijȒIJİȣıĮ ʌȫʌȠIJİ țĮ੿ Ƞ੝ț ȠੇįĮ ʌȡȠijȘIJİȪİȚȞ”. 54 ǼੁȡȘȞĮ૙ȠȢ, ‫ݕ‬ȜİȖȤȠȢ ȌİȣįȦȞȪȝȠȣ īȞȫıİȦȢ 1, 13, 6 / PG 7, 588[Ǻ]: “ਥȟĮʌĮIJ૵ȞIJİȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȐȡȚĮ ʌȠȜȜȐ įȚȑijșİȚȡĮȞ, IJİȜİȓȠȣȢ ਦĮȣIJȠઃȢ ਕȞĮȖȠȡİȪȠȞIJİȢ”. The verb corrupted (“įȚȑijșİȚȡĮȞ”) refers to faith, of course, but other connotations may not be excluded either. 55 ਝșĮȞȐıȚȠȢ, ȀĮIJȐ ݃ȡİȚĮȞࠛȞ, ī’, 66 / ǺǼȆ 30 303,39: “ijȪıİȚ țĮ੿ ȝ੽ ਥț ȕȠȣȜȒıİȦȢ”.

338

Chapter Twenty Three

offspring by nature, like the radiance of light.”56 He refers to the influence of Arian teachings (whose similarity to the doctrines of Valentinus he points out) on women, who were more gullible, since the followers of Arius used an empirical leading question: did they have a child before they gave birth to it?57 The Arians preferred to target women, to persuade them by relying on life experience. Implicitly, and clearly if not directly, Athanasius sets out his own opinion and his mistrust of the experiential method if it is not accompanied by solid, rational knowledge.58 In the context of his first discourse against the Arians, Athanasius refers to the followers of Arius and Eusebius, with the criticism that: even now some of them accost youngsters in the marketplace and ask them questions, not from the Holy Scriptures but as it were pouring out from the abundance of their own hearts [...]. Then they go up to women and again speak to them in feminised language, asking, “Did you have a son before you gave birth?”59

56

Ibid., 67 / ǺǼȆ 30, 304,39: “ijȪıİȚ ȖȑȞȞȘȝĮ, ੪Ȣ IJȠ૨ ijȦIJઁȢ IJઁ ਕʌĮȪȖĮıȝĮ”. “ਫȕȠȣȜȩȝȘȞ į੻ IJȠઃȢ ਕıİȕİ૙Ȣ Ƞ੢IJȦȢ İੁȢ ਕȜȠȖȓĮȞ ʌİʌIJȦțȩIJĮȢ, țĮ੿ ʌİȡ੿ ȕȠȣȜȒıİȦȢ ıțİʌIJȠȝȑȞȠȣȢ, Ȟ૨Ȟ ਥȡȦIJોıĮȚ ȝȘțȑIJȚ IJ੹Ȣ IJȚțIJȠȪıĮȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮȢ, ਘȢ Ƞ੤IJȠȚ ʌȡȩIJİȡȠȞ ਱ȡȫIJȦȞ ȜȑȖȠȞIJİȢ, Ǽੁ İੇȤİȢ ȣੂȩȞ, ʌȡ੿Ȟ ȖİȞȞȒıૉȢ; ਕȜȜ੹ IJȠઃȢ ʌĮIJȑȡĮȢ țĮ੿ İੁʌİ૙Ȟ Į੝IJȠ૙Ȣ ȆȩIJİȡȠȞ ȕȠȣȜİȣȩȝİȞȠȚ ȖȓȞİıșİ ʌĮIJȑȡİȢ, ਲ਼ țĮIJ੹ ijȪıȚȞ țĮ੿ IJોȢ ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ ȕȠȣȜȒıİȦȢ; ਻ IJોȢ ijȪıİȦȢ țĮ੿ Ƞ੝ıȓĮȢ ਫ਼ȝ૵Ȟ ਥıIJȚȞ ੖ȝȠȚĮ IJ੹ IJȑțȞĮ;”, Ibid., 67 / ǺǼȆ 30, 305,7-13. “And I could wish that the irreligious men who have fallen into such want of reason as to be thinking about will, would now stop asking their childbearing women, as they used to, ‘Had you a son before giving birth to him?’ but rather ask the fathers, ‘Do you become fathers by your will, or by the natural law of your will,’ or ‘Are your children similar to your nature and essence?’” 58 I can hardly avoid making a comparison with the contemporary phenomenon of the personality cult nurtured by various spiritual fathers, which is based solely on personal experience and inter-personal relationship, and which seems to have the most resonance with women, who usually make up the majority of those who come for regular confession. In a certain sense, the gullible and uncritical character of women may perhaps be confirmed on occasion, even today – but then, on the social level, some things remain the same. In those days, however, given the much higher levels of illiteracy among women and their general position of dependency in society, they were easier victims in the hands of shrewd operators. Anyway, that is one aspect of the social reality but not the only or, in our view, the main one. 59 ਝșĮȞȐıȚȠȢ, ȀĮIJȐ ݃ȡİȚĮȞࠛȞ, ǹǯ, 22 / ǺǼȆ 30, 141, 28-41: “ȝȑȤȡȚ į੻ Ȟ૨Ȟ IJȚȞİȢ ıȣȞĮȞIJ૵ȞIJİȢ ਥȟ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ʌĮȚįĮȡȓȠȚȢ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȖȠȡȐȞ, ʌȣȞșȐȞȠȞIJĮȚ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ, Ƞ੡IJȚ Ȗİ ਕʌઁ IJ૵Ȟ șİȓȦȞ īȡĮij૵Ȟ, ਕȜȜ’ ੮ıʌİȡ IJ੹ ʌİȡȚııİȪȝĮIJĮ IJોȢ țĮȡįȓĮȢ Į੝IJ૵Ȟ ਥȡİȣȖȩȝİȞȠȚ ȜȑȖȠȣıȚȞ [...] ǼੇIJĮ țĮ੿ İੁıİȡȤȩȝİȞȠȚ ʌȡઁȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȐȡȚĮ, ʌȐȜȚȞ Į੝IJĮ૙Ȣ ਥțIJİșȘȜȣȝȑȞĮ ૧ȘȝȐIJȚĮ ijșȑȖȖȠȞIJĮȚ, Ǽੁ İੇȤİȢ ȣੂઁȞ ʌȡ੿Ȟ IJȑțૉȢ”. 57

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

339

Here women are put on the same level as children, who are obviously young and lacking in experience of life, and the arguments used by the Arians are described as “feminised”, with all the connotations that term carries. On the basis of this text and the similar passage in the third discourse mentioned above, it is the empirical approach based solely on life experience that invites, and receives, the dismissive description of the argumentation as “feminised.” In the broader context of the Arian controversy, Athanasius describes the participation of women in violent clashes that took place against him personally and the members of the Church. Here the episodes are instigated by government officials, apparently for their general amusement apart from any expediency. Athanasius names: the Dux Sebastian, a Manichaean and a dissolute young man, and the Prefect and the Count and the Comptroller as a dissembler, [who] brought out from the houses many virgins who condemned their impiety and professed the truth. Others they insulted as they walked along, and had their young henchmen uncover the women’s heads. And they gave permission to the women of their own party to insult whomsoever they wished.60

Athanasius for his part does not omit to stress the decorous and sober behavior of the women who remained faithful to the Church’s dogma on the one hand, and on the other to criticize the attitude and ethics of the men who incited the pro-Arian women to behave as he describes.61 In another case, however, according to the testimony of St. Gregory, armed women also took part in a forceful reaction on the part of the people in favor of St. Basil – something that Gregory himself enthusiastically applauds. But Basil also seems to have accepted this, according to what Gregory says.62

60 ਝșĮȞȐıȚȠȢ, ȆȡާȢ ݃ʌĮȞIJĮȤȠࠎ ȂȠȞĮȤȠީȢ ʌİȡ‫ ޥ‬IJࠛȞ īİȖİȞȘȝȑȞȦȞ ʌĮȡ‫ ޟ‬IJࠛȞ ݃ȡİȚĮȞࠛȞ ‫݋‬ʌ‫ ޥ‬ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȠȣ, 59, 1-3 / ǺǼȆ 31, 274, 4-16. 61 Such an attitude, of course, obviously justifies the androcentric view that women’s fundamental need is to be guided rightly and firmly by a suitable masculine hand. 62 «ȅ੝į੻ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ਙȠʌȜȠȚ IJȘȞȚțĮ૨IJĮ, IJȠ૨ țĮȚȡȠ૨ șȒȖȠȞIJȠȢǜ ȝİȜȓĮȚ į' ਷ıĮȞ Į੝IJĮ૙Ȣ Įੂ țİȡțȓįİȢǜ Į੄ Ƞ੝į੻ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ਩ȝİȞȠȞ ਩IJȚ, IJ૶ ȗȒȜ૳ ૧Ȧıșİ૙ıĮȚ țĮ੿ İੁȢ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ șȐȡıȠȢ ȝİIJĮȜȜĮIJȩȝİȞĮȚ»: īȡȘȖȩȡȚȠȢ, Ǽ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJާȞ ȂȑȖĮȞ ǺĮıȓȜİȚȠȞ ‫ݑ‬ʌȚIJȐijȚȠȢ, ȃǽ’ / ǺǼȆ 60, 165, 3-6. “Not even women were unarmed at that time, in the excitement of the occasion. The shuttles from their looms were their spears; they were not even women any more, strengthened as they were by their zeal and transformed so that they had the courage of men”. Gregory, Funeral Oration for St. Basil, 57.

340

Chapter Twenty Three

Gregory is the most consistent of the great Fathers in speaking in support of women at every opportunity. It is not only his now famous saying that “it was men who made the laws, so the legislation is antiwomen,”63 where he condemns the injustice of the law (apropos of the question of adultery) and simultaneously highlights the difference between the mentality of society and Christian ethics, but in other cases as well. Gregory the theologian had a profound understanding of the patriarchal model which produced unjust laws, and he wanted women to participate fully in life. We return to an account by St. Athanasius in order to look at one particular charge that he makes against a named individual. In his work On the history of the Arians,64 the saint attributes the exile of Eutropius of Adrianople to Basilina, a colleague of Arius’s. A little further on in the same context, he generalizes about the impiety of the Arian sympathizer, Eusebius (of Nicomedia) and his supporters, saying that “they had access to the emperor through the women, and were feared by everyone.”65 In this case, it may appear that he is recognizing the power and influence of women (the connection between the women of the palace and the two Eusebiuses of Caesarea and Nicomedia — especially the latter — is well known from other sources as well, as is their role in promoting Arianism) but, in fact, what we have once again is the influence of a monk on female followers. Is it going too far to speak in such cases of a subtext of misplaced eroticism, with responsibility on both sides, a phenomenon not altogether unknown even today? In any case, phenomena of this sort crop up when a self-awareness of faith and theology is not cultivated, but rather relationships of dependency within a personality cult. Here, the initiatives taken by women do not result in their claiming a leading role in heretical sects, but in intrigues sufficient to send a hierarch into exile (or even a patriarch such as Athanasius). Is it possible that the historical factor that makes the difference is the imperial throne, control of which was the great new temptation for the various versions of Christianity? Summing up our examination of the state of society, we see that the variety of activities on the part of women, which are sometimes praised and sometimes criticized, does not permit us to draw historical conclusions that all point in one direction. It is clear that the various instances of characterological or psychological discrimination against women based on their sex are not systematic but occasional. The very presence of women is 63

īȡȘȖȩȡȚȠȢ, Ǽ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJާ ȂĮIJșĮȓȠȣ, ȁǽǯ, Ȉȉǯ/ ǺǼȆ 60, 56,1-5. Ȇİȡ‫ ޥ‬IJࠛȞ īİȖİȞȘȝȑȞȦȞ ʌĮȡ’ ݃ȡİȚĮȞࠛȞ, 5,1 / ǺǼȆ 31, 244,7-12. 65 Ibid., 6,2 / ǺǼȆ 31, 244,29-30. 64

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

341

contingent and secondary, a parallel element to the main action which, for the Fathers is the general progress of Christianity and faith. As a consequence, all the discriminatory characterological statements or observations and ideas are not sufficient to explain the restrictions placed on women.

8. Considering the “Spirit of the Times” More helpful is an understanding of the “spirit of the times” in relation to broader social and historical developments; not only those relating to the question of women, but also in relation to other anthropological, existential and social issues. The 2nd century was a time of triumphant traditionalism. The steadfast devotion to the past was a shelter against the momentous shifts that were already under way. In the 3rd century, a time of crises on many levels, restlessness, transformation and anxiety expressed themselves more clearly. Ancient centers of authority, feeling themselves under fire from new choices on the part of the state and the gradual change in the status of the cities, banded together in order to survive. To make up for their social decline, they looked for support outside the unfriendly powers in society, by availing themselves of support of a metaphysical sort. This is a time when the auguries set the tone against religious otherness, shortly before the Constantinian shift.66 If there is a general characteristic of the age, it is the pursuit of the holy.67 In parallel, following the license of earlier periods – a license that had to a great extent festered, with no lack of signs of social dissolution or decay – is an opposing current redressing the balance with the horizontal rise of Encratite tendencies in society, manifesting themselves in morality, philosophy and religious trends.68 Christianity was not the principal actor in these developments. What we have is a more general historical tendency which played its part in intensifying the weariness of the pagan world, and indirectly helped facilitate the choice of Christianity.69

66

Brown, The Making of Late Antiquity, 36. See, Idem, Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. 68 See, Idem, The Body and Society..., passim. 69 On somewhat similar modern concerns, see a variety of approaches in Ǿ İʌȚıIJȡȠijȒ IJȘȢ ǾșȚțȒȢ… [The Return of Ethics…]. Slightly different is the approach taken by ȅȪȜȘȢ, ȅ DzȡȦIJĮȢ țĮȚ Ș ȃİȠʌȜĮIJȦȞȓȞȘ… [Oulis, Love and ‘Neoplatonine’…], which relates to the influence of Neoplatonism on Christianity. 67

342

Chapter Twenty Three

Sexual continence and virginity were given an elevated if not supreme value, and were often accompanied and supported by ideas of purity.70 We should further note that monasticism was born and started to develop during the same historical period, beginning as a movement that questioned the broad mass reception of new believers into the Church and sought an authentic Christian life far from the cities. As it went on, however, it came to be incorporated organically into the life of the Church and to a great extent defined church life and theological thinking through its own determinants and priorities, at a time of structural importance in the formation of the historical identity of Orthodox Christianity. In the climate of asceticism and despising the body that prevailed in late antiquity; in the context of reining in morals and curbing desire; and given patriarchy and the male-centered character of discourse, it is natural that control over desire is linked with a more stifling control over the object of desire, namely, women. These are the major social factors that, in my view, explain the social restrictions on women. Patristic theological discourse observes this development, has a part in its formation and also, on occasion, takes a critical stance towards some of its more extreme manifestations.

9. Some Specific Views of Women and Attempts to Refute Them The general tendency we describe does not, of course, mean in any way that social diversity disappears. John Chrysostom speaks of this diversity schematically, saying that the Jews have an aversion to virginity, the pagans admire it and the Christians are the ones who attempt to live it.71 In the same (early) work, Chrysostom makes a clear distinction between virginity in the context of Christian asceticism, and the virginity of the heretical sects which stems from hatred for the body and is worse than harlotry.72 Elsewhere, however, Chrysostom speaks of the general social resonance that virginity has throughout all strata of society, even beyond the membership of the Church, among people of all religious backgrounds, Jews included.73

70 ȂȩıȤȠȢ, “ǼȖțȡĮIJȚIJȚıȝȩȢ țĮȚ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩȢ ıIJȘȞ ǶıIJİȡȘ ǹȡȤĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ…” [Moschos, Encratism and Christianity in Late Antiquity…], 18-31. 71 Ȇİȡ‫ ޥ‬ȆĮȡșİȞȓĮȢ, Į’ | PG 48, 533[B-C]. 72 Ȇİȡ‫ ޥ‬ȆĮȡșİȞȓĮȢ, Ș’ | PG 48, 538[B]. 73 Ȇİȡ‫ ޥ‬IJȠࠎ IJ‫ޟ‬Ȣ ȀĮȞȠȞȚț‫ޟ‬Ȣ ȝ‫ ޣ‬ȈȣȞȠȚțİ߿Ȟ ݃ȞįȡȐıȚȞ, ıIJǯ | PG 47, 524[D]-525[A].

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

343

The issue of virginity has preoccupied patristic thought more generally. There is also an extensive bibliography on the subject. If we choose here to mention in passing some additional governing ideas, it is in order to complete the circle of our topic, which is the influence of heretical sects on the formation of patristic teaching on women. The Fathers moved within the social environment we have described and were influenced by it. But the influence was not one way. Elias Voulgarakis describes it thus: Sometimes theological thought had an influence on the social conditions of its environment and defined the Church’s behaviour towards women; at other times, the mentality of the people whom Christianity had conquered influenced and directed theological thought.74

To the extent that the second applied, from a theological viewpoint we could speak of a secularisation of Christianity. And perhaps we should ask ourselves the deeper question, whether this is not precisely the case with the ever-increasing restriction of women from the institutional and liturgical life of the Church. On the other hand, we must note a series of corrective moves on the part of the Fathers, who took issue with the teaching of the heretical sects which came to see women solely as a temptation, on the basis of a utilitarian attitude that treated women as an instrument existing merely to provide sexual needs and reproduction. The understanding of women as merely (or principally) vessels of pleasure is one of the most deep-seated reasons for disparaging the female sex. It is obvious, certainly, that patristic literature is not monolithic or unanimous on this issue. In ascetic and neptic texts, the idea of woman as temptation is more prevalent, and women are sometimes depicted in ways that go beyond the bounds of Christian anthropology – it tends to become demonology. We have further observed that pseudonymous (and even dubious) works bearing the names of great saints very often conceal sentiments that disparage women, in contrast to genuine works of the great Fathers.75 Finally, one finds a great difference between the East and West on the issue of sexuality, which is not unconnected to the issue of women.76 74

ǹʌȠijȣȖȒ..., 61. This could possibly present a substantive criterion for research on the authenticity of certain texts. 76 Even today, the canon law of the Eastern Church differs on the issue of marriage from that of the Roman Catholic Church, where the indissolubility of marriage still prevails, as well as the general celibacy of priesthood, the prohibition of 75

344

Chapter Twenty Three

Since, however, we cannot exhaust this question within the scope of our topic, nor can we extend our discussion to cover it fully, we will simply say in general terms that the great Fathers of the 4th century tried to limit the one-sided attitude that sees a woman as a vessel of pleasure and miscellaneous utility, giving priority to the idea of a woman as an image of God and companion.77 Epiphanius himself, alongside the charges he makes against women, on account of some dynamic women sectarians, also takes a stand against the heresies that were averse to “women and children,”78 arguing in favor of women. From many similar examples we may choose his polemic against the Severians, who: declare that woman is the work of Satan, as do the Archontici. They therefore say that men who approach marriage are fulfilling Satan’s work. They also say that man belongs half to God and half to the devil: from the navel up he is created by God’s power, from the navel down he is created by the authority of the evil one. Because, it is claimed, everything to do with pleasure and sexual urges and desire takes place below the navel. The other heresies also declared that this was the case.79

10. Some Conclusions In the research presented here, we have not been able to find one-way influences from heretical sects, whether positive or negative, that could have played a significant role in shaping patristic teaching on women. Nevertheless, when groups co-exist in the same social milieu one can identify interactions, sometimes obvious and sometimes implicit. The contraception in almost all forms, and a general spirit of legalism. See: Christinakis-Glaros, “The Principle of the asymptomatic parallels between virginity and marriage and the problem posed by mixed marriages”, 261-268. This historical evolution took shape very early. ǺĮȖȚĮȞȩȢ, ȉȠ ǽȒIJȘȝĮ IJȠȣ ǺĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ IJȦȞ ȆĮȜȜĮțȚțȫȞ… [Vayanos, The Question of the Baptism of Concubines…], 286ff. On later developments, ȀĮȜȜȚȖȑȡȘȢ, īȐȝȠȢ. ǹʌȩ IJȠ ȂȣıIJȒȡȚȠ ıIJȠȞ Ĭİıȝȩ [Kalligeris, Marriage. From Sacrament to Institution], 27-100. 77 ȆĮʌĮȖİȦȡȖȓȠȣ, “ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ DZıțȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȆĮȡșİȞȓĮȢ ıIJȘȞ DZıțȘıȘ IJȘȢ ǹȖȐʌȘȢ…” [Papageorgiou, From the Exercise of Virginity to the Exercise of Love…, 49-59. More generally, cf. ȈIJĮȝȠȪȜȘȢ, DzȡȦȢ țĮȚ ĬȐȞĮIJȠȢ. ǻȠțȚȝȒ ȖȚĮ ȑȞĮȞ ȆȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩ IJȘȢ ȈȐȡțȦıȘȢ. [Stamoolis, Eros and Death. An Essay on a Culture of Incarnation], 135-202. ȆĮIJȡȫȞȠȢ, ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ǼȝʌİȚȡȓĮ IJȠȣ īȐȝȠȣ. [Patronos, Theology and Experience of Marriage], passim. 78 “ȅ’ʌȡȠıșȒțȘ ȝİIJ੹ IJઁ țİȜİȪȠȞIJĮ ijȩȡȠȣȢ ȝ੽ įȠ૨ȞĮȚ”. ਫʌȚijȐȞȚȠȢ, ȆĮȞȐȡȚȠȞ, ǹ’, ȝȕ’, 1 / ǺǼȆ 75, 102,21-22. 79 ਫʌȚijȐȞȚȠȢ, ȆĮȞȐȡȚȠȞ ǹ’, ȝİ’, 2 / ǺǼȆ 75, 180,18-26.

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

345

mutual influence is most likely not direct, but produced by the shared matrix of the spirit of the times, which inspires and generates tendencies in all those living in a particular context. The explanation for the gradual exclusion of women from public activity is complex and involves many factors. On the one hand, we must not forget that Christianity was born in a Jewish environment, characteristically expressed in the number of twelve apostles, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel. An important historical question in regard to the first apostolic community is whether there was an awareness that a new religion was being founded, or whether that consciousness developed gradually. Despite the relevant points noted by New Testament scholars and historians of this period, theological discourse tends to repress questions of historical development forgetting, in practice, the dogma of Chalcedon and the divine-humanity of Jesus Christ himself. Theologians tend instead to invest chiefly in divine omniscience and providence so as to formulate an unchanging schematic picture, overlooking historical developments. Awareness of the universal character of the new religion, of the character of the people of God, came about gradually. One of the first views to crystallize — an indicator of what was to come — was the decision of the Apostolic Council regarding foods offered to idols and harlotry, those two weaknesses of the gentile world. The connection between women and sexuality at a time when there was a general development of Encratite tendencies, led to the restriction of women. This restriction is alien to the Gospel and to the life of the early Church. Activities on the part of the sects complicated the situation in one direction or the other, but would not have been decisive were it not for an inner voice among the Church’s leadership. Church life changes from a more representational type of worship and starts to become ever more dogmatic – worship is increasingly linked to semantic memory.80 At the same time, the body of the Christian community becomes ever more important for Rome itself even before the Edict of Milan, not to mention after it. In consequence, the issue of institutionalization and authority becomes ever more pressing, and not always in harmonious co-operation with the variety of spiritual gifts. So, in the end, it is a question of power which gradually, at that time and even today in the 21st century, leaves women with a grievance.

80

ȆĮȤȒȢ, Ibid., 500.

346

Chapter Twenty Three

The solution to the problem of women will not be provided by history, since evil has not ceased in the present age. It will be provided by theology and the image of the kingdom. As we venerate the foolishness of the cross, we become able to exhibit the ethos of the cross — not one of power and domination. Yet the catholicity of Christian faith cannot but be expressed in the fullness of women’s participation in church life, as well as in the revelation of the Church as community: an image of the kingdom in which all people stand in ultimate simplicity, clothed only in their substance as humans, face to face with Christ the Great High Priest. Translated by Elizabeth Theokritoff with the author.

Bibliography Sources ਝșĮȞȐıȚȠȢ. ȂȑȖĮȢ. ȀĮIJȐ ݃ȡİȚĮȞࠛȞ | ǺǼȆ 30, 123-330. —. ȆȡާȢ ݃ʌĮȞIJĮȤȠࠎ ȂȠȞĮȤȠީȢ ʌİȡ‫ ޥ‬IJࠛȞ īİȖİȞȘȝȑȞȦȞ ʌĮȡ‫ ޟ‬IJࠛȞ ݃ȡİȚĮȞࠛȞ ‫݋‬ʌ‫ ޥ‬ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȠȣ / ǺǼȆ 31, 242-289. ǺĮıȓȜİȚȠȢ. ȂȑȖĮȢ. ‫ݟ‬șȚțȐ | PG 31, 692-868 | ǺǼȆ 53, 37-136. īȡȘȖȩȡȚȠȢ ĬİȠȜȩȖȠȢ, ǼੁȢ IJઁȞ ȂȑȖĮȞ ǺĮıȓȜİȚȠȞ ਫʌȚIJȐijȚȠȢ, ȃǽ’ | ǺǼȆ 60, 136-179. —. Ǽ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJާ ȂĮIJșĮȓȠȣ | ǺǼȆ 60, 53-63. ǼੁȡȘȞĮ૙ȠȢ. ‫ݕ‬ȜİȖȤȠȢ ȌİȣįȦȞȪȝȠȣ īȞȫıİȦȢ / PG 7, 437-1224. ਫʌȚijȐȞȚȠȢ, ȆĮȞȐȡȚȠȞ | ǺǼȆ 74, 176- 76, 515. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book I (Sects 1-46). Translated by Frank Williams. Second Edition, Revised and Expanded. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2009. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis. Book II & III (Sects 47-80. De Fide). Translated by Frank Williams. Second Edition, Revised and Expanded. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2013. Ǽ੝ıȑȕȚȠȢ. ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚț‫ݰ ޣ‬ıIJȠȡȓĮ | ǺǼȆ 19, 198-20, 105. Hieronymus. Epistolae | PL 22, 325-1182. ੉ȠȣıIJȓȞȠȢ. ݃ʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ǹ’ | ǺǼȆ 3, 162-199. ੉ȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȢ. Ȇİȡ‫ ޥ‬IJȠࠎ IJ‫ޟ‬Ȣ ȀĮȞȠȞȚț‫ޟ‬Ȣ ȝ‫ ޣ‬ȈȣȞȠȚțİ߿Ȟ ݃ȞįȡȐıȚȞ| PG 47, 513-532. —. Ȇİȡ‫ ޥ‬ȆĮȡșİȞȓĮȢ | PG 48, 533-596. —. Ȇİȡ‫ ޥ‬IJȠࠎ ǻȚĮȕȩȜȠȣ, ǹǯ-īǯ | PG 49, 241-276. —. Ǽ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJާ ȀĮIJ੹ ȂĮIJșĮ૙ȠȞ, ǹǯ- ‫ו‬ǯ | PG 57, 13 - 58, 794. —. ȁȩȖȠȚ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ īȑȞİıȚȞ, ǹǯ-Ĭǯ | PG 54, 581-630. —. Ǽ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJާ ȀĮIJ੹ ੉ȦȐȞȞȘȞ, ǹǯ- ȆǾǯ | PG 59, 23-482.

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

347

Tertullianus. De praescriptione haereticorum | CCSL 1 (E. Dekkers, J.G.P. Borleffs, R. Willems, R.F. Refoulé, G.F. Diercks and A. Kroymann (eds.). Tertullianus Opera I Opera catholica. Adversus Marcionem, Turnhout: Brepols 1954): 185-224. Also electronically: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tertullian.html Tertullian. On the prescription of heretics. Translated by T. Herbert Bindley, 1914. Transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2002. http://www.tertullian.org/articles/bindley_test/bindley_test_07prae.htm —. De Baptismo / CCSL 1 (E. Dekkers, J.G.P. Borleffs, R. Willems, R.F. Refoulé, G.F. Diercks and A. Kroymann (eds.). Tertullianus Opera I Opera catholica. Adversus Marcionem, Turnhout: Brepols 1954): 275296. Also electronically: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tertullian.html Tertullian. On Baptism. Edited and translated by Canon Ernest Evans, 1964 and published by SPCK. Transcribed by Roger Pearse, 2001 Also electronically: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_bapt/evans_bapt_text_trans.ht m —. De carne Christi / CCSL II (A. Gerlo, A. Kroymann, R. Willems, J.H. Waszink, J.G.P. Borleffs, A. Reifferscheid, G. Wissowa, E. Dekkers, J.J. Thierry, E. Evans, A. Harnack (eds.). Tertullianus. Opera II. Opera montanistica. Turnhout: Brepols 1954): 871-918. Also electronically: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tertullian.html —. De anima / CCSL II. (A. Gerlo, A. Kroymann, R. Willems, J.H. Waszink, J.G.P. Borleffs, A. Reifferscheid, G. Wissowa, E. Dekkers, J.J. Thierry, E. Evans, A. Harnack (eds.). Tertullianus. Opera II. Opera montanistica. Turnhout: Brepols 1954): 410-541. Also electronically: http://www.thelatinlibrary.com/tertullian.html Tertullian. A Treatise on the Soul. Translated by Peter Holmes, D.D. http://www.tertullian.org/anf/anf03/anf03-22.htm#P2560_840932 ȌİȣįȠțȜȘȝȑȞIJȚĮ | ǺǼȆ 1, 48-232.

Secondary Literature Athanassiadi-Fowden, Polymnia. Julian and Hellenism: An Intellectual Biography. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1981 (See also DZșĮȞĮıȚȐįȘ). ǹȖȠȣȡȓįȘȢ, ȈȐȕȕĮȢ. Ǿ ǹʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘ IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ. ǿıIJȠȡȚțȒ țĮȚ ȈȣȖȤȡȠȞȚıIJȚțȒ ǼȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ ȆȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ. [Agouridis, Savvas. The Revelation of John. Historical and Synchronical Hermeneutic Attempt]. Athens 1980.

348

Chapter Twenty Three

ǹșĮȞĮıȚȐįȘ, ȆȠȜȪȝȞȚĮ. ǿȠȣȜȚĮȞȩȢ: ȂȚĮ ǺȚȠȖȡĮijȓĮ [Athanassiadi, Polymnia. Julian: A Biography]. Translated by ǻȘȝȒIJȡȘȢ ȀȣȡȓIJıȘȢ, revised by the author. Athens: Ȃ.ǿ.Ǽ.ȉ., 2001 (22005). ǹȡȖȣȡȓȠȣ, ǹıIJȑȡȚȠȢ. ȀȠȡȐȞȚȠ țĮȚ ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ. [Argyriou, Asterios. Koran and History]. Athens: ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ǻȚĮțȠȞȓĮ, 1992. ǹıȘȝȐțȘ, DZȞȞȘ, īİȡȐıȚȝȠȢ ȀȠȣıIJȠȣȡȐțȘȢ and ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȀĮȝĮȡȚĮȞȩȢ. «ȅȚ DzȞȞȠȚİȢ IJȘȢ ȃİȦIJİȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȂİIJĮȞİȦIJİȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȚ Ș ȈȤȑıȘ IJȠȣȢ ȝİ IJȘ īȞȫıȘ. ȂȚĮ ȀȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȆȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ». [Asimaki, Anni, Gerasimos Koustourakis and Ioannis Kamarianos. The Concepts of Modernity and Post-Modernity and their Relation to Knowledge. A Sociological Approach]. ȉȠ ǺȒȝĮ IJȦȞ ȀȠȚȞȦȞȚțȫȞ ǼʌȚıIJȘȝȫȞ, 15 / 60 (2011): 99-120. Balsdon, J. P. V. D. Roman Women. Their History and Habits. New York: The John Day Company, 1963. Bauman, Zygmunt. Postmodernity and its Discontents. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997. —. Beyond Postmodernity. Critical Appraisals, Conversations and Annotated Bibliography 1989-2005 (with Michael Hviid Jacobsen, Sophia Marshman and Keith Tester). Aalborg: Aalborg University Press, 2007. Borneman, Ernest. Ǿ ȆĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȓĮ. Ǿ ȆȡȠȑȜİȣıȘ țĮȚ IJȠ ȂȑȜȜȠȞ IJȠȣ ȀȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠȪ ȝĮȢ ȈȣıIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ. Translated by ǻȘȝȠıșȑȞȘȢ ȀȠȪȡIJȠȕȚț, Athens: Ȃ.ǿ.Ǽ.ȉ., 1988. Original edition: Das Patriarchat. Ursprung und Zukunft unseres Gesellschaftssystems, Frankfurt: Fischer, 1975. Boscolo, Luigi and Paolo Bertrando. Systemic Therapy with Individuals. Translated by Carolyn Novick. London: Karnak 1996 (22002). Brown, Peter. The Making of Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1978. —. Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1982. —. The Body and Society. Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, New York: Columbia University Press, Twentieth Anniversary Edition with a New Introduction 2008 (First Edition: 1988). ȂʌȡĮIJıȚȫIJȘȢ, ȆĮȞĮȖȚȫIJȘȢ. Ǿ ǹʌȠțȐȜȣȥȚȢ IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȠȣ. [Bratsiotis, Panagiotis. The Revelation of John]. Athens 1950. Christinakis-Glaros, Irini. “The Principle of the asymptomatic parallels between virginity and marriage and the problem posed by mixed marriages”. Constantin Rus and Emilian-Justinian Roman (eds.), The

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

349

Christian Family / Familia Creútină, Iasi, Editura Universită‫܊‬ii “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”, 2013: 261-268. Collect. Ǿ İʌȚıIJȡȠijȒ IJȘȢ ǾșȚțȒȢ. ȆĮȜĮȚȐ țĮȚ ȃȑĮ ǼȡȦIJȒȝĮIJĮ. [The Return of Ethics. Old and new Questions]. Athens: DZȡIJȠȢ ǽȦȒȢ, 2013. Crone, Patricia and Michael Cook. Hagarism. The Making of the Islamic World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. Dosse, François. L'Histoire en miettes. Des "Annales" à la "nouvelle histoire", Paris, La Découverte, 1987 (2nd edition: Presses Pocket, "Agora", 1997). Ford, David C. Women and Men in the Early Church. The full Views of St. John Chrysostom. Expansion and revision of the author's thesis (Ph.D.) – Drew University, 1989. South Canaan, Pennsylvania: St. Tikhon's Seminary, 1996. ĭȓȜȚĮȢ, ī.ȃ. «ĬİȠȝȘIJȠȡȚțȑȢ ǼȠȡIJȑȢ». ǼȚıȘȖȒıİȚȢ Ǿ’ ȆĮȞİȜȜȘȞȓȠȣ ȈȣȝʌȠıȓȠȣ ȈIJİȜİȤȫȞ ǿİȡȫȞ ȂȘIJȡȠʌȩȜİȦȞ «ȉȠ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȩȞ ǼȠȡIJȠȜȩȖȚȠȞ». [Filias, G.N. “Marian Feasts” Lectures at the 8th Symposium of Diocesan Leaders]. 18-20 September 2006, Volos. http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/HolySynod/commitees/liturgical/h_symp osio_eisigisi4.html (Last accessed 17/10/2015). Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, New York: Harper & Brothers, 1836. Goff, Jacque Le. History and Memory. Translated by Steven Rendall and Elizabeth Claman. New York: Columbia University Press, 1992. īȡȣʌĮȓȠȣ, ǼȝȝĮȞȠȣȑȜĮ. ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩȢ țĮȚ ȀȠȡȐȞȚ. ȂȚĮ DzȡİȣȞĮ ıIJĮ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȐ ȈIJȠȚȤİȓĮ IJȠȣ ǿıȜȐȝ. [Grypaiou, Emmanouela. Christianity and the Koran. A Survey of the Christian Elements in Islam]. Athens: ȂĮǸıIJȡȠȢ , 2010. Hoyland, Robert G. Seeing Islam as Others saw it. A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam. Princeton, N.J.: The Darwin Press 1997. ȀĮȜȜȚȖȑȡȘȢ, ʌ. ǹȞIJȫȞȚȠȢ. īȐȝȠȢ. ǹʌȩ IJȠ ȂȣıIJȒȡȚȠ ıIJȠȞ Ĭİıȝȩ. [Kalligeris, f. Antonios. Marriage. From Sacrament to Institution]. Athens: ȂĮǸıIJȡȠȢ 2008. ȀĮȡĮȕȚįȩʌȠȣȜȠȢ, ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ. “ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ ȆȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ ǽȦȒ ıIJȚȢ ǼʌIJȐ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȑȢ IJȘȢ ǹʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘȢ”. [Karavidopoulos, Ioannis. Church and Spiritual Life in the Seven Epistles of Revelation]. Idem. ǺȚȕȜȚțȑȢ ȂİȜȑIJİȢ. [Biblical Studies]. Thessaloniki: ȆȠȣȡȞĮȡȐȢ, 1995: 186-206. —. “ȊʌȩıȤİıȘ țĮȚ ǼțʌȜȒȡȦıȘ ıIJȘȞ ǹʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘ IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ”. [Promise and Fulfillment in the Revelation of St. John]. Idem. ǺȚȕȜȚțȑȢ ȂİȜȑIJİȢ. [Biblical Studies]. Thessaloniki: ȆȠȣȡȞĮȡȐȢ, 1995: 164-185.

350

Chapter Twenty Three

ȀĮȡȗȒȢ, ĬİȩįȦȡȠȢ. Ǿ īȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȠ ȂİıĮȓȦȞĮ. ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩȢ – ǻȣIJȚțȒ ǼȣȡȫʌȘ – ǺȣȗȐȞIJȚȠ – ǿıȜĮȝȚıȝȩȢ. [Karzis, Theodoros. Woman in the Middle Ages. Christianity – Western Europe – Byzantium – Islamism]. Athens: ĭȚȜȚʌʌȩIJȘȢ , 1989. ȀȠȪțȠȣȡĮ, ǻȒȝȘIJȡĮ ǹ. Ǿ ȇȘIJȠȡȚțȒ țĮȚ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȇȘIJȠȡȚțȒ. ǻȚĮȤȡȠȞȚțȒ ȂİȜȑIJȘ. [Koukoura, Dimitra A. Rhetoric and Church Rhetoric. A Diachronic Study]. Thessaloniki: ȆȠȣȡȞĮȡȐȢ, 22006 (12003). Liakos, Antonis. “The Transformation of Historical Writing from Syntagmatic to Paradigmatic Syntax”. Historein, 2 (2000): 47-54. ȁĮȡȓȠȣ-ǻȡİIJIJȐțȘ, ȂĮȡȓĮ. Ǿ īȣȞĮȓțĮ ıİ ȈȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJȠȞ DZȞįȡĮ țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ ǿİȡȩ ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠ [Lariou-Drettaki, Maria. Woman in Relation to Man according to St. John Chrysostom]. Athens: ȂĮǸıIJȡȠȢ 2010. Mayer, Wendy. “John Chrysostom and Women Revisited”. Wendy Mayer and Ian J. Elmer [eds.]. Men and Women in the Early Christian Centuries. Sydney: St. Paul’s Publications 2014: 211-225. ȂȩıȤȠȢ, ǻȘȝȒIJȡȚȠȢ ȃ. “ǼȖțȡĮIJȚIJȚıȝȩȢ țĮȚ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩȢ ıIJȘȞ ǶıIJİȡȘ ǹȡȤĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ. Ǿ ȆİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȘȢ ǼȡȝȘȞİȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȆĮȡșİȞȓĮȢ ȦȢ ȀĮșĮȡȩIJȘIJĮȢ” [Moschos, Dimitrios N. Encratism and Christianity in Late Antiquity: The Case of Interpretation of Virginity as Purity]. ȈȪȞĮȟȘ, 77 (2001): 18-31. ȅȣȜȒȢ, ǻȘȝȒIJȡȘȢ. ȅ DzȡȦIJĮȢ țĮȚ Ș ȃİȠʌȜĮIJȦȞȓȞȘ. ȂȚĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ȈȦȝĮIJȚțȒȢ ǼʌĮijȒȢ [Oulis, Dimitris. Love and ‘Neoplatonine’. A Theology of Physical Contact]. Athens: ǼȟȐȞIJĮȢ, 2001. Pasquato, Ottorino. I laici in Giovanni Crisostomo. Tra Chiesa, famiglia e citta. Rome: Libreria Ateneo Salesiano 3nd edition, revised and augmented 2006 (11998). ȆĮʌĮȖİȦȡȖȓȠȣ, ʌ. ȆĮȞĮȖȚȫIJȘȢ. “ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ DZıțȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȆĮȡșİȞȓĮȢ ıIJȘȞ DZıțȘıȘ IJȘȢ ǹȖȐʌȘȢ. Ǿ ĮȞĮșİȫȡȘıȘ IJȦȞ ĬȑıİȦȞ IJȠȣ ǹȖȓȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȠȣ IJȠȣ ȋȡȣıȠıIJȩȝȠȣ ʌİȡȓ īȐȝȠȣ”. [Papageorgiou, f. Panagiotis. From the Exercise of Virginity to the Exercise of Love. The Revision of the Position of St. John Chrysostom on Marriage]. ȈȪȞĮȟȘ, 77 (2001): 4959. ȆĮʌĮįȩʌȠȣȜȠȢ, ʌ. ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȞȠȢ ȃ. “ȅ ǿȠȣȜȚĮȞȩȢ țĮȚ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩȢ” [Papadopoulos, Rev. Konstantinos N. Julian and Christianism]. ǼȪȘ ǺȠȣȜȖĮȡȐțȘ-ȆȚıȓȞĮ (ed.). ǹȖȐʌȘ țĮȚ ȂĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ. ǹȞĮȗȘIJȒıİȚȢ ȁȩȖȠȣ țĮȚ dzșȠȣȢ ıIJȠ DzȡȖȠ IJȠȣ ǾȜȓĮ ǺȠȣȜȖĮȡȐțȘ. ǹijȚȑȡȦȝĮ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ȂĮșȘIJȑȢ IJȠȣ [Evi Voulgaraki-Pissina (ed.). Love and Witness. Quests of Logos and Ethos in the Works of Elias Voulgarakis. Tribute by his Students], Athens: ǹțȡȓIJĮȢ, 2001: 215-223.

The Role of Heresies in the Formation of the Patristic Teaching

351

ȆĮIJȡȫȞȠȢ, īİȫȡȖȚȠȢ Ȇ. ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ǼȝʌİȚȡȓĮ IJȠȣ īȐȝȠȣ [Patronos, Georgios P. Theology and Experience of Marriage]. Athens: ǻȩȝȠȢ, 2 2000 (11992). ȆĮȤȒȢ, ȆĮȞĮȖȚȫIJȘȢ. “Ǿ ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ DzȡİȣȞĮȢ IJȦȞ ĬȡȘıțİȚȫȞ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȘȞȚıIJȚțȒȢ ǼʌȠȤȒȢ. ǹȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȘȞ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ țĮȚ IJȘ ȃİȦIJİȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮ” [Pachis, Panagiotis. The History of Research on Religions in the Hellenistic Era. Between Tradition and Modernity]. ĭȚȜȓĮ țĮȚ ȀȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ, ȉȚȝȘIJȚțȩȢ ȉȩȝȠȢ ıIJȠȞ ȀĮșȘȖȘIJȒ īȡȘȖȩȡȚȠ ǻ. ǽȚȐțĮ. [Friendship and Society. Festschrift for Prof. Gregorios D. Ziakas]. Thessaloniki: ǺȐȞȚĮȢ, 2008: 439-509. ȈIJĮȝȠȪȜȘȢ, ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȢ ǹ. DzȡȦȢ țĮȚ ĬȐȞĮIJȠȢ. ǻȠțȚȝȒ ȖȚĮ ȑȞĮȞ ȆȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩ IJȘȢ ȈȐȡțȦıȘȢ [Stamoolis, Chrysostomos A. Eros and Death. An Essay on a Culture of Incarnation]. Athens: ǹțȡȓIJĮȢ 2009. ǺĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘȢ, ȆȑIJȡȠȢ. “ǹȚȡȑıİȚȢ Ȓ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ȉȐıİȚȢ ıIJȠȞ ǹȡȤȑȖȠȞȠ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩ” [Vassiliadis, Petros. Heresies or Theological Tendencies in Ancient Christianity]. Idem. ǺȚȕȜȚțȑȢ ǼȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȑȢ ȂİȜȑIJİȢ [Biblical Hermeneutical Studies], Thessaloniki: ȆȠȣȡȞĮȡȐȢ, 1988: 445-470. ǺĮȖȚĮȞȩȢ, īİȫȡȖȚȠȢ. ȉȠ ǽȒIJȘȝĮ IJȠȣ ǺĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ IJȦȞ ȆĮȜȜĮțȚțȫȞ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȑȦȢ IJȠȞ ǿʌʌȩȜȣIJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ īȡĮȝȝĮIJİȓĮ. ǿİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ țĮȚ ǿıIJȠȡȚțȒ ĬİȫȡȘıȘ [diss.]. [Vayanos, Georgios, The Question of the Baptism of Concubines according to Christian Literature up to Hippolitus. A Missiological and Historical View] Athens 1990. ǺȠȣȜȖĮȡȐțȘ-ȆȚıȓȞĮ, ǼȪȘ. “ȅ DZȖȚȠȢ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ Ƞ ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȢ țĮȚ Ș ǿİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ǻȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞ”. [Voulgaraki-Pisina, Evi. St. John Chrysostom and the Missionary Activity of Women]. ȆȐȞIJĮ IJĮ DzșȞȘ, 45 (1993): 10-12. —. Ǿ ȆȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȦȞ ǼșȞȚțȫȞ țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ DZȖȚȠ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ IJȠ ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠ [Approaching the Pagans According to St. John Chrysostom]. Athens: ȂĮǸıIJȡȠȢ < ȈʌȠȣįȒ IJȦȞ ȆĮIJȑȡȦȞ, 1 ‫ ۅ‬ǿİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȑȢ ȈʌȠȣįȑȢ, 2> [Maistros, Study of the Fathers, 1] ‫ ۅ‬Missiological Studies, 2> 2013. —. ȆİȚșȫ țĮȚ ǼʌȚȕȠȜȒ. ǺĮȕȪȜĮȢ İȞĮȞIJȓȠȞ ǹʌȩȜȜȦȞĮ. DzȞĮ ȆĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ ĬȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȒȢ ȈȪȖțȡȠȣıȘȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ǶıIJİȡȘ ǹȡȤĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ [Voulgaraki-Pisina, Evi. Persuasion and Imposition. A Case of Religious Conflict in Late Antiquity]. Athens: Maistros Publications, forthcoming. ǺȠȣȜȖĮȡȐțȘȢ, ǾȜȓĮȢ. ǹʌȠijȣȖȒ ǹıțȒıİȦȢ ǿİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȒȢ İȚȢ IJȘȞ ǹȡȤĮȓĮȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȞ [Voulgarakis, Elias. The Avoidance of Missionary Activity in the Early Church]. Athens: ȆȠȡİȣșȑȞIJİȢ, 1970.

352

Chapter Twenty Three

—. ǹȚ ȀĮIJȘȤȒıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ȀȣȡȓȜȜȠȣ ǿİȡȠıȠȜȪȝȦȞ. ǿİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ĬİȫȡȘıȚȢ [The Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem. A Missiological View]. Thessaloniki: ȆĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțȩȞ ǴįȡȣȝĮ ȆĮIJİȡȚțȫȞ ȂİȜİIJȫȞ, 1977.

CHAPTER TWENTY FOUR THE POSITION OF WOMEN IN THE CHURCH ACCORDING TO PATRISTIC TEXTS UP TO THE V ECUMENICAL COUNCIL EIRINI ARTEMI

Abstract: The position of women in Christianity has been the cause of much discussion and a variety of reactions. Many conservatives argue that the position of women should be limited to the extent of being non-existent, while others believe that woman should have a more active role. The discussions between these two sides on the role of women often create sharp disagreements and have, at times, resulted in accusations and hostility. The view of every Christian, whether or not based on sound arguments, should be respected, even if there is disagreement. In this paper, I will avoid expressing personal opinions on this issue but will leave it to the patristic texts up until the 5th century to talk about the position of women. In Orthodoxy, the path of our theological thinking must always be traced and should be based on the Bible, the texts of the Fathers, of local and ecumenical councils and on the tradition of our Church.

Introduction The position of women in Christianity has been the cause of much discussion and a variety of reactions. Many conservatives argue that the position of women should be limited to the extent of being non-existent, while others believe that woman should have a more active role. The discussions between these two sides on the role of women often create sharp disagreements and have, at times, resulted in accusations and hostility. The view of every Christian, whether or not based on sound arguments, should be respected, even if there is disagreement. In this paper, I will avoid expressing personal opinions on this issue but will leave it to the patristic texts up until the 5th century to talk about the position of women. In Orthodoxy, the path of our theological thinking must always be traced

354

Chapter Twenty Four

and should be based on the Bible, the texts of the Fathers, of local and ecumenical councils and on the tradition of our Church.

1. The position of Women from the Old to the New Testament The God of the Old Testament created woman as an “assistant”1 to man, equal to him with the purpose of the two together achieving "likeness", namely, deification. The way towards “likeness” was interrupted because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience against God's command: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”2 The violation of the divine word brought people’s spiritual death, i.e. their going away from God. God selected new treatment methods for his favorite creature. One of them was the subordination of women to men in order to succeed in the eschatological conquest of God’s kingdom in a restored world, without any pollutant sin.3 The woman “comes under”4 (kowtows to) the man, not as a servant but as his assistant. This is analyzed in a simple and lively manner by John the Chrysostom: “making a likeness of those limbs from that tiny part, creating such wonderful senses, and preparing a creature complete, entire and perfect, capable both of speaking and of providing much comfort to man by a sharing of her being.”5 The above view is pointed out by Prof. Patronos: “the woman is the ‘helpmate’ of man with a soteriological sense.”6 The woman should be the coadjutor, supporter of 1

Gen. 2, 20. Gen. 2, 16-17. 3 John Chrysostom, Quod regulares feminae viris cohabitare non debeant, 9, PG 47, 513-532. 4 The verb, to “kowtow,” referring to women, perhaps annoys some people. When someone abides – obeys another man, it doesn’t mean that they would obey without reaction or thinking. Of course, subservience is not only a wife’s obligation. The certain apostle Paul speaks of Christians “submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph. 5:21). It is not only women who should submit to men, but also men to women. Based on the Bible, the woman is the “boss” of her husband’s body: “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife” (1 Cor. 7:4). 5 John Chrysostom, In Genesim, hom. 15, PG 53, 122A. 6 G. Patronos, The marriage in theology and life, Athens 1981, p.27. cf. P. 2

The Position of Women in the Church according to Patristic Texts

355

man and fellow traveler on the difficult path to perfection and union with God. Therefore, Paul says: “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”7 That woman becomes the “assistant” for the salvation of the man and, at the same time, the man becomes the “helpmate” in salvation for woman. Unfortunately, society in the Old Testament did not yield to the woman.8 Both in terms of social and religious rights, the position of women was marginalized as second-class human beings, and as unholy.9 Of course, every rule has its exceptions, so through the texts of the Old Testament, women appear who were prominent in social and religious fields, proving beyond any doubt that the grace of God does not discriminate between men and women. There are typical cases concerning a prophetess and even women judges, such as Mary, Deborah,10 Huldah and Iail.11 Also, everyone remembers the important position that had been acquired or “captured” by women like Sarah, Rebecca, Rachel, Deborah, Ruth, Esther, and many more others in the society of Israel. God revealed the words that he, as an enfleshed God, would say in his teachings after many centuries. For Him, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise.”12 In the text of the proverbs, it is underlined that a sensible wife is a present for her husband.13 But the latter can only have this present if he can put God’s order into practice. In the Wisdom of Shirah, it is written: “The husband of a good wife is a fortunate man; he will live twice as long because of her. A fine wife is a joy to her husband, and he can live out his years in peace. A good wife is among the precious blessings given to those who fear the Lord. Whether such men are rich or poor, they will be happy and always look cheerful.”14

Trebelas, Dogmatic C’, publ. Sotir, Athens 1981, p.324. 7 1 Cor. 7:14. 8 Ex. 20: 17; 21:5. Numb. 27: 1-11; Deut. 21:22; 16:16; Lev. 21: 1-5. 9 Numb. 27:1-11; Deut. 21:22; 16:16; Lev. 21:1-5. 10 Deborah is called mother of Israel. 11 Ex. 15:20. Jud. 4:4-5:25 & 31. 4 King 22:14-20. 12 Gal. 3:28-29. 13 Prov. 11:16: “A gracious woman retaineth honour: and strong men retain riches”. Cf Ibid 14:1. 14 Wisdom of Shirah 26:1-4.

356

Chapter Twenty Four

The question however, that arises in our minds, is why, since God created and accepted woman equal to man, the society of the Israelites considered her inferior to him, as proved through the texts of the Old Testament? The reason is simple. The influence of the different social conditions was the main cause for the inferiority of women in society and religion, over that already given to man.15 Moreover, Old Testament society was patriarchal rather than matriarchal,16 and women were forced to remain within their families to bring up children, supervise slaves, and carry out housework, while the man was obliged to provide what was necessary for the survival of his family.17 With the advent of Christ, things changed. Christ did not only proclaim the equality of all people,18 but with his attitude and teaching he elevated women again. Characteristically, he highlighted the injustice of the Law of Moses concerning women, noting: “He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.”19 The New Testament assessment of women becomes evident through the respect that was attributed by the Fathers to Our Holy Lady, who is called the new Eve.20 Through her obedience, she managed to become the bridge via which the second person of the Trinity, 15 Although the woman in the society of Israel existed as a person and her existence was recognized, the Judean man was saying, at the beginning of the daily morning prayers: “Blessed are you, Lord, our God, ruler of the universe who has not created me a gentile, or a woman or a slave”, Lexicon of Biblical Theology, “Woman”, p. 228, 230. 16 Ǽ. & W. Goodman, The family, Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow, New York 1975, pp.22-37. cf G. Morichovitis, Sociology of the Modern Family, Athens 1982, pp.41-44. 17 E. Borneman, The patriarchy, publ. MIET, Athens 1988, pp.70-74, 160-168. 18 Gal. 3:28-29. 19 Matt. 19:8. 20 “Indeed, for Adam alone, for whose sake the visible universe had been fashioned, no help mate was found before Eve whereas all other creatures had what they needed; but for the Word, Who had brought all things into being and had allotted suitable locations for each creature, there was no house or place before the Virgin. Eve was the only assistant of Adam from the kingdom of animals and plants, because she was the only human. Similarly only the Virgin from the whole creation helped God to manifest His goodness and His charity. She was the only one with her sanctity and virtuous life who participated in God's righteousness. God didn't find just only a suitable instrument in the person of the Virgin, such as the sculptor trying to find a suitable tool that serve to achieve its objective, but He found a unique and capable partner, ‘an accomplice who was apropos.’ This mate could help the work of the Divine Economy,” Nicholas Kabasilas, Homily on Assumption 6, P. Nella, Theomitor, Athens 1990, p.108-110.

The Position of Women in the Church according to Patristic Texts

357

the divine Logos, became man, in order to save human beings from sin and the bondage of death. In this way, He redeemed man from the power of demons, raising the possibility of the objective salvation and reunification with the Triune God. Christ did not hesitate to socialize prostitutes,21 to talk with the Samaritan woman,22 and to forgive the adulteress.23 His attitude showed the direct and indirect way that he considered woman to be fair with the man. Furthermore, in the wide circle of his students there were not only men but also women. Finally, the resurrected Christ manifested to the myrrh-bearing women24 first and not to his disciples.25 Clearly, through these myrrh-bearing women, it seems there is an interesting ecclesiological interpretation of the ministry of women in the work and mission of the risen Christ.26 The woman is not crowded, nor on the side-lines of events,

21

Louk. 7:47. John 4: 5-42. 23 John 8:1-11. 24 Mary Magdalene was one of the myrrh-bearing women and “equal to the apostles.” She was born in the town of Magdala along the shore of Lake Gennesaret, and was from the tribe of Issachar. She was tormented by seven evil spirits from which the Lord Jesus freed her and made her whole. She was a faithful follower and servant of the Lord during his earthly life. Mary Magdalene stood beneath the Cross on Golgotha and grieved bitterly and mourned with the all-holy birth-giver of God. After the death of the Lord, she visited his tomb three times. When the Lord resurrected, she saw Him on two occasions: once alone and a second time with the other myrrh-bearing women. She traveled to Rome and appeared before Tiberias Caesar, presenting him with a red-colored egg and greeting him with the words: “Christ is Risen!” At the same time, she accused Pilate before Caesar of his unjust condemnation of the Lord Jesus. Caesar accepted her accusation and transferred Pilate from Jerusalem to Gaul where this unjust judge, out of favor with the emperor, died of a dreadful disease. After that, Mary Magdalene returned from Rome and, having passed through Italy, France, Egypt, Phoenicia, Syria and Pamphylia to preach Christ, returned to Jerusalem, where she stayed for a period of time with the Theotokos. She died peacefully in Ephesus and, according to tradition, was buried in the same cave in which seven youths were miraculously put to sleep for hundreds of years before being brought back to life and then dying (August 4). The relics of St. Mary Magdalene were later transferred to Constantinople. There is a Russian Orthodox convent dedicated to St. Mary Magdalene, near the Garden of Gethsemane. 25 S. Agouridis, The evangelical history of the Passion and the role of women. Theology and Society in Dialogue, ed. Bread of Life, Athens 1999, p.286. 26 Ibid. 22

358

Chapter Twenty Four

unlike her participation in God's plan for the salvation of man, which is intense.27 Through the Acts of the Apostles and other books of the New Testament it seems that it is an equitable but at the same time, special place, that the Church gives to women. Characteristically, Priscilla,28 Lydia,29 St. Thekla and countless other women are named and referred to. These women were partners in the work of preaching and ministry in the life of the Church.30 In his letters concerning the labors and tribulations of the apostles, the apostle Paul said of these phrases:31 “who worked very hard for you,” “who has worked hard in the Lord,” “who worked much in the Lord.”32 On the question of deaconesses, there are references to the “deaconess woman” in Romans.33 Here, Phoebe is mentioned, who is considered by the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church to be a model of the female deaconess. Then, there is the passage from 1st Timothy,34 which refers to deaconesses. Finally, based on John Chrysostom's words, there is: “Even so must the women be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Some have thought that this is said of women generally, but it is not so, for why should he introduce anything about women to interfere with his subject? He is speaking of those who hold the rank of Deaconesses.”35

27

Ch. Theodorou, “Homily on Sunday of Myrrh-bearing” (8/5/2011), Holy Metropolis of Konstantias and Ammochostou, http://www.imconstantias.org.cy/441.html 28 Rom. 16:3; Acts 18:2-3. 29 Acts 16:14. 30 Acts 1:14; 9:36; 9:41, 12:12; 16:14. In the epistles of the apostle Paul there are the names of women: Apfa, Euniki, Claudia, Lois, Maria, Sintichi, Eodia and Foibi. Cf Filim. 2:16; 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:11; 4:21. Rom. 16:1-6. Filip. 4:2. 31 John Karavidopoulos, “Iounias or Iounia? Critical review of the texts and the interpreting analysis of Rom. 16:7,” in the honorable volume Church – Ecumenism Policy. Devoted to Bishop of Metropolitan Damascinus, ex bishop of Helvetia, 2007, p. 309-324. 32 Rom. 16:6; 16:12; 1 Cor. 4:12, 15:10, 16:16. Gal. 4:11. Phil. 2:16. Col. 1:29; 1 Thes. 5:12; 1 Tim. 4:10, etc. 33 Rom. 16:1-2; “I’m introducing our sister Phoebe to you, who is a servant[a] of the church in Cenchreae. Welcome her in the Lord in a way that is worthy of God’s people [...] because she herself has been a sponsor of many people, myself included.” 34 1 Tim. 3:11: “In the same way, women who are servants in the church should be dignified and not gossip. They should be sober and faithful in everything they do.” 35 John Chrysostom, Commentary on 1 Timothy, 3, 11, PG 62, 53.

The Position of Women in the Church according to Patristic Texts

359

In conclusion, it can be seen through the writings of the Old Testament that the woman has a subordinate position in society and in religious duties, according to the Israelite religion. Of course, there are some notable exceptions. With Christ's advent, teaching and public action, the position of women became equal to that of men. So, in the New Testament, we can find the names of enough women who appear to play an important role in the Church. The coming of the incarnated word exalted women. Jesus’ teachings and example, gave women the opportunity to rediscover their “ancient and initial beauty.”36

2. The status of women through the patristic texts and decisions of councils The presence of the woman was assumed to be identical and equal to that of man. This teaching found expression in the face of the Virgin Mary, our Theotokos. Many Fathers of the Church referred to distinguished women such as Olympians and Mary Magdalene, who were characterized by John the Chrysostom as “heroic and brave.”37 Macrina managed to reach deification and her sacrifice was emulated. The Fathers dared, however, to report the general position that women should be given in Christian society and the Church. This shows how much value the woman has in patristic teaching. The Fathers understood the unjust legislation against women and tried to condemn it every day. Gregory Nazianzus defended feminine nature, which suffered injustice by the law. His passion to rectify this injustice led him to highlight it in front of the emperor, Theodosius the Great.38 He emphasized that he refused to accept the law, which was against women, because the legislators were men.39 This, however, is underlined by the 36

“The Church is the existential environment of her members. In Church’s liturgical life and, particularly, in the context of Eucharist the believers can experience the sotiriological results of His sacrifice. It is a basic theological inconsistency for one to believe in Christ, Who recapitulated the divided man and the Creation in His God-man hypostasis and, at the same time, to be confined in his weakness to conceptualize the restoration of man’s unity in God-man’s person. And the worst of that is, the distinction of the human beings, into male and female, still remains as a criterion of difference in the new era of Kingdom of God. At this point we could approach our topic on a christological and sotiriological basis,” Maximus Confessor, In Ambiguum, 10, PG 91, 1249A. 37 John Chrysostom, Oration 40, PG 8, 823AB. 38 Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 37, PG 36, 281-308. 39 Ibid, PG 36, 289AB: “They who made the Law were men, and therefore their

360

Chapter Twenty Four

Father that contradicted the creation of the man and woman by God. Adam and Eve were both created with soil but also “in God’s image” and “after God’s likeness.”40 Moreover, the laws of people blatantly and unfairly contrasted the wife with God's laws. God commanded the man and woman to be honored the same as parents.41 St. Gregory the Theologian condemned the society that wanted the woman to be faithful and at the same time forgave the man who committed adultery.42 On the subject of these elastic morals, Gregory contrasted the just punishment that both had suffered from God. They disobeyed God’s commandment, sinned, were both punished with eviction from Paradise and deprived of ownership of the primordial state. But God gave both of them the hope of salvation with the coming of Christ:43 “If you enquire into the worse— The Woman Sinned, and so did Adam. The serpent deceived them both; and one was not found to be the stronger and the other the weaker. But do you consider the better? Christ saves both by His Passion. Was He made flesh for the Man? So He was also for the woman. Did He die for the Man? The Woman also is saved by His death. He is called of the seed of David; and so perhaps you think the Man is honored; but He is born of a Virgin, and this is on the Woman's side. They two, He says, shall be one Flesh; so let the one flesh have equal honor. And Paul legislates for chastity by His example. How, and in what way? This sacrament is great, he says, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church. It is well for the wife to revere Christ through her husband and it is well for the husband not to dishonor the Church through his wife. Let the wife, he says, see that she revere her husband, for so she does Christ; but also he bids the husband cherish his wife, for so Christ does the Church. Let us, then, give further consideration to this saying.”44 The same view is expressed by the Cappadocian Fathers, other Fathers, and ecclesiastical writers. For example, Theodoret of Cyrus accused male legislation is hard on women.” 40 Ibid, PG 36, 289C: “There is one Maker of man and woman; from soil both, one image of God, legislation, one death, one resurrection.” 41 Ibid, PG 36, 289BC: “God does not so; but says ‘Honour your father and your mother,’ which is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with you; and, He that curses father or mother, let him die the death. Similarly He gave honour to good and punishment to evil.” 42 Ibid, PG 36, 289AB: “For what was the reason why they restrained the woman, but indulged the man, and that a woman who practices evil against her husband's bed is an adulteress, and the penalties of the law for this are very severe; but if the husband commits fornication against his wife, he has no account to give? I do not accept this legislation; I do not approve this custom.” 43 Ibid, PG 36, 289C. 44 Ibid, PG 36, 289CD. Gen. 3:6; Rom. 1:3; Eph. 5:32.

The Position of Women in the Church according to Patristic Texts

361

lawmakers of not “tak[ing] care about the equality.”45 While the other two, Cappadocian St. Basil46 and his brother Gregory of Nyssa,47 noted that injustice was shown in the legislation against women, and emphasized that God created male and female humans as equal. Asterios of Amaseas48 explained in his homily in Matthew’s Gospel that the woman could not be prosecuted in her matrimonial house for any reason. This created a firewall against the woman who was the wife and mother. Great Basil,49 Theodore of Mopsuestia50 and several other ecclesiastical writers are included in this list of those who, through their writings, defended women. They did not, however, follow the teaching of Christ on the equality of women with men,51 but put it into practice. Clement of Alexandria is included in these. In his writing, “Paedagogus,” he noted that, as the consequences of intellectual equality between the sexes: “the virtue of man and woman is the same. For if the God of both is one, the master of both is also one; one church, one temperance, one modesty; their food is common, marriage an equal yoke; respiration, sight, hearing, knowledge, hope, obedience, love all alike. And those, whose life is common, have common graces and a common salvation; common to them are love and training [...] Common therefore, too, to men and women, is the name of man.”52 Cyril of Jerusalem proclaimed several years later that in the parity of the two sexes before God, all people, either men or women, have the same soul. The only thing in which they differ is in some external characteristics.53 Indeed, he compared the man and the woman to parts of a body, which are different but all work together harmoniously to “praise God.”54 All these ecclesiastical writers and Fathers defended the women of their time, before the law and society treated women as inferior to men, pointing out that man and woman form a single entity in man. They Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on 1st Corinthians, PG 82, 272D. Basilius of Caesarea, On the witness Julitta, PG 31, 241AB. 47 Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man. "That man is a likeness of the Divine sovereignty", PG 30, 33C. 48 Asterius of Amaseas, Homily 5th from Matthew’s Gospel on: “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?” PG 40, 236C. 49 Basil of Caesarea, To the witness Julitta, PG 31, 241A: “They not only can be equal to men in the life of virtue, they are equal to men in all ways. Her virtue is universal. Men and women are made of the same dough, physically and morally.” 50 Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary on Malachia, PG 66, 597- 632. 51 Ibid. 52 Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus, 1,4, 10,1, PG 8, 260C. 53 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses, 20, PG 33, 480C. 54 Ibid. 45 46

362

Chapter Twenty Four

stressed that both sexes were created as equal by the creator. They were punished equally for their disobedience and, through the incarnation, the Passion, the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ, they were given the objective possibility of salvation and “likeness.” But there is one Father who wrote great speeches on women and their roles in society, marriage and the significant contribution of giving birth to children. This prelate was John Chrysostom. In reading Chrysostom's writings, it is easy to understand that he adorned women with praise. Based on this, his advice was given to both sexes for the wedding; it is clear how highly he regarded women and considered them to be the equal of men. The Patriarch of Constantinople strongly opposed the abandonment of the wife by the husband, even if the husband was seeking spiritual perfection through monasticism. Further, in marriage, through the cohabitation of man and woman, one can reach perfection. Specifically, he emphasized: “There is herein another no less profitable benefit to derive, and that which best maintains our life is established. What is this? Not to condemn marriage, nor to consider it an impediment or obstacle on the path leading to virtue, to have a wife, to rear children, to preside over a household, and to work at a trade with one’s hands. Behold here a man and a woman, and they excelled in the work place and practiced a trade and demonstrated a more accurate spiritual insight to those living in monasteries.”55 Furthermore, John Chrysostom infringed the tradition of his era, which was hard on women regarding adultery. He advised that a husband should not “dismiss” his wife, even if she had many defects. He thought the marriage insoluble except if there was prostitution or adultery. In this, divorce because of adultery was considered allowable for reasons of human cruelty. But Christ relativized it with His sacrifice! It is better for the man not to separate from his wife even when she had committed adultery.56 Moreover, he denounced the attitude of some men who, although married, subjugated their wives by visiting brothels in order to find pleasure. He noted that: “Your wife did not come to you, leaving her father and mother and her whole household, so that you could dishonor her [...] you took a companion, a partner for your life, a free woman of equal honor with yourself. Would it not be foolish to receive her dowry, treat it with all good will, and diminish nothing of it, but to corrupt and ruin that which is more valuable than the whole dowry, namely chastity and 55 56

John Chrysostom, Homily on the Greeting to Priscilla and Aquila, PG 51, 190A. John Chrysostom, Sermon on marriage, PG 51, 219A.

The Position of Women in the Church according to Patristic Texts

363

holiness, as well as your own body, which is her possession? If you diminish her dowry, you give cause for a lawsuit to your father-in-law. If you diminish chastity, you will pay the penalty to God who instituted marriage and protects woman.”57 Through his work, Chrysostom explained how a man should behave and talk to his spouse within marriage. From Chrysostom's words, it is profane how the Holy Father considered the husband and his wife as distinct and yet equal at the same time. As far as the term “deaconess” for women is concerned, the first witness is identified in the letter to the Romans, where Phoebe is mentioned. She was “a deaconess of the church in Kenchreais” and “was born as protector of many believers.”58 In 111 or 112 AD, Pliny the Younger wrote to Trajan and mentioned the existence of women deaconesses in Bithynia.59 The term “deaconesses” was mentioned by Clement of Alexandria,60 Origen, in the surviving “Teaching of the Apostles in Syriac,” translated in the Apostolic Orders. Additionally, the 6th Justinianic Novellae Constitutione underlined that in the church of Hagia Sophia, 40 female deacons must serve.61 The 3rd Justinianic Novellae Constitutione, entitled “That the number of clergymen of the holy Great Church (at Constantinople) and of the other holy churches of this fortunate city shall be limited,”62 stated that the church of Hagia Sofia must not serve more than 60 presbyters, 100 deacons, 40 deaconesses, 90 subdeacons, 100 readers, and 25 singers. The total number of the clergy of St. Sophia is 425. Besides these, 100 doorkeepers served in the temple.63 The deaconesses were chosen after an “exact test.”64 These women had to be derived from the classes of virgins,65 dedicated to God, or from 57

Ibid., PG 51, 213D-215A. Rom. 16: 1-2. 59 Plinii, ad Traianum, ep. XCVI, 8, publ. Kukula, Leipzig 1908, p.316. 60 Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, III, 6, PG 8, 1157B: “... and took their wives with them not as women with whom they had marriage relations, but as sisters, that they might be their fellow-ministers in dealing with housewives. It was through them that the Lord's teaching penetrated also the women's quarters without any scandal being aroused. We also know the directions about women deacons which are given by the noble Paul in his second letter to Timothy.” 61 The 6th Justinianic Novellae Constitutione, chapter 14 in R. Schoell-G Kroll (ਥțį.), Corpus juris ciuilis, IJȠȝ. 3: Novellae, Berlin 1895, p.43. 62 The 3rd Justinianic Novellae Constitutione, țİij. ǿį’ İȞ R. Schoell-G Kroll (ਥțį.), Corpus juris ciuilis, IJȠȝ. 3: Novellae, Berlin 1895, ı. 18. 63 Ibid, p.21. 64 th 4 Ecumenical Council, canon 15, in Amilka Alivizatou, The holy canons and the ecclesiastic laws, Athens 1949, p.54. 58

364

Chapter Twenty Four

widows who had married only once.66 Spouses of bishops could become deaconesses.67 Prestigious nuns who were bigwigs or female abbots of monasteries could also be ordained.68 Those who became deaconesses were required to have virtue, missionary thought, and spirit ministry to imitate Christ.69 As well as these characteristics, they needed to be educated to enable them to respond to the task of teaching.70 They also, however, had to be adorned with the virtues of gentleness, fairness, quietness, good-heartedness, while also being meek, quiet, gentle, sincere, free from anger, not talkative or clamorous, not hasty in speech or given to evil-speaking, not captious, not double-tongued and not a busy-body.”71 Generally, deaconesses were one of the subjects of the holy canons: 19th of the First Ecumenical Council; 15th of the Fourth Ecumenical Council; 14th, 15th, 40th and 48th of Quinisext Ecumenical Council; and 44th canon of Great Basil. Specifically, Great Basil emphasized: “the deaconess's body, as conventionally, is not permissible in carnal use.”72 The Fourth Ecumenical (451 AD), which was attended by many great bishops, consulted a woman to be able to make the right decision. The woman was St. Efthemia. Her imperishable relics were kept in Constantinople, where they remain today, in Istanbul. The bishops placed with the holy relic an Orthodox text and a Monophysite dogmatic text. They sealed the tomb and, in the morning when they opened it, saw the Orthodox holy text in the hands of the relic, while under her feet was the heretical text.73

65 Apostolic Constitutes, VI, 17, PG 1, 957A. Ev. Theodorou, The ordination or laying on of hands on the deaconesses, Athens 1954, p.317. 66 The 6th Justinianic Novellae Constitutione, chapter 14 in R. Schoell-G Kroll (ਥțį.), Corpus juris ciuilis, IJȠȝ. 3: Novellae, Berlin 1895, p.43. 67 48th canon of the The Quinisext Ecumenical Council: “And if she is deemed worthy she may be advanced to the dignity of a deaconess,” in Amilka Alivizatou, The holy canons and the ecclesiastic laws, Athens 1949, p.98. 68 Theodore of Balsamon, Interpretation to the 47th canon the Quinisext Ecumenical Council in Troullo, PG 137, 658A. Ev. Theodorou, The ordination or laying on of hands on the deaconesses, Athens 1954, p.317. 69 Apostolic Constitutes, III, 19, PG 1, 801-804. 70 The 6th Justinianic Novellae Constitutione, XI & XIV, PG 1, 1037-1040: “The deaconesses, as the rest priests should have the elementary education, at least.” 71 Apostolic Constitutes, III, 5, PG 1, 768B. 72 Basil of Caesarea, Epistle 199- To Amphilochius concerning canons, 44, PG 32, 729A. 73 Epistle to the emperor Leon.

The Position of Women in the Church according to Patristic Texts

365

The Theodosian Code stated that deaconesses should be over the age of 60 years.74 In some cases, however, there were exceptions to ordaining deaconesses regardless of their age. In particular, such an exception was made regarding the Olympian, who was very young and “became widow [...] was ordained by deacon Nektarios.”75 The 15th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council underlined that: “No person shall be ordained deaconess except she be forty years of age. If she shall dishonour her ministry by contracting a marriage, let her be anathema.”76 Prof. Theodorou notes that the Quinisext Council in Trullo tried to encourage pious women to be ordained as deaconesses. Obviously in its 40th canon, it is noted: “For it is written in the divine Apostle that a widow is to be elected in the church at sixty years old: but the sacred canons have decreed that a deaconess shall be ordained at forty, since they saw that the Church by divine grace had gone forth more powerful and robust and was advancing still further, and they saw the firmness and stability of the faithful in observing the divine commandments. Wherefore we also, since we most rightly comprehend the matter, appoint the benediction of grace to him who is about to enter the struggle according to God, even as impressing speedily a certain seal upon him, hereupon introducing him to the not-long-to-be-hesitated-over and declined, or rather inciting him even to the choice and determination of good.”77 St. Epiphanius emphasizes characteristically: “that the battalion of deaconesses is in the Church but not for being priests.” In addition to the functions of deaconesses, Epiphanius of Cyprus argued that: “There is in the Church, however, the order of deaconesses, but it does not exist for the purpose of exercising priestly functions or for the purpose of confiding certain tasks to women. It exists for the purpose of preserving decency for the female sex whether in connection with baptism or in connection with the examination of sufferings or pain, or whenever the bodies of women are required to be uncovered, so that they need not be exposed to the gaze of the men officiating, but instead be viewed only by the deaconess, who receives from the priest the order to take care of the woman at the time of her nudity.”78 74

Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 2: De episcopis et dericis, law 27, publ. Mommsen – Mayer 1905, p.843. 75 Sozomenos Scholasticus, Ecclesiastic History, VII, 9, PG 67, 1537C. 76 th 4 Ecumenical Council, canon 15, in Amilka Alivizatou, The holy canons and the ecclesiastic laws, Athens 1949, p.54. 77 Ev. Theodorou, The ordination or laying on of hands on the deaconesses, Athens 1954, p.318. 78 Epiphanius of Cyprus, Panarion, PG 42, 744D.

366

Chapter Twenty Four

From the above, it is clear that the Fathers of the Church considered women to be equal to men and for this reason did not accept the legislation. Even within marriage, the Fathers introduced innovations because they regarded both spouses as equals. The spouses were invited to compete and win the medal in the difficult sport of love. This increased the spiritual dimension of the wedding conjugation and led the couple to the family that is the “home Church.” The fact that the main purpose of marriage was the mutual support and complement of spouses indicated that both spouses were an indissoluble unity before God, with equal rights and obligations. Through the patristic texts, the parity of the woman with the man is proclaimed. For the Fathers and the Church, men and women were divided into sexes. They were persons who were, on the one hand, revealing in their innermost selves their sacramental “otherness” and charismatic richness of the gifts of God, while on the other hand revealing their identity through the grace, when they converged towards the common first created man, and became a new man “in the Christ.”

Epilogue In this paper I discussed the status of women through patristic texts. Through these texts, it became very clear that the Fathers regarded women as being equal to men. There are certainly passages from the same writings that, if looked at in isolation, would appear to comprehensively devalue the female sex. But this is not the case. Let us not forget that, in Christianity, the person who is honored more after the Triune God is the holy Virgin Mary herself. One woman, the Theotokos, is the new Eve, whereby the “curse” of the first Eve expired. Because of her, the new Adam was born — the incarnated word of God — in order to correct the error of his forefather Adam, and defeat death for the sake of the human race. The woman, then, through the face of the holy virgin, is exalted. The Fathers referred to the role of women as deaconesses. I considered that it would not be appropriate to make extensive reference to the role of women in relation to ordination as deaconess. After all, at this conference there has been an extensive report about this subject from my favorite and former dean, Prof. Evangelos Theodorou, and there is also his doctoral thesis. For me to make any further extensive reference to the ordination of women would be to undermine what Prof. Theodorou has already said and written.

CHAPTER TWENTY FIVE WOMEN IN THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH ANTONIA KYRIATZI

Abstract: In this article, two main points are discussed: a) the position of women in the Orthodox Church; b) the influence of women as authors and researchers on the subject of the history of the Church. The study of the history of the Church has been dominated by male clerics. Only in recent years have women been able to study and teach this subject themselves. However much the role of women has been understated, its presence in the life of the Church is undeniable. From the birth of Jesus Christ to the resurrection, notable and influential women include the Virgin Mary and Mary Magdalene. Another woman worth mentioning is Lydia, who was the first to accept Paul’s teachings. Women bearing the title of “saint”, as well as noble and peasant women during the Byzantine and later, the Ottoman period, contributed heavily to the work of the Orthodox Church. In recent years, women’s place in society has improved greatly, leading to increased participation in the life of the Church.

ȈIJȠ ȖȞȦıIJȚțȩ ʌİįȓȠ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ İȟİIJȐȗİIJĮȚ Ș ʌȠȡİȓĮ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ țĮȚ IJȠ ȤȡȩȞȠ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ȝİ țȑȞIJȡȠ IJȠȞ ǿȘıȠȪ ȋȡȚıIJȩ, ıIJȠȤİȪİȚ ıIJȘȞ İțʌȜȒȡȦıȘ IJȘȢ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȒȢ IJȘȢ ıIJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ, IJȘ ȜȪIJȡȦıȘ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠȣ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ, IJȘȞ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ IJİȜİȓȦıȘ IJȘȢ ǺĮıȚȜİȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ.1 Ȃİ IJȠȞ ȩȡȠ «İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ» ĮȞĮijİȡȩȝĮıIJİ ıIJȠ ıȪȞȠȜȠ IJȦȞ ȖİȖȠȞȩIJȦȞ ʌȠȣ İțIJȣȜȓȤșȘțĮȞ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȓįȡȣıȘ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȚȢ ȝȑȡİȢ ȝĮȢ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıIJȠ ȖȞȦıIJȚțȩ ĮȞIJȚțİȓȝİȞȠ IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ İȟİIJȐȗİȚ IJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȈȣȞİʌȫȢ IJȠ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ IJȘȢ șȑıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ «İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ» ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȑȤİȚ įȚIJIJȒ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȘ. ǹijȠȡȐ ıIJȘ șȑıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȘ șȑıȘ ʌȠȣ țĮIJȑȤȠȣȞ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȠȣȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȠȪȢ, ıȣȞIJȐțIJİȢ, İȡİȣȞȘIJȑȢ, ıȣȖȖȡĮijİȓȢ IJȘȢ.

1

ĭİȚįȐȢ Ǻ., ǼțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ, IJ. ǹǯ, ǹșȒȞĮȚ 32002, ıIJȠȞ ʌȡȩȜȠȖȠ.

368

Chapter Twenty Five

ȂİȜİIJȫȞIJĮȢ țĮȞİȓȢ IJĮ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞĮ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJĮ ʌĮȜĮȚȩIJİȡĮ İȖȤİȚȡȓįȚĮ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞIJȚțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ IJȦȞ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ ıȤȠȜȫȞ, įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ įȪıțȠȜȠ ȞĮ įȚĮʌȚıIJȫıİȚ ıIJȠ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ IJȘȢ ȪȜȘȢ IJȘȞ ȚıȤȞȒ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ǼȪțȠȜĮ İʌȓıȘȢ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ įȚĮʌȚıIJȫıİȚ țĮȚ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ IJȠ ĮȞIJȚțİȓȝİȞȠ ȣʌȘȡİIJȒșȘțİ Įʌȩ ȐȞįȡİȢ, țȣȡȓȦȢ țȜȘȡȚțȠȪȢ.2 ǻȚțĮȚȠȜȠȖȘȝȑȞĮ ȕȑȕĮȚĮ, ĮijȠȪ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȠȚ țȜȘȡȚțȠȓ țȣȡȓȦȢ İȞĮıȤȠȜȒșȘțĮȞ ȝİ IJĮ ʌȡȠȕȜȒȝĮIJĮ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ȗȦȒȢ țĮȚ IJĮ țĮIJȑȖȡĮȥĮȞ ıȣȝȕȐȜȜȠȞIJĮȢ ıIJȘ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞIJȚțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ. DZȜȜȦıIJİ Ș ʌȡȩıȕĮıȘ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ IJȡȚIJȠȕȐșȝȚĮ İțʌĮȓįİȣıȘ ȝȩȜȚȢ IJȚȢ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓİȢ įİțĮİIJȓİȢ ĮȣȟȒșȘțİ ȝİ ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıȝĮ IJȘȞ ĮȪȟȘıȘ IJȠȣ ʌȠıȠıIJȠȪ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȚȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ıȤȠȜȑȢ țĮȚ IJȘ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘȞ ȑȡİȣȞĮ țĮȚ IJȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȘȞ İȞĮıȤȩȜȘıȘ ȩȝȦȢ ȝİ IJȠ ĮȞIJȚțİȓȝİȞȠ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ǿıIJȠȡȓĮȢ Ș ĮȓıșȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȚıȤȞȒȢ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝİIJȡȚȐȗİIJĮȚ, țĮșȫȢ įȚĮʌȚıIJȫȞȠȣȝİ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȐ ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ ıȣȝȝİIJȑȤȠȣȞ, ĮȜȜȐ, ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ țĮIJȐ IJĮ ʌȡȫIJĮ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȐ ȤȡȩȞȚĮ, ȑȤȠȣȞ įȚĮįȡĮȝĮIJȓıİȚ țĮIJĮȜȣIJȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ ıIJȘȞ İȟȑȜȚȟȘ IJȦȞ ȖİȖȠȞȩIJȦȞ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ȗȦȒȢ. ǹʌȩ IJĮ țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȦȞ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȓȦȞ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȆĮIJİȡȚțȒ ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJİȓĮ įȚĮʌȚıIJȫȞİIJĮȚ Ƞ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȩȢ, Ƞ țȠȝȕȚțȩȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘ ĬİȓĮ ȅȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ, Įʌȩ IJȘ īȑȞȞȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ȑȦȢ IJȘȞ ǹȞȐıIJĮıȒ ȉȠȣ. ȂİȜİIJȫȞIJĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȘ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțİȚĮ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJİȓĮ IJȠȣ 7Ƞȣ ĮȚ. IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ ĮȡȤȚİʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ ǹǯ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘȢ,3 įȚĮʌȚıIJȫıĮȝİ ȩIJȚ ıIJȚȢ ȠȝȚȜȓİȢ IJȠȣ ǼȚȢ IJȘȞ ǹʌȠIJȠȝȒȞ IJȠȣ ȉ. ȆȡȠįȡȩȝȠȣ, ǼȚȢ IJȘȞ ȀȠȓȝȘıȚȞ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ, ǼȚȢ IJĮȢ ȝȣȡȠijȩȡȠȣȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ıİ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓİȢ ȝȠȡijȑȢ IJȘȢ Ȇ. țĮȚ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ. ǹȞĮijȠȡȐ ıİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ IJȘȢ Ȇ.ǻ. ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȠȝȚȜȓĮ ǼȚȢ IJȘȞ ǹʌȠIJȠȝȒȞ IJȠȣ ȉ. ȆȡȠįȡȩȝȠȣ, ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȆĮȞĮȖȓĮ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ȜȩȖȠȢ ıIJȘȞ ȠȝȚȜȓĮ ǼȚȢ IJȘȞ ȀȠȓȝȘıȚȞ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȂĮȡȓĮ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ ıIJȘȞ ȠȝȚȜȓĮ ǼȚȢ IJĮȢ ȝȣȡȠijȩȡȠȣȢ. Ǿ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ʌȠȣ ȟİțȚȞȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ İȞĮȞșȡȫʌȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ ȐȡȡȘțIJĮ ıȣȞįİįİȝȑȞȘ ȝİ IJȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ, IJȘȢ «șĮȣȝĮıIJȒȢ, ȣʌİȡİȞįȩȟȠȣ, ĮİȚʌĮȡșȑȞȠȣ ȂȘIJȡȩȢ IJȠȣ ȈȦIJȒȡȠȢ, ʌĮȞİȞįȩȟȠȣ İȣİȡȖȑIJȚįȠȢ IJȠȣ țȩıȝȠȣ». ȉȚȝȒ, ȪȝȞȠȢ țĮȚ įȩȟĮ ĮʌȠįȓįİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ «įȚȐ IJȒȞ ȖİȞȠȝȑȞȘȞ įȚ’ Į‫ރ‬IJ߱Ȣ İ‫ރ‬İȡȖİıȓĮȞ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߱ Ƞ‫ݧ‬țȠȞȠȝȓߠ IJ߱Ȣ ‫݋‬ȞıȐȡțȠȣ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮȢ IJȠࠎ ȝȠȞȠȖİȞȠࠎȢ Ȋ‫ݨ‬ȠȪ țĮȓ ȁȩȖȠȣ IJȠࠎ ĬİȠࠎ».4 Ǿ ȆĮȞĮȖȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȚĮ «ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ȝȘIJȑȡĮ», Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ıȣȖțĮIJĮȞİȪȠȞIJĮȢ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȘȢ ĬİȓĮȢ ȅȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ «ıȣȞİȡȖȐȗİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ İțʌȜȒȡȦıȘ IJȠȣ șİȧțȠȪ 2 ǼȞįİȚțIJȚțȐ: ȂİȜȑIJȚȠȢ ǹșȘȞȫȞ, ĭȚȜȐȡİIJȠȢ ǺĮijİȓįȘȢ, ȀȠȞȚįȐȡȘȢ īİȡ., ȈIJİijĮȞȓįȘȢ ǺĮı., ȆĮʌĮįȩʌȠȣȜȠȢ ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȢ, ĭİȚįȐȢ Ǻ., ȈIJĮȣȡȓįȘȢ ǺĮı., ț.Ȑ. 3 ȀȣȡȚĮIJȗȒ ǹȞIJ., ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ǹǯ ĮȡȤȚİʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘȢ (6ȠȢ -7ȠȢ ĮȚ.). ǿıIJȠȡȚțȒșİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ, į.į., ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2009. 4 ȀȣȡȚĮIJȗȒ ǹȞIJ., ȩ.ʌ.

Women in the History of the Church

369

ıȤİįȓȠȣ ĮȖȐʌȘȢ».5 «Ȃİ IJȘȞ İȜİȪșİȡȘ ʌȡȠıijȠȡȐ IJȘȢ ʌȓıIJȘȢ IJȘȢ, Ș ȂĮȡȓĮ, …ȝİIJȑȤİȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȠȣ ıȤİįȓȠȣ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ».6 Ǿ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ ȑȗȘıİ ʌĮȞȐȖȚȠ ȕȓȠ țĮȚ țȣȡȓȦȢ ȣʌȒȡȟİ Ș ȝȘIJȑȡĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ, Ș «ȤȫȡĮ IJȠȣ ĮȤȦȡȒIJȠȣ». Ǿ ȞȑĮ ǼȪĮ, IJȑȜİȚȠ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ, İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ ĮȡȤȑIJȣʌȠ țĮȚ Ƞ ȠįȘȖȩȢ ĮȞįȡȫȞ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ.7 Ǿ ȂĮȡȓĮ Ș ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ, ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ ȝȠȡijȒ ıIJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ IJȘȢ Ȁ.ǻ., ȝİ IJȘȞ İʌȚȝȠȞȒ IJȘȢ ıȣȝȕȐȜȜİȚ ıIJȘ įȚȐįȠıȘ IJȠȣ ȝȘȞȪȝĮIJȠȢ IJȘȢ ǹȞȐıIJĮıȘȢ IJȠȣ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ. ǼȓȞĮȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İțİȓȞȘ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ İȟȑȕĮȜİ «İʌIJȐ įĮȚȝȩȞȚĮ» Ƞ ǿȘıȠȪȢ țĮȚ ȦȢ ȝĮșȒIJȡȚĮ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ IJȠȞ ĮțȠȜȠȪșȘıİ țĮIJȐ IJȘ įȡȐıȘ IJȠȣ ıIJȘ īĮȜȚȜĮȓĮ.8 ǵIJĮȞ Ƞ ǿȘıȠȪȢ ĮȞĮȤȫȡȘıİ Įʌȩ IJȘ īĮȜȚȜĮȓĮ ʌȡȠȢ IJĮ ǿİȡȠıȩȜȣȝĮ, Ș ȂĮȡȓĮ Ș ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ IJȠȞ ĮțȠȜȠȪșȘıİ ȝĮȗȓ ȝİ ȐȜȜİȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ. ȂĮȡIJȣȡİȓIJĮȚ Ș ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȘȢ ıIJȘ ıIJĮȪȡȦıȘ9 ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıIJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ IJȘȢ ǹȞȐıIJĮıȘȢ.10 ȈIJȠȣȢ ȝİIJȑʌİȚIJĮ ĮȚȫȞİȢ Ș ıȪȖȤȣıȘ țĮȚ IJĮȪIJȚıȘ IJȘȢ ȂĮȡȓĮȢ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒȢ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮȝĮȡIJȦȜȒ IJȘȢ įȚȒȖȘıȘȢ IJȠȣ ȁȠȣțȐ11 țĮȚ ȝİ IJȘ ȂĮȡȓĮ, ĮįİȜijȒ IJȘȢ ȂȐȡșĮȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȁĮȗȐȡȠȣ, IJȠȞ 2Ƞ țĮȚ 4Ƞ ĮȚ., ıȣȞȑįİıİ IJȘ ȂĮȡȓĮ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ ȝİ IJȘȞ İȚțȩȞĮ IJȘȢ ĮȝĮȡIJȦȜȒȢ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȘ ȝİIJȐȕĮıȘ IJȠȣ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ ʌȡȠȢ IJĮ ȑșȞȘ ȖȚĮ IJȠ țȒȡȣȖȝĮ IJȠȣ İȣĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ ʌȡȫIJȠȢ ĮʌȠįȑțIJȘȢ IJȠȣ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȠȪ ȝȘȞȪȝĮIJȠȢ ȣʌȒȡȟİ ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, Ș ȁȣįȓĮ. ȅ ǹʌ. ȆĮȪȜȠȢ, ȝİIJȐ IJȠ ȩȡĮȝĮ ʌȠȣ IJȠȞ țĮȜȠȪıİ ȞĮ ʌİȡȐıİȚ ıIJȘ ȂĮțİįȠȞȓĮ, Ȓȡșİ ıIJȠȣȢ ĭȚȜȓʌʌȠȣȢ. ȉȘȞ ȘȝȑȡĮ IJȠȣ ȈĮȕȕȐIJȠȣ ȕȖȒțİ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȩȜȘ țĮȚ ʌȒȖİ țȠȞIJȐ ıIJȠȞ ʌȠIJĮȝȩ, ȩʌȠȣ ȞȩȝȚȗİ ȩIJȚ ȖȚȞȩIJĮȞ ʌȡȠıİȣȤȒ. Ǽțİȓ ȐȡȤȚıİ ȞĮ ıȣȗȘIJȐ ȝİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȠȣ İȓȤĮȞ ıȣȖțİȞIJȡȦșİȓ. ǹȞȐȝİıȐ IJȠȣȢ țȐʌȠȚĮ ȝİ IJȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ ȁȣįȓĮ, ʌȠȣ ĮıȤȠȜİȓIJȠ ȝİ IJȠ İȝʌȩȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ʌȠȡijȪȡĮȢ, ıİȕȩIJĮȞ IJȠȞ Ĭİȩ țĮȚ ȐțȠȣıİ ȝİ ʌȡȠıȠȤȒ IJȠ țȒȡȣȖȝĮ IJȠȣ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ. Ǿ ȁȣįȓĮ ȕĮʌIJȓıșȘțİ, țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ IJĮ ȝȑȜȘ IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȖİȞİȓĮȢ IJȘȢ. ȆȡȩIJİȚȞİ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ıIJȠȞ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠ ȆĮȪȜȠ ȞĮ IJȠȞ ijȚȜȠȟİȞȒıİȚ, İȐȞ ĮȣIJȩȢ ȑțȡȚȞİ ȩIJȚ ȒIJĮȞ ʌȚıIJȒ.12 ȈIJȚȢ ʌȡȠĮȞĮijİȡșİȓıİȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓİȢ ȝȠȡijȑȢ IJȠ ĮȣIJİȟȠȪıȚȠ, Ș İȜİȣșİȡȓĮ, ȠȚ ıȣȞİȚįȘIJȑȢ İʌȚȜȠȖȑȢ, Ș ıȣȞİȓįȘıȘ țĮȚ ĮȣIJȠĮȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ ȝİ ȩȡȠȣȢ ĮȣIJȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ, İȜİȣșİȡȓĮȢ, ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪȞ ıȣıIJĮIJȚțȐ ıIJȠȚȤİȓĮ IJȘȢ ıȣȝʌİȡȚijȠȡȐȢ 5

Behr Sigel Elisabeth, ȉȠ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ı. 211. Behr Sigel Elisabeth, ȩ.ʌ., 212-213. 7 īȚȠȪȜIJıȘ ǼȣIJȣȤȓĮ, Ǿ ȆĮȞĮȖȓĮ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒȢ IJİȜİȚȫıİȦȢ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2001, ı. 118. 8 ȂIJ. 27,55-56. 9 «…İȚıIJȒțİıĮȞ ʌĮȡȐ IJȦ ıIJĮȣȡȫ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ Ș ȝȒIJȘȡ ĮȣIJȠȪ țĮȚ Ș ĮįİȜijȒ IJȘȢ ȝȘIJȡȩȢ ĮȣIJȠȪ, ȂĮȡȓĮ Ș IJȠȣ ȀȜȦʌȐ țĮȚ ȂĮȡȓĮ Ș ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ», ȂIJ. 27,55. Ȃț. 15,40. 10 ȂIJ. 28,1-2. Ȃț. 16,1-3.ȁț. 24,9-11. ǿȦ. 20,1-18. 11 ȁț. 7,36-50. 12 ȆȡĮȟ. 16,10-15. 6

370

Chapter Twenty Five

IJȠȣȢ, ıIJȠȚȤİȓĮ ʌȠȣ ĮȞIJĮʌȠțȡȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJĮ ĮȚIJȠȪȝİȞĮ IJȠȣ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȠȪ țȚȞȒȝĮIJȠȢ IJȘȢ İʌȠȤȒȢ ȝĮȢ, IJȘȞ ĮʌİȜİȣșȑȡȦıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ IJȘȞ ȣʌȠIJĮȖȒ ıİ țĮȞȩȞİȢ țĮȚ ĮȟȓİȢ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ șİȦȡȠȪȝİ ȩIJȚ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȞĮȖțĮȓĮ Ș İʌĮȞĮʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȦȞ ĮȣIJȫȞ ȝȠȡijȫȞ țĮȚ Ș ĮȞȐįİȚȟȘ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ. ȈIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȢ ȇȦȝĮȓȠȣȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒ, Ƞ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ ĮijȒȞİȚ ȞĮ İȞȞȠȘșİȓ Ș ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ, ĮȞĮijİȡȩȝİȞȠȢ ıIJȘ ĭȠȓȕȘ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ įȚĮțȠȞȠȪıİ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȘȞ İȞ ȀİȖȤȡİĮȓȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȠıIJȐIJİȥİ țĮȚ IJȠȞ ȓįȚȠ IJȠȞ ȆĮȪȜȠ ȩIJĮȞ țȚȞįȪȞİȣıİ, ıIJȘȞ ȆȡȓıțȚȜȜĮ, ʌȠȣ ȝĮȗȓ ȝİ IJȠȞ ǹțȪȜĮ ȣʌȒȡȟĮȞ ıȣȞİȡȖȐIJİȢ IJȠȣ, ıIJȘȞ ȂĮȡȚȐȝ, IJȘȞ ȉȡȪijĮȚȞĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȉȡȣijȫıĮ, ıIJȘȞ ǿȠȣȜȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȆİȡıȓįĮ ʌȠȣ «İțȠʌȓĮıĮȞ» İȞ ȀȣȡȓȦ, țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ «ǿȠȣȞȓĮȞ, İʌȓıȘȝȠȞ İȞ IJȠȚȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȚȢ».13 ȉȠ İįȐijȚȠ ȝĮȢ İʌȚIJȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ țĮIJĮȞȠȒıȠȣȝİ IJȘ șȑıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȦȞ ʌȡȫIJȦȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȫȞ ȤȡȩȞȦȞ țĮȚ ıIJȠȚȤİȓ ıIJȠ ĮʌİȜİȣșİȡȦIJȚțȩ «ȠȪț ȑȞȚ ȐȡıİȞ țĮȚ șȒȜȣ» (īĮȜ. 3,28), IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ ʌȠȜȪ ȖȡȒȖȠȡĮ șĮ ʌĮȡĮȝİȡȚıIJİȓ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ȣʌİȡȚıȤȪıȠȣȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ ĮȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȐ įİįȠȝȑȞĮ IJȘȢ İʌȠȤȒȢ.14 Ǿ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ʌȡȦIJȠȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ İʌȠȤȒ ȒIJĮȞ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ. ȅȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ, ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȚ Ȓ ȤȒȡİȢ, ıȣȞįȑșȘțĮȞ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȐıțȘıȘ IJȘȢ ijȚȜĮȞșȡȦʌȓĮȢ Ȓ IJȘȢ țĮIJȘȤȒıİȦȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ.15 ȅ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıȝȩȢ IJȠȣȢ ȦıIJȩıȠ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȚİȡĮIJİȓȠ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ IJȠȣ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘ șȑıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ țȠȚȞȒ ıȣȞİȓįȘıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȩʌȦȢ ĮȣIJȒ įȚĮIJȣʌȫșȘțİ ıIJȠ IJȑȜȠȢ IJȠȣ 2Ƞȣ ĮȚ. ıIJȘ ǻȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, țȣȡȚȐȡȤȘıİ. Ǿ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ĮʌȠȡȡȓijșȘțİ țĮșȫȢ șİȦȡȒșȘțİ ĮȚȡİIJȚțȒ țĮȚȞȠIJȠȝȓĮ.16 Ǿ įȚȐįȠıȘ țĮȚ İʌȚțȡȐIJȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȠȪ ȑȖȚȞİ ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȘȢ ȡȦȝĮȧțȒȢ ĮȣIJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȓĮȢ. ȉȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ İțİȓȞȘ, IJȘ șȑıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ İʌȘȡȑĮıĮȞ İțIJȩȢ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ ĮȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ, ȠȚ ĮȚȡȑıİȚȢ. ȍıIJȩıȠ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ IJȦȞ įȚȦȖȝȫȞ ĮȞĮįİȓȤșȘțİ ȝİȖȐȜȠȢ ĮȡȚșȝȩȢ ĮȖȓȦȞ ȝĮȡIJȪȡȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ.17 13

ȇȦȝ. 16,1. ǺĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘȢ ȆȑIJȡ., «Ǿ ʌȡȠȢ ȇȦȝĮȓȠȣȢ, IJȠ ǯǹʌȠȜİıșȑȞ ǼȣĮȖȖȑȜȚȠǯ țĮȚ Ș ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ: IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȠȝȠijȣȜȠijȚȜȓĮȢ țĮȚ Ș ȘȖİIJȚțȒ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ», ıIJȠ 15 ȇȦȝ. 16,1. ǹǯ ȉȚȝ. 5,9,10. ǻȚįĮȤȒ ȋǿǿǿ, ǿȠȣıIJȓȞȠȣ, ǹʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ, 67, ȉİȡIJȣȜȜȚĮȞȠȪ, Apologeticum, 39 ț.Ȑ. ǺȜ. ĭİȚįȐȢ, ǼțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ, IJ. ǹǯ, ǹșȒȞĮȚ 32002, ı. 210-211. 16 ĭİȚįȐȢ ǺȜȐı., ǼțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ, IJ. ǹǯ, ǹșȒȞĮȚ 32002, ı. 211. 17 ǹȖȐʌȘ, ǼȚȡȒȞȘ, ȋȚȠȞȓĮ, ǹȞĮıIJĮıȓĮ, ǼȚȡȒȞȘ, ǼȣijȘȝȓĮ, ĬȑțȜĮ, ǺĮȡȕȐȡĮ, ǹȚțĮIJİȡȓȞȘ, īȜȣțİȡȓĮ, ț.Ȑ. 14

Women in the History of the Church

371

Ȃİ IJȘȞ İʌȚțȡȐIJȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȠȪ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮȖȞȫȡȚıȘ IJȘȢ ȞȑĮȢ șȡȘıțİȓĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȂȑȖĮ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȞȠ ĮȡȤȓȗİȚ ȝȚĮ ȞȑĮ ʌİȡȓȠįȠȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȅȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ ĮȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ, ȝĮȗȓ ȝİ IJȚȢ ĮȚȡȑıİȚȢ, șĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒıȠȣȞ ĮȞĮıIJĮȜIJȚțȐ ıIJȘ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝİ ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıȝĮ Ȟ’ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıșȠȪȞ Įʌȩ IJȠ įȘȝȩıȚȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȈIJȘȞ İȜȜȘȞȠȡȦȝĮȧțȒ ĮȣIJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȓĮ, ȦıIJȩıȠ, Ș țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ «İʌȚijĮȞİȚĮțȐ ʌĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțȒ»,18 șĮ İʌȚIJȡȑȥİȚ ıİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ įȚĮțȡȚșȠȪȞ ȦȢ ĮȣIJȠțȡȐIJİȚȡİȢ, ȦȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȐȖȚİȢ țĮȚ ıʌĮȞȚȩIJİȡĮ ȦȢ ıȣȖȖȡĮijİȓȢ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȘ ȝĮțȡȐ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǺȣȗĮȞIJȚȞȒȢ ĮȣIJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȓĮȢ, Ș țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ ȗȦȒ įȚĮțȡȚȞȩȝİȞȘ ȖİȞȚțȐ ıİ įȘȝȩıȚĮ țĮȚ ȚįȚȦIJȚțȒ, șĮ ʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȓıİȚ ȦȢ țĮIJĮȜȜȘȜȩIJİȡȠ ȤȫȡȠ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJİȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ IJȘȞ ȚįȚȦIJȚțȒ ıijĮȓȡĮ, IJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȠȣ ıʌȚIJȚȠȪ. ȈȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJĮ ȒșȘ țĮȚ ȑșȚȝĮ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȘ ȞȠȝȠșİıȓĮ, ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ įİȞ İȓȤĮȞ įȚțĮȓȦȝĮ ȞĮ ıȣȝȝİIJȑȤȠȣȞ ıIJȘȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȒ, ıIJȡĮIJȚȦIJȚțȒ țĮȚ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ İȟȠȣıȓĮ țĮȚ įȚȠȓțȘıȘ, İțIJȩȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ IJȠȣ ʌĮȜĮIJȚȠȪ.19 ȅȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮȣIJȠțȡȐIJİȚȡİȢ IJȠȣ ǺȣȗĮȞIJȓȠȣ șĮ įȚĮįȡĮȝĮIJȓıȠȣȞ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ ıİ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȐ șȑȝĮIJĮ, țĮșȫȢ șĮ ıȣȝȕȐȜȜȠȣȞ ıIJȘȞ ĮȞȐįİȚȟȘ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ ȝİ ȞĮȠȪȢ, İȚțȩȞİȢ țĮȚ įȘȝȩıȚİȢ IJİȜİIJȑȢ, șĮ ıIJȘȡȓȟȠȣȞ ĮʌȠijȐıİȚȢ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȫȞ ıȣȞȩįȦȞ, șĮ ĮıțȒıȠȣȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȒ İȟȠȣıȓĮ țĮȚ șĮ țȣȕİȡȞȒıȠȣȞ IJȘȞ ĮȣIJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȓĮ ıIJȠ ʌȜİȣȡȩ IJȦȞ ıȣȗȪȖȦȞ IJȠȣȢ Ȓ IJȦȞ ʌĮȚįȚȫȞ IJȠȣȢ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȠȣȢ ʌȡȫIJȠȣȢ ĮȚȫȞİȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȖȞȦıIJȩȢ Ƞ ȡȩȜȠȢ ʌȠȣ įȚĮįȡĮȝȐIJȚıİ Ș Ș ĮȖȓĮ ǼȜȑȞȘ, Ș ȝȘIJȑȡĮ IJȠȣ ʌȡȫIJȠȣ ʌȠȣ ĮıʌȐıșȘțİ IJȠ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩ ȡȦȝĮȓȠȣ ĮȣIJȠțȡȐIJȠȡĮ, IJȠȣ Ȃ. ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȞȠȣ. Ǿ ĮȖȓĮ ǼȜȑȞȘ IJȠ 330 IJĮȟȓįİȥİ ıIJȘȞ ǿİȡȠȣıĮȜȒȝ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ĮȞIJȚȝİIJȦʌȓıİȚ ıIJȡĮIJȚȦIJȚțȑȢ IJĮȡĮȤȑȢ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȘ įȚȐȡțİȚĮ IJȠȣ IJĮȟȚįȚȠȪ IJȘȢ ĮȞĮțȐȜȣȥİ IJȠȞ ȉȓȝȚȠ ȈIJĮȣȡȩ, įȚȑșİıİ ȤȡȒȝĮIJĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞȠȚțȠįȩȝȘıȘ țĮȚ įȚĮțȩıȝȘıȘ ȞĮȫȞ, (IJȘȢ īȑȞȞȘıȘȢ ıIJȘ ǺȘșȜİȑȝ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ǹȞȐıIJĮıȘȢ ıIJȠ ȜȩijȠ IJȠȣ īȠȜȖȠșȐ), ȝȠȞȫȞ, ȟİȞȫȞȦȞ țĮȚ ȐȜȜȦȞ ȠȚțȠįȠȝȘȝȐIJȦȞ.20 ȈIJȠ ʌȡȫIJȠ ȝȚıȩ IJȠȣ 5Ƞȣ ĮȚ. Ș ȆȠȣȜȤİȡȓĮ, ʌȡȦIJȩIJȠțȠȢ țȩȡȘ IJȠȣ ĮȣIJȠțȡȐIJȠȡĮ ǹȡțȐįȚȠȣ, ȑțIJȚıİ ȞĮȠȪȢ ĮijȚİȡȦȝȑȞȠȣȢ ıIJȘ ĬİȠIJȩțȠ, İȞȚıȤȪȠȞIJĮȢ IJȘ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ IJȘȢ ʌȡȠıIJȐIJȚįȠȢ IJȘȢ ǺĮıȚȜİȪȠȣıĮȢ.21 ȀĮșȚȑȡȦıİ ĮȖȡȣʌȞȓİȢ, IJİȜİIJȑȢ țĮȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓİȢ, ıȣȞȑȕĮȜİ ıIJȘȞ țĮșȚȑȡȦıȘ İȠȡIJȫȞ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌȩįȠıȘ IJȚȝȫȞ ıIJȘ ĬİȠIJȩțȠ. Ǿ ȆȠȣȜȤİȡȓĮ țĮȚ Ș įȚȐįȠȤȩȢ IJȘȢ ǺİȡȓȞĮ ijȡȩȞIJȚıĮȞ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞȠȚțȠįȩȝȘıȘ ȞĮȫȞ, ȩʌȦȢ Ƞ ȞĮȩȢ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ IJȦȞ 18

Ioli Kalavrezou, et al., Byzantine Women and their World, Harvard University Art Museums, Cambridge, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2003, ı. 23. 19 ǵ.ʌ., ı. 24. 20 ȉȗȠȪȞIJȚș ȋȑȡȚȞ, īȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌȠȡijȪȡĮ, ǹșȒȞĮ, ȍțİĮȞȓįĮ 2002, ı. 59. 21 ȉȗȠȪȞIJȚș ȋȑȡȚȞ, ȩ.ʌ., ı. 59-60.

372

Chapter Twenty Five

«ȋĮȜțȠʌȡĮIJİȓȦȞ», ȩʌȠȣ ijȣȜĮııȩIJĮȞ Ș ȉȚȝȓĮ ǽȫȞȘ IJȘȢ ȆĮȞĮȖȓĮȢ, țĮȚ Ƞ ȞĮȩȢ IJȘȢ ȆĮȞĮȖȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ǺȜĮȤİȡȞȫȞ ȩʌȠȣ ijȣȜȐııȠȞIJĮȞ IJȠ ȦȝȠijȩȡȚȠ țĮȚ Ș ȉȚȝȓĮ ǼıșȒȢ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ.22 Ǿ ǼȣįȠțȓĮ23 țĮIJȐ IJȘ įȚȐȡțİȚĮ IJȘȢ įȚĮȝȠȞȒȢ IJȘȢ ıIJȠȣȢ ǹȖȓȠȣȢ ȉȩʌȠȣȢ ȕȡȒțİ İȚțȩȞĮ IJȘȢ ȆĮȞĮȖȓĮȢ ijȚȜȠIJİȤȞȘȝȑȞȘ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ İȣĮȖȖİȜȚıIJȒ ȁȠȣțȐ. Ǿ İȚțȩȞĮ ȝİIJĮijȑȡșȘțİ țĮȚ IJȠʌȠșİIJȒșȘțİ ıİ ȞĮȩ IJȘȢ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȚȞȠȪʌȠȜȘȢ, ʌȠȣ İȓȤİ ȚįȡȪıİȚ Ș ȆȠȣȜȤİȡȓĮ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȠȣȢ ȝȑıȠȣȢ ȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞȠȪȢ ȤȡȩȞȠȣȢ Ș ĬİȠįȫȡĮ, ʌȠȣ ĮʌİȚțȠȞȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJĮ ȥȘijȚįȦIJȐ IJȘȢ ȇĮȕȑȞȞĮȢ, ıIJȠ ȞĮȩ IJȠȣ ǹȖȓȠȣ ǺȚIJĮȜȓȠȣ, ȝİ ȕĮıȚȜȚțȒ İȞįȣȝĮıȓĮ țȡĮIJȫȞIJĮȢ įȚıțȠʌȩIJȘȡȠ, įİȓȖȝĮ IJȘȢ ʌȡȠıijȠȡȐȢ IJȘȢ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ, įȚĮįȡĮȝȐIJȚıİ țĮșȠȡȚıIJȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ ıIJĮ įȘȝȩıȚĮ ʌȡȐȖȝĮIJĮ ȦȢ ıȪȗȣȖȠȢ IJȠȣ ǿȠȣıIJȚȞȚĮȞȠȪ (527-565).24 Ǿ ıIJȐıȘ ʌȠȣ țȡȐIJȘıĮȞ ȠȚ ıȪȗȣȖȠȚ IJȦȞ ĮȣIJȠțȡĮIJȩȡȦȞ İȞȓıȤȣıİ IJȘȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ İȟȠȣıȓĮ ȝİ ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıȝĮ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ IJȦȞ ĮȣIJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȚțȫȞ ȠȚțȠȖİȞİȚȫȞ ȞĮ ĮıțȒıȠȣȞ İȓIJİ ȦȢ ıȪȗȣȖȠȚ İȓIJİ ȦȢ ȝȘIJȑȡİȢ ĮȞȘȜȓțȦȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȒ İȟȠȣıȓĮ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȠȞ 8Ƞ ĮȚ. IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ʌȡȫIJȘȢ İȚțȠȞȠȝĮȤȓĮȢ ȜȪșȘțİ ȝİ IJȚȢ İȞȑȡȖİȚİȢ IJȘȢ ǼȚȡȒȞȘȢ IJȘȢ ǹșȘȞĮȓĮȢ,25 ʌȠȣ ıȣȞȑȕĮȜİ ıIJȘȞ ĮʌȠțĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ IJȦȞ İȚțȩȞȦȞ. ȉȠ 787 ȝ.ȋ. IJĮ ȝȑȜȘ IJȘȢ ǽǯ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȒȢ ıȣȞȩįȠȣ șĮ ĮʌİȣșȣȞșȠȪȞ ıIJȘȞ ĮȣIJȠțȡȐIJİȚȡĮ ǼȚȡȒȞȘ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ țȣȕİȡȞȠȪıİ ıIJȘ șȑıȘ IJȠȣ ĮȞȒȜȚțȠȣ ȖȚȠȣ IJȘȢ. Ǿ ǼȚȡȒȞȘ șĮ ȣʌȠȖȡȐȥİȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌȩijĮıȘ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠțĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ IJȦȞ İȚțȩȞȦȞ ıIJȘ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮȚ șĮ IJȚȝȘșİȓ ȦȢ ĮȖȓĮ ȝĮȗȓ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȖȚȠ IJȘȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ.26 ȉȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȦȞ İȚțȩȞȦȞ șĮ İʌĮȞȑȜșİȚ ȝİȡȚțȐ ȤȡȩȞȚĮ ĮȡȖȩIJİȡĮ, ȩIJĮȞ Ƞ ĮȣIJȠțȡȐIJȠȡĮȢ ĬİȩijȚȜȠȢ (829-842) ʌȠȣ İȓȤİ Ȟȣȝijİȣșİȓ IJȘ ĬİȠįȫȡĮ țĮȚ İȓȤİ ĮʌȠțIJȒıİȚ ȑȞĮ ȖȚȠ, șĮ ʌİșȐȞİȚ ıİ ȘȜȚțȓĮ İȓțȠıȚ İȞȞȑĮ İIJȫȞ. Ǿ ĬİȠįȫȡĮ ȝȑıĮ ıİ ȑȞĮ ȤȡȩȞȠ șĮ ĮʌȠțĮIJĮıIJȒıİȚ IJȘȞ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ IJȦȞ İȚțȩȞȦȞ țĮȚ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ șĮ IJȘȞ IJȚȝȒıİȚ ȦȢ ĮȖȓĮ. Ǿ ĬİȠįȫȡĮ İȣijȣȒȢ, įȣȞĮȝȚțȒ țĮȚ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȫįȘȢ, șĮ įȚĮIJȘȡȒıİȚ IJȠȞ ȑȜİȖȤȠ IJȘȢ ĮȣIJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȚțȒȢ İȟȠȣıȓĮȢ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȘȞ İȞȘȜȚțȓȦıȘ IJȠȣ ȖȚȠȣ IJȘȢ,27 șĮ țȣȕİȡȞȒıİȚ ȝİ ıȪȞİıȘ țĮȚ ıȠijȓĮ ȠȡȖĮȞȫȞȠȞIJĮȢ ĮțȩȝȘ țĮȚ ıIJȡĮIJȚȦIJȚțȑȢ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒıİȚȢ, ĮijȒȞȠȞIJĮȢ ıIJȠ IJȑȜȠȢ ȖİȝȐIJĮ IJĮ țȡĮIJȚțȐ IJĮȝİȓĮ.28

22

Ioli Kalavrezou, et al., Byzantine Women and their World, ȩ.ʌ., ı. 39. ǵ.ʌ., ı. 39. 24 ǵ.ʌ., ı. 25. 25 ĭİȚįȐȢ ǺȜȐı., ǼțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ ǹǯ, ǹșȒȞĮ 32002, ı. 788-790. ȉȗȠȪȞIJȚș ȋȑȡȚȞ, īȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌȠȡijȪȡĮ, ǹșȒȞĮ, ȍțİĮȞȓįĮ 2002. 26 ȉȗȠȪȞIJȚș ȋȑȡȚȞ, ȩ.ʌ., ı. 21-22. 27 ǵ.ʌ., ı. 23. 28 Ioli Kalavrezou, et al., Byzantine Women and their World, ȩ.ʌ., ı. 25. 23

Women in the History of the Church

373

Ǿ DZȞȞĮ ǻĮȜĮııȘȞȒ ȦȢ ȝȘIJȑȡĮ ĮȞȘȜȓțȠȣ țȣȕȑȡȞȘıİ IJȘȞ ĮȣIJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȓĮ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȣȚȩ IJȘȢ ǹȜȑȟȚȠ ǿǯ ȀȠȝȞȘȞȩ (1081-1118).29 ĭȡȩȞIJȚıİ ȞĮ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȒıİȚ įȓțIJȣȠ ıȣȝȝȐȤȦȞ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ıIJȘȡȓȟȠȣȞ IJȠȞ ǹȜȑȟȚȠ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ȩIJĮȞ ȑȜİȚʌİ ıİ İȟȠȡȝȒıİȚȢ, ĮȞĮȜȐȝȕĮȞİ Ș ȓįȚĮ IJĮ İıȦIJİȡȚțȐ. ȂİIJȐ IJȠȞ șȐȞĮIJȠ IJȘȢ ǻĮȜĮııȘȞȒȢ ĮȞȑȜĮȕİ IJȠȞ ȑȜİȖȤȠ Ș ıȪȗȣȖȠȢ IJȠȣ ǹȜȑȟȚȠȣ ǿǯ ȀȠȝȞȘȞȠȪ, Ș ǼȚȡȒȞȘ ǻȠȪțĮȚȞĮ, ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ įȣȞĮȝȚțȒ, ʌȠȣ ıȣȝȝİIJİȓȤİ țĮȚ ıIJȚȢ ıIJȡĮIJȚȦIJȚțȑȢ İțıIJȡĮIJİȓİȢ. ȅȡȚıȝȑȞĮ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮ ıIJȠȚȤİȓĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮIJȐ IJȘ ȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞȒ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ ʌĮȡĮįȓįİȚ Ƞ ȂȚȤĮȒȜ ȌİȜȜȩȢ, ıİ įȣȠ İʌȚțȒįİȚȠȣȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞȑIJĮȟİ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ țȩȡȘ IJȠȣ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ʌȑșĮȞİ ıİ ʌȠȜȪ ȞİĮȡȒ ȘȜȚțȓĮ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȝȘIJȑȡĮ IJȠȣ. ȈIJȠȞ İʌȚțȒįİȚȠ ȜȩȖȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ țȩȡȘ IJȠȣ ȣȝȞİȓ IJȘ ijȣıȚțȒ ȠȝȠȡijȚȐ IJȘȢ, IJȘ ıIJȠȡȖȒ ʌȠȣ ȑįİȚȤȞİ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȣȢ ȖȠȞİȓȢ IJȘȢ, IJȘȞ ĮijȠıȓȦıȘ țĮȚ ȣʌĮțȠȒ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘ ȝȘIJȑȡĮ IJȘȢ, ʌȠȣ İȓȤİ ĮȞĮȜȐȕİȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮIJȡȠijȒ IJȘȢ. ȊȝȞİȓ IJĮ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȐ IJȘȢ ȤĮȡȓıȝĮIJĮ, IJȘ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ȞĮ ȝĮșĮȓȞİȚ ȖȡȒȖȠȡĮ țĮȚ ȞĮ ȝȚȜȐ țĮșĮȡȐ. ǹȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ ıʌȠȪįĮȗİ țĮȚ ʌĮȡȐȜȜȘȜĮ ĮıȤȠȜȠȪȞIJĮȞ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȣijĮȞIJȚțȒ IJȑȤȞȘ, ıIJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ ȒIJĮȞ İȟĮȚȡİIJȚțȒ țĮșȫȢ ȪijĮȚȞİ șĮȣȝȐıȚĮ ȜȚȞȐ țĮȚ ȝİIJĮȟȦIJȐ ȣijȐıȝĮIJĮ. ȈIJȠȞ İʌȚțȒįİȚȠ ȜȩȖȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȝȘIJȑȡĮ IJȠȣ Ƞ ȂȚȤĮȒȜ ȌİȜȜȩȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ ȩIJȚ ĮȣIJȒ ȣʌȒȡȟİ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ ȝȘIJȑȡĮȢ țĮȚ ıȣȗȪȖȠȣ, İȞȫ țȪȡȚĮ İȞĮıȤȩȜȘıȒ IJȘȢ ȒIJĮȞ Ș țȜȫıȘ țĮȚ ȪijĮȞıȘ. ǹijȠıȚȦȝȑȞȘ ıȪȗȣȖȠȢ ĮȜȜȐ ȩȤȚ ʌȠȜȪ ȝȠȡijȦȝȑȞȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, įȓįĮȟİ ıIJȠ ȖȚȠ IJȘȢ IJĮ ʌȡȫIJĮ ȖȡȐȝȝĮIJĮ, įİȞ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȩȝȦȢ ȞĮ ȕȠȘșȒıİȚ ʌİȡĮȚIJȑȡȦ. dzIJĮȞ İȣıİȕȒȢ țĮȚ İȜİȒȝȦȞ. ǻİȞ İȞįȚĮijİȡȩIJĮȞ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ȣʌȠșȑıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ʌĮȜĮIJȚȠȪ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ĮȖȠȡȐȢ. ȅȣıȚĮıIJȚțȐ ȝİIJȐ IJȠ șȐȞĮIJȠ IJȠȣ ıȣȗȪȖȠȣ IJȘȢ ȑȗȘıİ țĮIJ’ ȠȓțȠȞ IJȘ ȗȦȒ ȝȚĮȢ ȝȠȞĮȤȒȢ.30 ȈIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ İȓȤĮȞ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJİȓ Įʌȩ ȣʌȘȡİıȓİȢ țĮȚ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJĮ, ȩʌȦȢ IJȠȣ ȚİȡȑĮ țĮȚ IJȠȣ İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ. ǻİȞ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȞ ȞĮ ȖȓȞȠȣȞ ȚİȡİȓȢ țĮȚ įİȞ IJȠȣȢ İʌȚIJȡİʌȩIJĮȞ Ș İȓıȠįȠȢ ıIJȠ Țİȡȩ, ȖȪȡȦ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ǹȖȓĮ ȉȡȐʌİȗĮ. ȍıIJȩıȠ İȓȤĮȞ IJȘ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ȞĮ ȚįȡȪȠȣȞ țĮȚ ȞĮ įȚȠȚțȠȪȞ ȝȠȞĮıIJȒȡȚĮ, ȚįȓȦȢ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ IJȘȢ ĮȡȚıIJȠțȡĮIJȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ İȓȤĮȞ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȚțȒ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȠȞ 12Ƞ ĮȚ. ʌ.Ȥ. Ș ĮȣIJȠțȡȐIJİȚȡĮ ǼȚȡȒȞȘ ǻȠȪțĮȚȞĮ ȓįȡȣıİ IJȠ ȝȠȞĮıIJȒȡȚ IJȘȢ ȀİȤĮȡȚIJȦȝȑȞȘȢ țĮȚ ȩȡȚıİ ȩIJȚ ȝİIJȐ IJȠ șȐȞĮIJȩ IJȘȢ IJȠ ȝȠȞĮıIJȒȡȚ șĮ įȚȠȚțȠȪȞIJĮȞ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘ țȩȡȘ IJȘȢ DZȞȞĮ ȀȠȝȞȘȞȒ.31 DZȖȚİȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮȞĮįİȓȤșȘțĮȞ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȠȣ ĮıțȘIJȚıȝȠȪ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ȤȫȡȠȣȢ IJȘȢ ȚįȚȦIJȚțȒȢ țĮȚ įȘȝȩıȚĮȢ ȗȦȒȢ, ȩIJĮȞ ıȣȞȑȕĮȚȞİ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȣIJȠțȡȐIJİȚȡİȢ. ǹȜȜȐ țĮȚ Įʌȩ ȤĮȝȘȜȩIJİȡĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȐ ıIJȡȫȝĮIJĮ ĮȞĮįİȓȤșȘțĮȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȐȖȚİȢ, ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ 10Ƞ ĮȚ. țĮȚ ȑʌİȚIJĮ, ȠȚ 29

ǵ.ʌ., ı. 25. ǵ.ʌ., ı. 26-27. 31 ǵ.ʌ., ı. 25. 30

374

Chapter Twenty Five

ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȑįȡĮıĮȞ ıIJȠ įȘȝȩıȚȠ ȤȫȡȠ țĮȚ įȚĮțȡȓșȘțĮȞ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ĮȡİIJȑȢ IJȠȣȢ ʌȠȣ İȓȤĮȞ ĮȞIJȓțIJȣʌȠ ıIJȠ įȘȝȩıȚȠ ȕȓȠ, țȣȡȓȦȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ İȜİȘȝȠıȪȞȘ.32 ǹʌȩ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȠȣ įȚĮțȡȓșȘțĮȞ ȦȢ ıȣȖȖȡĮijİȓȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ș DZȞȞĮ ȀȠȝȞȘȞȒ,33 Ș ȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞȒ ʌȡȚȖțȓʌȚııĮ, ʌȠȣ ȑȗȘıİ țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ 12Ƞ ĮȚ. (10831153). ǼȓȞĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ İȜȐȤȚıIJİȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ ȝĮțȡȐȢ ʌİȡȚȩįȠȣ ʌȠȣ įȚĮțȡȓșȘțİ ȦȢ ıȣȖȖȡĮijȑĮȢ. Ǿ DZȞȞĮ ȀȠȝȞȘȞȒ ȖİȞȞȒșȘțİ ıIJȘȞ ȆȠȡijȪȡĮ, țĮșȫȢ ȒIJĮȞ țȩȡȘ țĮȚ ʌȡȦIJȩIJȠțȠ ʌĮȚįȓ IJȠȣ ĮȣIJȠțȡȐIJȠȡĮ ǹȜȑȟȚȠȣ ǿǯ ȀȠȝȞȘȞȠȪ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ĮȣIJȠțȡȐIJİȚȡĮȢ ǼȚȡȒȞȘȢ ǻȠȪțĮȚȞĮȢ. ȍȢ İț IJȘȢ țĮIJĮȖȦȖȒȢ IJȘȢ ȑȜĮȕİ ȝȩȡijȦıȘ țĮȚ İțʌĮȓįİȣıȘ ıIJȠ trivium (ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJȚțȒ, ȡȘIJȠȡȚțȒ, ȜȠȖȚțȒ) țĮȚ ıIJȠ quatrivium (ȖİȦȝİIJȡȓĮ, ȝĮșȘȝĮIJȚțȐ, ĮıIJȡȠȞȠȝȓĮ, ȝȠȣıȚțȒ). ȂȞȘıIJİȪșȘțİ IJȠȞ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȞȠ ǻȠȪțĮ Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ʌȑșĮȞİ. ȀĮIJȩʌȚȞ ȞȣȝijİȪșȘțİ IJȠȞ ȃȚțȘijȩȡȠ ǺȡȣȑȞȞȚȠ. ȂİIJȐ IJȠ șȐȞĮIJȠ IJȠȣ ıȣȗȪȖȠȣ IJȘȢ țĮIJȑijȣȖİ ıIJȘ ȂȠȞȒ ȀİȤĮȡȚIJȦȝȑȞȘȢ, IJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ İȓȤİ ȚįȡȪıİȚ Ș ȝȘIJȑȡĮ IJȘȢ, țĮȚ İțİȓ ıȣȞȑIJĮȟİ IJȠ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ «ǹȜİȟȚȐȢ»,34 IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ țĮȚ IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ ʌĮIJȑȡĮ IJȘȢ (1069-1118). ǹʌȩ IJȠȞ 11Ƞ ȦȢ IJȠȞ 14Ƞ ĮȚ., ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮȖȑȞȞȘıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȡĮȝȝȐIJȦȞ, ıİ țȪțȜȠȣȢ įȚĮȞȠȠȣȝȑȞȦȞ ȖȓȞȠȞIJĮȞ ijȚȜȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ıȣȗȘIJȒıİȚȢ, ȩʌȠȣ ıȣȝȝİIJİȓȤĮȞ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ IJȘȢ ĮȡȚıIJȠțȡĮIJȓĮȢ, ȩʌȦȢ Ș DZȞȞĮ ȀȠȝȞȘȞȒ. ȍıIJȩıȠ Ƞ țȩıȝȠȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȒIJĮȞ țȣȡȓȦȢ IJȠ ıʌȓIJȚ țĮȚ Ș ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮ IJȩıȠ țĮIJȐ IJȘ ǺȣȗĮȞIJȚȞȒ, ȩıȠ țĮȚ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ IJȘȢ ȅșȦȝĮȞȚțȒȢ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȓĮȢ. ȅȚ ȠȚțȠȖİȞİȚĮțȠȓ įİıȝȠȓ ȒIJĮȞ ȚıȤȣȡȠȓ. Ǿ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪıİ IJȠ țȑȞIJȡȠ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠʌȠȓȘıȘȢ țĮȚ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȠʌȠȓȘıȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ȅȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ įȚĮȤİȚȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȞ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩ IJȝȒȝĮ IJȘȢ ȠȚțȚĮțȒȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ. Ǿ İȞĮıȤȩȜȘıȘ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȪijĮȞıȘ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡĮȖȦȖȒ ȣijĮıȝȐIJȦȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȠȣ ĮȞȒțİ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȒįȘ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ IJȠȣ ȅȝȒȡȠȣ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȆĮȜĮȚȐȢ ǻȚĮșȒțȘȢ, ȩʌȦȢ İʌȓıȘȢ țĮȚ Ș ĮȞĮIJȡȠijȒ IJȦȞ ʌĮȚįȚȫȞ.35

32

ǵ.ʌ., ı. 26. ȂȠȣıȠȪȡȠȣ ȁȠȣțȓĮ, «īȡĮȝȝȐIJȦȞ Ƞȣț ȐȝȠȚȡȠȢ», ıIJȠ: ȉȝȒȝĮ ȀȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒȢ ȆȠȜȚIJȚțȒȢ ȆĮȞIJİȓȠȣ ȆĮȞİʌȚıIJȘȝȓȠȣ, ȀȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩȢ ȝİIJĮıȤȘȝĮIJȚıȝȩȢ ıIJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ ǼȜȜȐįĮ, IJȩȝȠȢ-ǹijȚȑȡȦȝĮ ıIJȠȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȩȖȠ ǻȘȝȒIJȡȘ ȉıĮȠȪıȘ, İțį. Gutenberg, ǹșȒȞĮ, 2013, ıİȜ. 545-560. ȆĮȞĮȖȚȫIJȘȢ ȃȚțȠȜȩʌȠȣȜȠȢ, «ȁȠȖȠIJİȤȞȓĮ: ȅȚ ȚıIJȠȡȚȠȖȡȐijȠȚ: DZȞȞĮ ȀȠȝȞȘȞȒ», ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ ǼȜȜȘȞȚțȠȪ DzșȞȠȣȢ, IJ. Ĭ (1980), ǼțįȠIJȚțȒ ǹșȘȞȫȞ, ıİȜ. 386-387. 34 ȉȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȘȢ DZȞȞĮȢ ȀȠȝȞȘȞȒȢ ȑȤİȚ ʌȡȠțĮȜȑıİȚ İȣȡİȓĮ ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ ȖȪȡȦ Įʌȩ ʌȠȜȜȐ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJĮ, ȩʌȦȢ ĮȞ țĮȚ țĮIJȐ ʌȩıȠ IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ İȓȞĮȚ įȚțȩ IJȘȢ, ĮȞ ȑȤİȚ ȐʌȠȥȘ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ țĮȚ ʌȠȚĮ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȣIJȒ, ĮȞ Ș ȓįȚĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ İȟĮȓȡİıȘ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ IJȘȢ, țĮȚ ȩȜĮ ĮȣIJȐ įİȓȤȞȠȣȞ IJȘ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȑȡȖȠȣ IJȘȢ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ. ǺȜ. Barbara Hill, “Komnene, Anna” ıIJȠ Women and Gender in Medieval Europe, An Encyclopedia, Routledge 2006, ı. 444-445, ȩʌȠȣ țĮȚ ıȤİIJȚțȒ ȕȚȕȜȚȠȖȡĮijȓĮ. 35 Byzantine Women and their World, ȩ.ʌ., ı. 26. 33

Women in the History of the Church

375

ȀĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ IJȘȢ ȅșȦȝĮȞȚțȒȢ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȓĮȢ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ IJȘȢ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, țȐIJȦ Įʌȩ ıȣȞșȒțİȢ įȠȣȜİȓĮȢ, İȓȤĮȞ ȞĮ ĮȞIJȚȝİIJȦʌȓıȠȣȞ, ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıİ ȐȜȜĮ, IJȠ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ĮȝȐșİȚĮȢ țĮȚ ĮʌĮȚįİȣıȓĮȢ. ȅ ĮȞĮȜijĮȕȘIJȚıȝȩȢ ȒIJĮȞ țȣȡȓĮȡȤȠȢ. ȅ ijȣıȚțȩȢ ȤȫȡȠȢ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȠʌȠȓȘıȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İȟĮțȠȜȠȣșİȓ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ ȤȫȡȠȢ IJȠȣ ıʌȚIJȚȠȪ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮȢ, ȩʌȠȣ İțİȓ ıĮijȫȢ ıȣȝȕȐȜȜȠȣȞ ıIJȘȞ ȠȚțȚĮțȒ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ, ıIJȘ įȚĮIJȒȡȘıȘ IJȘȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ, ıIJȘȞ ĮȞĮIJȡȠijȒ IJȦȞ ʌĮȚįȚȫȞ. Ȃİ IJȘȞ ıIJĮįȚĮțȒ ĮȞĮįȚȠȡȖȐȞȦıȘ IJȘȢ İțʌĮȓįİȣıȘȢ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚİȢ ĮȞȐțĮȝȥȘȢ IJȠȣ īȑȞȠȣȢ, ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ İțįȒȜȦıĮȞ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞ ȖȚĮ IJĮ ȖȡȐȝȝĮIJĮ, ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ İțįȩıİȚȢ ȕȚȕȜȓȦȞ, ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȝȩȡijȦıȘ țĮȚ İțʌĮȓįİȣıȒ IJȠȣȢ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ IJȠȣ ȞİȠİȜȜȘȞȚțȠȪ įȚĮijȦIJȚıȝȠȪ ȠȚ ȑȜȜȘȞİȢ IJȘȢ įȚĮıʌȠȡȐȢ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚİȢ IJȦȞ ʌȜȠȣıȓȦȞ İȝʌȩȡȦȞ, ȘȖİȝȩȞȦȞ țĮȚ ĮȡȤȩȞIJȦȞ IJȦȞ ʌĮȡȓıIJȡȚȦȞ ȘȖİȝȠȞȚȫȞ IJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ IJȠȣ ijȦIJȚıȝȑȞȠȣ įİıʌȠIJȚıȝȠȪ įİȓȤȞȠȣȞ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ İțįȩıİȚȢ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞȐȖȞȦıȘ ȕȚȕȜȓȦȞ, ijȡȠȞIJȓȗȠȣȞ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȝȩȡijȦıȘ IJȦȞ ʌĮȚįȚȫȞ IJȠȣȢ, ĮȖȠȡȚȫȞ țĮȚ țȠȡȚIJıȚȫȞ, ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȡȩıȜȘȥȘ ȠȚțȠįȚįĮıțȐȜȦȞ. ȈIJȘȞ țĮIJ’ ȠȓțȠȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ȝĮșȘȝȐIJȦȞ IJĮ ʌĮȚįȚȐ įȚįȐıțȠȞIJĮȚ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ İȜȜȘȞȚțȐ, ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ, ȞİȩIJİȡİȢ İʌȚıIJȒȝİȢ țĮȚ ȟȑȞİȢ ȖȜȫııİȢ.36 ȅȚ ijĮȞĮȡȚȫIJȚııİȢ, ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ IJȦȞ ĮȡȤȠȞIJȚțȫȞ ȠȚțȠȖİȞİȚȫȞ IJȦȞ ʌĮȡȓıIJȡȚȦȞ ȘȖİȝȠȞȚȫȞ, ȝĮșĮȓȞȠȣȞ ȟȑȞİȢ ȖȜȫııİȢ țĮȚ ȝİIJĮijȡȐȗȠȣȞ ȕȚȕȜȓĮ. ȁȩȖȚȠȚ IJȘȢ İʌȠȤȒȢ ĮijȚİȡȫȞȠȣȞ ȑȡȖĮ IJȠȣȢ ıİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȠȣ įİȓȤȞȠȣȞ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȝȩȡijȦıȘ țĮȚ IJȚȢ İȞșĮȡȡȪȞȠȣȞ ıIJȘȞ İȞĮıȤȩȜȘıȒ IJȠȣȢ ȝİ IJĮ ȖȡȐȝȝĮIJĮ. ȈȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ ȜȠȖȓȦȞ ȞĮ ȕȖȐȜȠȣȞ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ Įʌȩ IJȠ ıțȠIJȐįȚ IJȘȢ ĮȝȐșİȚĮȢ, ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȒ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȠȣ ȆĮȞĮȖȚȫIJȘ ȀȠįȡȚțȐ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ȝİIJȑijȡĮıİ ȑȞĮ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ Fontenelle, Įʌȩ IJĮ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩIJİȡĮ țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȠȣ İȣȡȦʌĮȧțȠȪ įȚĮijȦIJȚıȝȠȪ. Ǿ ȝİIJȐijȡĮıȒ IJȠȣ İțįȩșȘțİ ıIJĮ 1794 ȝİ IJȠȞ IJȓIJȜȠ ȅȝȚȜȓĮȚ ʌİȡȓ ʌȜȘșȪȠȢ țȩıȝȦȞ. ȆȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ ȝȣșȚıIJȩȡȘȝĮ, ȩʌȠȣ, țĮIJȐ IJȘ ıȣȞȠȝȚȜȓĮ İȞȩȢ ȐȞįȡĮ țĮȚ ȝȚĮȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ĮȞĮʌIJȪııİIJĮȚ Ș ȞİȣIJȫȞİȚĮ ijȣıȚțȒ ijȚȜȠıȠijȓĮ. ȉȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȠȝȚȜȓĮ ıȣȝȝİIJȑȤİȚ ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮșȚıIJȐ IJȠ țİȓȝİȞȠ İȣȤȐȡȚıIJȠ țĮȚ İȜțȣıIJȚțȩ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ ĮȞĮȖȞȦıIJȚțȩ țȠȚȞȩ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȦȞ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȫȞ șİȦȡȚȫȞ.37 ȅ ȀȠįȡȚțȐȢ ʌȓıIJİȣİ ȩIJȚ İȓȞĮȚ İȪțȠȜȠ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıȠijȒ įȚĮȕȐȗȠȞIJĮȢ ȕȚȕȜȓĮ țĮȚ İʌȚʌȜȑȠȞ șİȦȡȠȪıİ ȩIJȚ Ș İțȜĮǸțİȣıȘ IJȘȢ ĮıIJȡȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ șĮ ıȣȞȑȕĮȜİ ıIJȘȞ ĮʌȐȜİȚȥȘ IJȘȢ įİȚıȚįĮȚȝȠȞȓĮȢ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ʌȡȠȜȒȥİȦȞ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ țĮIJĮʌȠȜȑȝȘıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȝȐșİȚĮȢ.38

36 ȂĮȡȠȪıȘ ĭȦIJ., Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ ȀĮȚıȐȡȚȠȣ ǻĮʌȩȞIJİ ȀĮșȡȑʌIJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȝİIJĮʌIJȣȤȚĮțȒ ȝİȜȑIJȘ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2007, ı. 30, 31. 37 ȀȠįȡȚțȐȢ ȆĮȞ., ȅȝȚȜȓĮȚ ʌİȡȓ ʌȜȘșȪȠȢ țȩıȝȦȞ IJȠȣ țȣȡȓȠȣ ĭȠȞIJİȞȑȜ, İȞ ǺȚȑȞȞȘ IJȘȢ ǹȠȣıIJȡȓĮȢ, İȞ IJȘ İȜȜȘȞȚțૈ IJȣʌȠȖȡĮijȓ઺ īİȦȡȖȓȠȣ ǺİȞIJȩIJȘ, 1794, ı. XLII. 38 ȀȠȞįȪȜȘȢ ȆĮȞ., ȃİȠİȜȜȘȞȚțȩȢ ǻȚĮijȦIJȚıȝȩȢ, ı. 284.

376

Chapter Twenty Five

ȆĮȡȩȝȠȚĮ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȠȣ ȀĮȚıȐȡȚȠȣ ǻĮʌȩȞIJİ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ıȣȞȑIJĮȟİ IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ «ȀĮșȡȑʌIJȘȢ īȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ, ‫݋‬Ȟ ߔ ʌİȡȚȑȤȠȞIJĮȚ ȖȡĮijȚțࠛȢ Į‫݋ ݨ‬Ȟ IJ߲ ʌĮȜĮȚߣ ȖȡĮij߲ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞĮȚ ıʌȠȡȐįȘȞ ‫ݨ‬ıIJȠȡȓĮȚ țĮțࠛȞ IJİ țĮȓ țĮȜࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ».39 ȉȠ ȑȡȖȠ ĮijȚİȡȫȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ įȩȝȞĮ ǼȜȑȞȘ ȂĮȣȡȠțȠȡįȐIJȠȣ. ȅ ȀĮșȡȑʌIJȘȢ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞ IJȠȣ ȀĮȚıȐȡȚȠȣ ǻĮʌȩȞIJİ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ıIJȚȤȠȣȡȖȚțȒ ıȪȞșİıȘ ȩʌȠȣ ȝİ ȤȚȠȪȝȠȡ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȠȚȤİȓĮ ȘșȚțȠįȚįĮțIJȚțȐ ʌİȡȓ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, IJȦȞ țĮȜȫȞ țĮȚ IJȦȞ țĮțȫȞ.40 Ǿ ıȪȞșİıȘ ıIJȘȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ıİ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȪȝİȞĮ ȑȡȖĮ41 țĮȚ ıĮijȫȢ ʌĮȡĮʌȑȝʌİȚ ıİ țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJİȓĮȢ. ȈȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ ıİ ȑȞĮ IJȝȒȝĮ IJȘȢ ȠȝȚȜȓĮȢ ǼȚȢ IJȘȞ ǹʌȠIJȠȝȒȞ IJȠȣ ȉȚȝȓȠȣ ȆȡȠįȡȩȝȠȣ,42 ȩʌȠȣ ȝİ ĮijȠȡȝȒ IJȘ ıIJȐıȘ IJȘȢ ǾȡȦįȚȐįĮȢ ĮʌȑȞĮȞIJȚ ıIJȠȞ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ IJȠȞ ȆȡȩįȡȠȝȠ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ıİ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡİȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ʌȠȣ ĮʌĮȞIJȫȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ Ȇ.ǻ. țĮȚ Ȁ.ǻ. ȅȡȚıȝȑȞİȢ Įʌȩ ĮȣIJȑȢ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪȞ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ ʌȡȠȢ ȝȓȝȘıȚȞ țĮȚ ȐȜȜİȢ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ ʌȡȠȢ ĮʌȠijȣȖȒȞ. ȅȡȚıȝȑȞİȢ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓİȢ ȝȠȡijȑȢ ʌȠȣ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȠȝȚȜȓĮ ǼȚȢ IJȘȞ ǹʌȠIJȠȝȒȞ IJȠȣ ȉ. ȆȡȠįȡȩȝȠȣ, ʌȡȠțȐȜİıĮȞ IJȘȞ țĮIJĮıIJȡȠijȒ țĮȚ IJȠ șȐȞĮIJȠ ĮȞįȡȫȞ ȩʌȦȢ IJȠȣ ȈĮȝȥȫȞ43, IJȠȣ ǹȤĮȐȕ, IJȠȣ ǾȜȓĮ IJȠȣ ĬİıȕȓIJȘ,44 IJȠȣ ǻĮȕȓį,45 IJȠȣ ȈȠȜȠȝȫȞIJĮ,46 Ȓ ĮȞIJȓșİIJĮ, ıȣȝʌĮȡĮıIJȐșȘțĮȞ ıİ ȐȞįȡİȢ, 39

ȀĮșȡȑʌIJȘȢ īȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ, ‫݋‬Ȟ ߔ ʌİȡȚȑȤȠȞIJĮȚ ȖȡĮijȚțࠛȢ Į‫݋ ݨ‬Ȟ IJ߲ ʌĮȜĮȚߣ ȖȡĮij߲ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞĮȚ ıʌȠȡȐįȘȞ ‫ݨ‬ıIJȠȡȓĮȚ țĮțࠛȞ IJİ țĮȓ țĮȜࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ ıȣȞIJİșİ૙ıĮȚ ȝȑȞ țĮȓ ıIJȚȤȠȣȡȖȘșİ૙ıĮȚ ʌĮȡȐ ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȞȠȣ ǻĮʌȩȞIJİ, IJȠ૨ ȝİIJȠȞȠȝĮıșȑȞIJȠȢ ȀĮȚıĮȡȓȠȣ, ʌȡȠıijȦȞȘșİ૙ıĮȚ įȑ IJૌ ਥțȜĮȝʌȡȠIJȐIJૉ țĮȓ İ੝ıİȕİıIJȐIJȘ įȩȝȞૉ ʌȐıȘȢ ȂȠȜįȠȕȜĮȤȓĮȢ țȣȡȓ઺ țȣȡȓ઺ ਬȜȑȞȘ ȂĮȣȡȠțȠȡįȐIJૉ· IJȐ Ȟ૨Ȟ ʌȡ૵IJȠȞ IJȪʌȠȚȢ ਥțįȠșȑȞ įĮʌȐȞૉ IJȠ૨ IJȚȝȚȦIJȐIJȠȣ țȪȡ ȀȦıIJો ਝȕȡȐȝȘ ȃİȠȤȦȡȓIJȠȣ, ਥȞ ȁİȚȥȓ઺ ਥȞ IJૌ IJȣʌȠȖȡĮijȓ઺ IJȠ૨ ǺȡİȧIJțȩʌij 1766, IJȩȝȠȚ 2, İੁȢ 8ȠȞ ǺȜ. ਝȞįȡȑĮ ȆĮʌĮįȠʌȠȪȜȠȣ ǺȡİIJȠ૨, ȃİȠȜİȜȜȘȞȚțȒ ĭȚȜȠȜȠȖȓĮ ‫ݛ‬IJȠȚ ȀĮIJȐȜȠȖȠȢ IJࠛȞ ܻʌȩ ʌIJȫıİȦȢ IJ߱Ȣ ǺȣȗĮȞIJȚȞ߱Ȣ ǹ‫ރ‬IJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȓĮȢ ȝȑȤȡȚ ‫݋‬ȖțĮșȚįȡȪıİȦȢ IJ߱Ȣ ‫݋‬Ȟ ‫ݒ‬ȜȜȐįȚ ǺĮıȚȜİȓĮȢ IJȣʌȦșȑȞIJȦȞ ȕȚȕȜȓȦȞ ʌĮȡ’ ‫ݒ‬ȜȜȒȞȦȞ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȒȞ ‫ݸ‬ȝȚȜȠȣȝȑȞȘȞ ‫ ݛ‬İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȒȞ ܻȡȤĮȓĮȞ ‫݌‬ȜȜȘȞȚțȒȞ ȖȜࠛııĮȞ, ȂȑȡȠȢ ǹǯ, ਥȞ ਝșȒȞĮȚȢ 1854, ı. 85-86, ਕȡ. 235. ȆĮʌĮįȩʌȠȣȜȠȢ ĬȦȝȐȢ, ǼȜȜȘȞȚțȒ ǺȚȕȜȚȠȖȡĮijȓĮ (1466-1800), IJ. ǹǯ, ǹșȒȞĮ 1984, ı. 141.

40 ǺȜ. ȂĮȡȠȪıȘ ĭȦIJ., Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ ȀĮȚıȐȡȚȠȣ ǻĮʌȩȞIJİ, ‘ȀĮșȡȑʌIJȘȢ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞ’, ȩ.ʌ., ı. 36, 37. 41 ǺȜ. ǵ.ʌ., ı. 39. 42 ȉȠ İįȐijȚȠ ĮʌĮȞIJȐIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤȘ ȠȝȚȜȓĮ IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ ȋȡȣıȠıIJȩȝȠȣ țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ ǹǯ ĮȡȤȚİʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘȢ. 43 ȀȣȡȚĮIJȗȒ ǹȞIJ., ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ǹǯ ĮȡȤȚİʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘȢ (6ȠȢ -7ȠȢ ĮȚ.). ǿıIJȠȡȚțȒșİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ, į.į., ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2009: Ǽ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȒȞ ݃ʌȠIJȠȝȒȞ IJȠࠎ ȉȚȝȓȠȣ ȆȡȠįȡȩȝȠȣ, ıIJ. 131: «…Ƞ੝ț ȠੇįĮȢ IJȓ ਥʌȠȓȘıİ IJ૶ ȈĮȝȥȫȞ ਲ ȖȣȞȒ· ਥȟĮʌĮIJȒıĮıĮ ȖȐȡ IJȩȞ ਙȞįȡĮ ʌĮȡȑįȦțİȞ Į੝IJȩȞ IJȠ૙Ȣ ਕȜȜȠijȪȜȠȚȢ…» (Ȁȡ. 16,4). 44 ȀȣȡȚĮIJȗȒ ǹȞIJ., ȩ.ʌ.: ǼȚȢ IJȘȞ ǹʌȠIJȠȝȒȞ IJȠȣ ȉȚȝȓȠȣ ȆȡȠįȡȩȝȠȣ, ıIJ. 139-146. 45 ȀȣȡȚĮIJȗȒ ǹȞIJ., ȩ.ʌ.: «Ǽ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȒȞ ݃ʌȠIJȠȝȒȞ IJȠࠎ ȉȚȝȓȠȣ ȆȡȠįȡȩȝȠȣ», ıIJ. 146-147: «… ȀĮȓ ǻĮȕȓį ‫ ݸ‬ȕĮıȚȜİȪȢ Ƞ‫ރ‬Ȥȓ įȚȐ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ ‫ݛ‬ȝĮȡIJİȞ IJࠜ Ĭİࠜ; Ǽ‫ބ‬ȡȫȞ țĮȓ įȐțȡȣȠȞ

Women in the History of the Church

377

ȩʌȦȢ Ș «ıȠȞĮȝȓIJȚȢ» (ǻǯ ǺĮı. 4,8-12), Ș ȈȐȡȡĮ (īİȞ. 18,1-8), Ș DZȞȞĮ.47 ǹȚIJȓĮ IJȠȣ șĮȞȐIJȠȣ IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ IJȠȣ ȆȡȠįȡȩȝȠȣ ȒIJĮȞ Ș ǾȡȦįȚȐįĮ,48 Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ijȑȡșȘțİ ȩʌȦȢ Ș ǿİȗȐȕİȜ ıIJȠ ȃĮȕȠȣșĮȓ (īǯ ǺĮı. 21,1-16) Ȓ ȩʌȦȢ Ș ǻĮȜȚįȐ (Ȁȡ. 16,1-22). ǹȞȐȜȠȖȘ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ʌİȡȚȖȡĮijȒ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ İțIJİȞȑȢ ȑȡȖȠ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞȑșİıİ Ƞ ȀĮȚıȐȡȚȠȢ ǻĮʌȩȞIJİ, ȩʌȠȣ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijİȚ ıIJİȡİȩIJȣʌĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮȚ IJȘ ıȤȑıȘ IJȠȣȢ ȝİ IJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ IJȘȢ ĮȝĮȡIJȓĮȢ. ǹȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıIJĮ șĮȞȐıȚȝĮ ĮȝĮȡIJȒȝĮIJĮ țĮȚ ıIJĮ ʌȐșȘ, ıȣȞįȑȠȞIJĮȢ IJĮ ȝİ IJȪʌȠȣȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ȈIJİȡİȩIJȣʌĮ ĮȡȞȘIJȚțȐ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ İȚțȩȞĮ ʌİȡȓ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȩ țȩıȝȠ. ȈȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ ȀĮșȡȑʌIJȘȢ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İȞįİȤȠȝȑȞȦȢ İȟĮȚIJȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ĮȡȞȘIJȚțȫȞ ʌȡȠIJȪʌȦȞ Ƞ ǼȣȖȑȞȚȠȢ ǺȠȪȜȖĮȡȘȢ ıİ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ ȃİȩijȣIJȠ ȀĮȣıȠțĮȜȣȕȓIJȘ ȜȑİȚ ʌȦȢ «ĮȞ İȓȤİ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ Ȓ țȩȡȘ įİȞ șĮ IJȠȣȢ İʌȑIJȡİʌİ ȞĮ ‘İȞȠʌIJȡȚıșȠȪȞ’ ıİ ȑȞĮȞ IJȑIJȠȚȠ țĮșȡȑijIJȘ».49 Ǿ İȚțȩȞĮ ʌȠȣ țȣȡȚȐȡȤȘıİ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȒIJĮȞ ĮȣIJȒ ʌȠȣ IJȘ ıȣȞįȑİȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮȝĮȡIJȓĮ, ʌĮȡĮȝİȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJȘȞ İȚțȩȞĮ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ, ʌĮȡȐ IJȘȞ IJȚȝȒ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠįȓįİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ ȞȑĮ ǼȪĮ, Ș ȝİIJĮȞȠȓĮȢ ‫݋‬įȚțĮȚȫșȘ IJࠜ Ĭİࠜ…». ǺǯǺĮı. 11,1-26. «…‫݃ ݸ‬ȤĮȐȕ (īǯ ǺĮı. 16,28 ț.ȑ.) Ƞ‫ރ‬Ȥȓ įȚȐ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ ܻʌȫȜİIJȠ; țĮȓ ‫ݼ‬ıȠȞ ‫݋‬ȞȠȣșȑIJİȚ Į‫ރ‬IJȒȞ IJȠıȠࠎIJȠȞ ‫݋‬ȞȑIJİȚȞİ IJȩ ȟȓijȠȢ țĮIJ’ Į‫ރ‬IJȠࠎ, įȚȐ IJ߱Ȣ țĮț߱Ȣ įȚĮȖȦȖ߱Ȣ Į‫ރ‬IJ߱Ȣ. ȉȓ ȖȐȡ ȝİȓȗȦ İ‫ݭ‬Ȥİ ʌȠȚ߱ıĮȚ ‫ ݘ‬IJȠȪȢ ʌȡȠijȒIJȘȞ IJȠࠎ ĬİȠࠎ ܻʌȠțIJİȓȞĮıĮ țĮȓ IJȠȪȢ ‫ݨ‬İȡİ߿Ȣ ijȣȖĮįİȪıĮıĮ. ‫ݟ‬ȜȓĮȢ (īǯ ǺĮı. 17,22. 19,1 ț.ȑ.) ‫ ݸ‬șİıȕȓIJȘȢ ܻʌȩ ʌȡȠıȫʌȠȣ Į‫ރ‬IJ߱Ȣ Ƞ‫ރ‬ț ‫ݏ‬ijȣȖİ, IJȩȞ ܿȞįȡĮ Į‫ރ‬IJ߱Ȣ ܻʌȑțIJİȚȞİ, įȚȐ IJࠛȞ ‫ݍ‬ȡȖȦȞ Į‫ރ‬IJ߱Ȣ ʌĮȡȠȡȖȓıĮıĮ IJȩȞ ĬİȩȞ· ܻȜȜȐ țĮȓ Į‫ރ‬IJȒ țȣȞȩȕȡȠIJȠȢ ȖȑȖȠȞİȞ· Ƞ‫ ރ‬ȖȚȞȫıțİȚȢ ‫ݼ‬IJȚ ȖȑȖȡĮʌIJĮȚ45 ‘‫ݼ‬IJȚ ܻʌȩ IJ߱Ȣ ıȣȖțȠȓIJȠȣ ıȠȣ ijȣȜȐȟĮȚ IJȠࠎ ܻȞĮșȑıșĮȚ’» 46 ȀȣȡȚĮIJȗȒ ǹȞIJ., ȩ.ʌ.: «ǼੁȢ IJȒȞ ਝʌȠIJȠȝȒȞ IJȠ૨ ȉȚȝȓȠȣ ȆȡȠįȡȩȝȠȣ», ıIJ. 148-149: «ȀĮȓ IJȩȞ ıȠijȫIJĮIJȠȞ ȈȠȜȠȝȫȞIJĮ (īǯǺĮı. 11,1-11) Ƞ‫ރ‬Ȥȓ Į‫ ݨ‬ȖȣȞĮ߿țİȢ ‫݋‬ʌȜȐȞȘıĮȞ; …» 47 ȀȣȡȚĮIJȗȒ ǹȞIJ., ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ǹǯ ĮȡȤȚİʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘȢ (6ȠȢ -7ȠȢ ĮȚ.). ǿıIJȠȡȚțȒșİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ, į.į., ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2009: «ǼੁȢ IJȒȞ ਝʌȠIJȠȝȒȞ IJȠ૨ ȉȚȝȓȠȣ ȆȡȠįȡȩȝȠȣ», ıIJ. 152-156: «…‫ݠ ݸ‬ȡȫįȘȢ … ʌȠȡİȣșİȓȢ ʌȡȩȢ IJȒȞ ʌȡȠijȘIJȠțIJȩȞȠȞ, ʌȐȞIJȦȢ ܻȞȒȖȖİȚȜİȞ Į‫ރ‬IJ߲. ‫ ݠ‬įȑ IJĮࠎIJĮ ܻțȠȪıĮıĮ ‫݋‬IJĮȡȐȤșȘ țĮȓ ‫݋‬ȗȒIJİȚ țĮș’ ‫݌‬țȐıIJȘȞ İ‫ރ‬țĮȚȡȓĮȞ Ƞ‫ރ‬Ȥ ‫ݬ‬ȞĮ Į‫ރ‬IJȩȞ IJȚȝȒı߯, țĮșȫȢ ‫ ݘ‬ȤȒȡĮ IJȩȞ ‫ݠ‬ȜȓĮȞ47 ‫ ݙ‬țĮȓ ‫ސ‬Ȣ IJȩȞ ‫ݑ‬ȜȚıĮȚȑ ‫ݘ‬ ıȠȞĮȝ߿IJȚȢ (ǻǯ ǺĮı. 4,8-12) țĮȓ ‫ ݘ‬ȈȐȡȡĮ ıȪȞ IJࠜ ݃ȕȡĮȐȝ IJȠȪȢ ܻȖȖȑȜȠȣȢ (īİȞ. 18,1-8) ‫ ݛ‬țĮȓ ‫ސ‬Ȣ ݇ȞȞȘ ıȪȞ IJࠜ ȈȣȝİࠛȞȚ ‫ބ‬ʌȠįİȟĮȝȑȞȘ IJȩȞ ıȦIJ߱ȡĮ, ‫ ݘ‬țĮȓ ܻȞșȠȝȠȜȠȖȒıĮıĮ IJࠜ Ȁȣȡȓ࠙ įȚȐ IJȩ țĮșĮȡȩȞ IJ߱Ȣ ȤȘȡİȓĮȢ Į‫ރ‬IJ߱Ȣ (ȁț. 2,36-38) …». 48 ȀȣȡȚĮIJȗȒ ǹȞIJ., ȩ.ʌ.: «ǼੁȢ IJȒȞ ਝʌȠIJȠȝȒȞ IJȠ૨ ȉȚȝȓȠȣ ȆȡȠįȡȩȝȠȣ», ıIJ. 157-162. «…‫ݠ‬ȡȦįȚȐȢ įȑ ȗȒȜ࠙ ijİȡȠȝȑȞ߯, țĮșȫȢ ‫ݯ‬İȗȐȕİȜ țĮIJȐ ȃĮȕȠȣșĮȓ ‫ ݛ‬țĮȓ ‫ސ‬Ȣ ǻĮȜȚįȐ țĮIJȐ IJȠࠎ ‫ݧ‬įȓȠȣ ܻȞįȡȩȢ İ‫ބ‬ȡȠࠎıĮ Ƞ‫މ‬Ȟ İ‫އ‬țĮȚȡȠȞ ‫ݘ‬ȝȑȡĮȞ ܻȞȠıȓĮȢ ȖİȞȠȝȑȞȘȢ (ʌȠȓĮȢ IJĮȪIJȘȢ; ‫ݼ‬IJĮȞ ‫ ݸ‬įȚȐȕȠȜȠȢ IJȩȞ ݃įȐȝ țĮȓ IJȒȞ Ǽ‫އ‬ĮȞ ‫݋‬ț IJȠࠎ ʌĮȡĮįİȓıȠȣ ‫݋‬ȟȑȕĮȜȜİȞ) (īİȞ.3,23) țĮȓ IJȠࠎ ܻșȜȓȠȣ ȖİȞİıȓȠȣ ȖİȞȠȝȑȞȠȣ, ‫ޏ‬ȡȤȒıĮIJȠ ‫ ݘ‬șȣȖȐIJȘȡ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݠ‬ȡȦįȚȐįȠȢ (Ȃț.6,22. ȂIJ.14,6) țĮȓ ‫ݛ‬ȡİıİ IJࠜ ȕĮıȚȜİ߿». 49 ȂĮȡȠȪıȘ ĭȦIJ., Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ ȀĮȚıȐȡȚȠȣ ǻĮʌȩȞIJİ, ‘ȀĮșȡȑʌIJȘȢ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞ’, ȩ.ʌ., ı. 24. ȆȡȕȜ. ȀĮȚıȐȡȚȠȣ ǻĮʌȩȞIJİ, ȀȒʌȠȢ ȋĮȡȓIJȦȞ, İʌȚȝ. DZȜțȘȢ ǹȖȖȑȜȠȣ, ǹșȒȞĮ 1997, ı. 89.

378

Chapter Twenty Five

ȠʌȠȓĮ țĮIJȐ ȋȐȡȘ ıȣȞȑįİıİ İȜİȪșİȡĮ IJȘȞ ȪʌĮȡȟȒ IJȘȢ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȠȣ ıȤİįȓȠȣ IJȘȢ ĮȖȐʌȘȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ.50 ȆĮȡĮȖțȦȞȓıIJȘțİ İʌȓıȘȢ Ș İȚțȩȞĮ ʌȜȒșȠȣȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ʌȠȣ «ȝĮȡIJȪȡȘıĮȞ, İȣĮȖȖİȜȓıIJȘțĮȞ, ʌȡȠijȒIJİȣıĮȞ, ȑijIJĮıĮȞ ȦȢ IJȚȢ țȠȡȣijȑȢ IJȘȢ ĮȖȚȩIJȘIJĮȢ».51 ȀĮșȫȢ ĮʌȠȝĮțȡȣȞȩȝĮıIJİ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮțȑȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓİȢ, ȩʌȠȣ İȓȤİ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȒıİȚ IJȠ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ʌȠȣ ȝȑȞİȚ ıIJȠ ıʌȓIJȚ țĮȚ ĮıȤȠȜİȓIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮIJȡȠijȒ IJȦȞ ʌĮȚįȚȫȞ, ʌİȡȞȐȝİ ıIJȘ ȞİȩIJİȡȘ İʌȠȤȒ ȩʌȠȣ Ș țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ șȑıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJĮįȚĮțȐ ĮȜȜȐȗİȚ. ǼțIJȩȢ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȠȣ ıʌȚIJȚȠȪ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țȚȞİȓIJĮȚ țĮȚ ıIJȘ ıijĮȓȡĮ IJȠȣ įȘȝȩıȚȠȣ ȕȓȠȣ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȠȞ 19Ƞ țĮȚ 20Ƞ ĮȚ. IJȠ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȩ țȓȞȘȝĮ įȚİțįȚțİȓ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ İȜİȣșİȡȓĮ țĮȚ șȑIJİȚ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ șȑıȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ. ȂȑȤȡȚ IJȘ įİțĮİIJȓĮ IJȠȣ 1960 IJĮ įȚțĮȚȫȝĮIJĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıİ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȩ țĮȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ İʌȓʌİįȠ ĮȜȜȐȗȠȣȞ, įȚĮıijĮȜȓȗİIJĮȚ Ș ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘȞ İțʌĮȓįİȣıȘ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȒ, Ș ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ ıİ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJĮ ȠȚțȠȖİȞİȚĮțȠȪ įȚțĮȓȠȣ. ȂİIJȐ IJȘ įİțĮİIJȓĮ IJȠȣ ’60 Ș įȚİțįȓțȘıȘ ʌİȡȞȐ ıIJȠ İʌȓʌİįȠ IJȘȢ ĮʌİȜİȣșȑȡȦıȘȢ Įʌȩ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮțȐ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȐ ȝȠȞIJȑȜĮ.52 Ǿ ĮȜȜĮȖȒ IJȘȢ șȑıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, Ș ĮȞȐțĮȝȥȘ IJȠȣ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȠȪ țȚȞȒȝĮIJȠȢ, ȠȚ įȡȐıİȚȢ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȫȞ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȫȞ İȞȫıİȦȞ țĮȚ ȠȡȖĮȞȫıİȦȞ țĮȚ ıIJȠȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩ ȤȫȡȠ, ȩʌȦȢ İȞįİȚțIJȚțȐ Ș ȆĮȖțȩıȝȚĮ DzȞȦıȘ IJȦȞ ȀĮșȠȜȚțȫȞ ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȫȞ ȅȡȖĮȞȫıİȦȞ, Ș National Association of Religious Women ıIJȚȢ ǾȆǹ, IJȠ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩ Forum ǼȣȡȦʌĮȓȦȞ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȫȞ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, Ș ǼȣȡȦʌĮȧțȒ ǼIJĮȚȡİȓĮ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ DzȡİȣȞĮ, ț.Ȑ., İʌȘȡȑĮıĮȞ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ șȑIJȠȞIJĮȢ ĮȣIJȒȞ ıIJȘ įȚĮįȚțĮıȓĮ ĮȞĮșİȫȡȘıȘȢ IJȘȢ ijȪıȘȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȘȢ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ. ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȜİȣȡȐ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȝȚĮ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ ʌȡȦIJȠȕȠȣȜȓĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ Ș ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȠȣ ǻȚȠȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ȈȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ ıIJȘ ȇȩįȠ IJȠ 1988 ʌȠȣ ĮıȤȠȜȒșȘțİ ȝİ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȐįȠȢ ĮʌĮȞIJȫȞIJĮȢ ıIJȚȢ ȞȑİȢ ʌȡȠțȜȒıİȚȢ, ıIJĮ ȞȑĮ ĮȚIJȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȠȪȞIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮȜȜĮȖȒ IJȘȢ șȑıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȢ İȟȩįȠȣ IJȘȢ ıIJȠ įȘȝȩıȚȠ ȕȓȠ, ȑįİȚȟİ IJȠ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞ IJȘȢ ȖȚĮ IJĮ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıȤȘȝĮIJȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ ǼȚįȚțȒ ǼʌȚIJȡȠʌȒ īȣȞĮȚțİȓȦȞ ĬİȝȐIJȦȞ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ȝİ IJȚȢ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJȑȢ IJȘȢ, ıIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ, ʌȡȠȑȕȘ ıIJȘ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ IJȠȣ ǻȚĮȝȘIJȡȠʌȠȜȚIJȚțoȪ ǻȚțIJȪȠȣ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝİ ıțȠʌȩ ȞĮ İȝʌȜĮțȠȪȞ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȞĮ ıȣȝȝİIJȐıȤȠȣȞ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ǹȞIJȜȫȞIJĮȢ įȪȞĮȝȘ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȓıIJȘ

50

Behr Sigel Elisabeth, ȉȠ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ı. 31,32. ǵ.ʌ., ı. 131. 52 Capelli G., “Femminismo”, Dizionario Teologico Enciclopedico, ed. PIEMME, ı. 414-415. 51

Women in the History of the Church

379

ıIJȠ Ĭİȩ, ȞĮ ıȣȝȕȐȜȠȣȞ ȝİ IJȘȞ İȞȘȝȑȡȦıȘ, IJȘȞ ĮȜȜȘȜİȖȖȪȘ, ıIJȘȞ İȞįȣȞȐȝȦıȘ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ.53 ȅȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌȠȪıİȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȁİȚIJȠȣȡȖȠȪȞ ıȣȝʌȜȘȡȦȝĮIJȚțȐ ıIJȘ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ IJȦȞ ȩȡȦȞ IJȘȢ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ. Ǿ ȑȡİȣȞĮ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ıʌȠȣįȑȢ, Ș ĮȞĮȗȒIJȘıȘ, Ș ĮȞȐįİȚȟȘ țĮȚ ıȣȞİȚįȘIJȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȘȢ IJĮȣIJȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ıȣȝȕȐȜİȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮȞĮȖȞȫȡȚıȘ IJȦȞ įȣȞĮIJȠIJȒIJȦȞ IJȠȣȢ țĮȚ ȞĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȑıİȚ IJȘ ȕȐıȘ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ șȑıȠȣȞ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȩȤȠȣȢ IJȠȣȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȝȑȜȜȠȞ.

53

ȀȡȚțȡȒ ȆȜȐIJȦȞȠȢ (ǹȡȤȚȝ.), ǻȚĮȝȘIJȡȠʌȠȜȚIJȚțȩ ǻȓțIJȣȠ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ

CHAPTER TWENTY SIX THE QUESTION OF WOMEN’S ORDINATION: FEMINIST CHALLENGE OR AN ECCLESIOLOGICAL DESIDERATUM? (COMMENTS ON THE RHODES DOCUMENT) IOANNIS LOTSIOS

Abstract: This paper summarizes the findings of the Inter-Orthodox Theological Conference of Rhodes (1994) in terms of the position of women in the Orthodox Church and the ordination of women. It is a first attempt to highlight the question for the life of the modern, mainstream Church. Perhaps the confusion and uncertainty about what constitutes a feminist challenge to the “impossibility” of ordination has influenced the emergence of ecclesiological issues and a difficulty with ecclesiological and theological evidence. Even today, although stressing the equality of women in the Church, it excludes women from basic hierarchical structures.

ȉȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ «ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» Ǿ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȚĮ ıIJĮIJȚțȒ șİȫȡȘıȘ ĮȜȜȐ ȝȚĮ įȣȞĮȝȚțȒ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ ıIJȠ ȖȓȖȞİıșĮȚ, ȝȚĮ ȗȦȒ ʌȠȣ İțijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȐȟȘ IJȘȢ.1 īȚĮ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ įİțĮİIJȓİȢ IJȠ ĮȓIJȘȝĮ ʌȠȜȜȫȞ 1

ȆȡȕȜ. ī. ĭȜȦȡȩijțıȣ, «Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȝȓĮ İȞȩIJȘIJĮ ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠȞ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ ȩIJȚ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȓĮ țĮȚ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȒ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȡȫIJĮ Įʌ' ȩȜĮ ȝȓĮ İȞȩIJȘIJĮ, įȚȩIJȚ ĮȣIJȒ țĮș' İĮȣIJȒȞ Ș ȪʌĮȡȟȒ IJȘȢ ıȣȞȓıIJĮIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ İʌĮȞȑȞȦıȘ IJȘȢ ȤȦȡȚıȝȑȞȘȢ țĮȚ įȚĮȚȡİȝȑȞȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ. . . ȂȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ Ș ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ ʌİȡȞȐ ıİ ȐȜȜȠ İʌȓʌİįȠ, ĮȡȤȓȗİȚ ȑȞĮȞ țĮȚȞȠȪȡȖȚȠ IJȡȩʌȠ ȪʌĮȡȟȘȢ. ȂȓĮ ȞȑĮ ȗȦȒ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ įȣȞĮIJȒ, ȝȓĮ ȗȦȒ ĮȜȘșȚȞȒ, ȠȜȠțȜȘȡȦȝȑȞȘ țĮȚ ʌȜȒȡȘȢ, ȝȓĮ țĮșȠȜȚțȒ ȗȦȒ, ȝİ IJȘȞ İȞȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ İȞ IJȦ ıȣȞįȑıȝȦ IJȘȢ İȚȡȒȞȘȢ. ǹȡȤȓȗİȚ ȝȓĮ țĮȚȞȠȪȡȖȚĮ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ, ȝȓĮ ȞȑĮ ĮʌĮȡȤȒ ȗȦȒȢ, țĮșȫȢ ıȣ ȆȐIJİȡ İȞ İȝȠȓ, țĮȖȫ İȞ ıȠȓ, ȠȪIJȦ țĮȚ ĮȣIJȠȓ İȞ ȘȝȓȞ. . . ȓȞĮ ȫıȚȞ İȞ țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ ȘȝİȓȢ İȞ ȑıȝİȞ», ıIJȠ ݄ȖȓĮ īȡĮijȒ, ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮ, ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ, ȝIJijȡ. ǻȘȝȘIJȡȓȠȣ ȉıȐȝȘ, ਥțįȩıİȚȢ ȆĮȞĮȖȚȫIJȘ ȆȠȣȡȞĮȡȐ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 1976 ı. 50-53.

382

Chapter Twenty Six

ȠȡșȠįȩȟȦȞ ȖȚĮ ʌȜȘȡȑıIJİȡȘ țĮȚ İȞİȡȖȒ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ2 ıIJȘȞ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıİ ȑȞĮ ȑȞĮȣıȝĮ ȖȚĮ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȘ İȝȕȐșȣȞıȘ. ǹȣIJȩ ʌİȡȚȜȐȝȕĮȞİ IJȘȞ ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ IJȘȢ İʌĮȞĮijȠȡȐȢ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ IJȘȢ ǹȡȤĮȓĮȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȝİ ĮȜȜȘȜȠıȣıȤȑIJȚıȘ IJȠȣ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ IJȘȢ «ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ»3 IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ ȝȚĮ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ʌȡȩțȜȘıȘ4 țĮȚ IJȠȣ İȡȦIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ ʌȠȣ ĮʌİȣșȪȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ıIJȠȞ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩ įȚȐȜȠȖȠ. ȉȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ȕȑȕĮȚĮ țĮIJȐ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ıIJȠ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȠ ȤȫȡȠ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȐ įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȦȢ ĮȓIJȘȝĮ Ȓ ȦȢ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ, ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ Ș ǿ. ĭȠȣȞIJȠȪȜȘ, «਺ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İੁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੽Ȟ ȗȦ੽Ȟ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ਥȞȠȡȚĮț੽Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȞ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», ıIJઁ ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțާȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟ࠙ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓߠ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJ‫ ޟ‬ʌİȡ‫ޥ‬ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ, ǻȚȠȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ șİȠȜȠȖȚțઁȞ ıȣȞȑįȡȚȠȞ ȇȩįȠȢ, 30 ੗țIJȦȕȡȓȠȣ - 7 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1988, ı. 295-307. 2 Behr-Sigel Elizabeth, ȉȠ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȝİIJijȡ. ȀĮȓIJȘ ȋȚȦIJȑȜȜȘ, ǹșȒȞĮ, ȐȞİȣ ȤȡȠȞȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ. ǼȜ. Ǻ. ȀĮııİȜȠȪȡȘ-ȋĮIJȗȘȕĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘ, ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ǼȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ: ȅ ʌĮȡȐȖȠȞIJĮȢ «ijȪȜȠ» ıIJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ, İțį. ȆȠȣȡȞĮȡȐȢ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2003. Ȉ. īȚĮȖțȐȗȠȖȜȠȣ, «ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ», ıIJȠ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȚ ĬȡȘıțİȓĮ: Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ǿİȡȐ ȂȘIJȡȩʌȠȜȘ ǻȘȝȘIJȡȚȐįȠȢ, İțį. ǴȞįȚțIJȠȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2004, ı. 243. 3 ȆȡȕȜ. C. Parvey, “Ordination of Women,” ıIJȠ Ordination of Women in Ecumenical Perspective, Faith and Order, Geneva 1980, ı. 30-34. Michael Dennis, “The Ordination of Women: Tradition and Meaning,” ıIJȠ Theological Studies, 55 (1994) 706-719. Mark Chaves, “Ordaining Women: The Diffusion of an Organizational Innovation,” ıIJȠ American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 797839. 4 R. Gibellini, «ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ», ıIJȠ Ǿ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣ ǼȚțȠıIJȠȪ ǹȚȫȞĮ, ȝIJijȡ. ȆĮȞĮȖȚȫIJȘȢ ǹȡ. ȊijĮȞIJȒȢ, İțį. DZȡIJȠȢ ǽȦȒȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2002, ı. 515-553. R. Radford Ruether, “Feminist Theology,” ıIJȠ ȉhe New Dictionary of Theology, Komonchak J. & Collins M. (ed.), Glazier, Wilmington 1987, ı. 391-396. Ȁ. ĭȚIJȗİȡȐȜȞIJ, «ȅȡșȩįȠȟȠȢ ĮȟȚȠȜȩȖȘıȚȢ IJȘȢ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ», ıIJȠ Ǿ șȑıȚȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ İȞ IJȘ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȦ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ IJĮ ʌİȡȓ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ȩ.ʌ., ı. 423 ț.İȟ. ǺȜȑʌİ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡĮ: Ǽ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩȢ țĮȚ ĭİȝȚȞȚıȝȩȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 1989. ǿ. ȀĮȡĮȕȚįȩʌȠȣȜȠȢ, «ǹȚȡİIJȚțȑȢ ĮʌȠțȜȓıİȚȢ ıIJȚȢ įȚĮijȣȜȚțȑȢ ıȤȑıİȚȢ», ıIJȠ ȈȪȞĮȟȘ 77 (2001), 3-17. Ȁ. ȀĮȡțĮȜȐ-ǽȠȡȝʌȐ, «ȊʌȐȡȤİȚ ȤȫȡȠȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮ ȖȚĮ ȝȚĮ ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ», ıIJȠ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȚ ĬȡȘıțİȓĮ: Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ», ǿİȡȐ ȂȘIJȡȩʌȠȜȘ ǻȘȝȘIJȡȚȐįȠȢ, İțį. ǴȞįȚțIJȠȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2004. ī. ȆĮʌĮȖİȦȡȖȓȠȣ, ǾȖİȝȠȞȓĮ țĮȚ ĭİȝȚȞȚıȝȩȢ, İțį. ȉȣʌȦșȒIJȦ īȚȫȡȖȠȢ ǻȐȡįĮȞȠȢ: ǹșȒȞĮ, 2004, ı. 86-122. ǿİȡȐ ȈȪȞȠįȠȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȐįȠȢ, ǼȚįȚțȒ ȈȣȞȠįȚțȒ ǼʌȚIJȡȠʌȒ īȣȞĮȚțİȓȦȞ șİȝȐIJȦȞ, ȅ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȆȡĮțIJȚțȐ IJȘȢ ǹǯ țĮȚ Ǻǯ ȈȣȞįȚĮıțȑȥİȦȢ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞǼțʌȡȠıȫʌȦȞ ǿİȡȫȞ ȂȘIJȡȠʌȩȜİȦȞ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȐįȠȢ, ȀȜȐįȠȢ ǼțįȩıİȦȞ IJȘȢ ǼʌȚțȠȚȞȦȞȚĮțȒȢ țĮȚ ȂȠȡijȦIJȚțȒȢ ȊʌȘȡİıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȐįȠȢ, ǹșȒȞĮȚ 2007. Ȉ. ǹșĮȞĮıȠʌȠȪȜȠȣ-ȀȣʌȡȓȠȣ, «ȉȠ ĭĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ», ıIJȠ ĬȡȘıțİȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ 6/7 (2005), 103-111.

The Question of Women’s Ordination

383

ĮȞȣʌĮȡȟȓĮ ıIJȘȞ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ șȑIJİȚ İȣșȪȢ İȟĮȡȤȒȢ įȚȜȒȝȝĮIJĮ țĮȚ ĮʌȠȡȡȓȥİȚȢ. Ǿ ıȤȑıȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ țĮȚ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ, ıİ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ țĮȚ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ İʌȓʌİįȠ, ȝİ ĮȞȠȚțIJȩ IJȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ șİȠįȚțȓĮȢ Įʌȩ ʌȜİȣȡȐȢ ʌĮȡĮįȩıİȦȢ.5 Ȋʌȩ IJȚȢ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑıİȚȢ ĮȣIJȑȢ ıȣȖțȜȒșȘțİ ȝİ ʌȡȦIJȠȕȠȣȜȓĮ IJȠȣ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȠȪ ȆĮIJȡȚĮȡȤİȓȠȣ IJȠ ǻȚȠȡșȩįȠȟȠ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ȇȩįȠȣ ȝİ șȑȝĮ: Ǿ șȑıȚȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ İȞ IJȘ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȦ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ IJĮ ʌİȡȓ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ,6 ȦȢ ȝȚĮ ʌȡȩIJĮıȘ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠȒȜșİ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ī’ ȆȡȠıȣȞȠįȚțȒ ȆĮȞȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǻȚȐıțİȥȘ ıIJȘȞ ǼȜȕİIJȓĮ IJȠ 1986, ȝİ İʌȓțİȞIJȡȠ IJȘȢ ıȣȝʌİȡȓȜȘȥȘȢ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ ĮȣIJȠȪ ıIJȘȞ ǹȖȓĮȞ țĮȚ ȂİȖȐȜȘ ȈȪȞȠįȠ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȉȠ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ įİȞ ĮıȤȠȜȒșȘțİ ȝİ IJĮ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJĮ IJȘȢ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, ʌȠȣ ĮijȠȡȠȪȞ țȣȡȓȦȢ IJȘȞ ǻȪıȘ. Ǿ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ7 ıIJȠȤİȪİȚ ıİ ȝȚĮ įȣȞĮȝȚțȒ țȡȚIJȚțȒ ĮȝijȚıȕȒIJȘıȘȢ IJȦȞ ʌĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțȫȞ įȠȝȫȞ, įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȫȞIJĮȢ ȝȚĮ ĮȞĮıȪȞșİıȘ ıIJȘȞ ıȤȑıȘ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ ıIJȘȞ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ. ȉȠ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ȇȩįȠȣ įİȞ ıȣȞİțȜȒșȘ ȦȢ ȝȚĮ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ ıİ ȝȚĮ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ȠȪIJİ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ șİȦȡȘșİȓ ȑȞĮ ıȣȞȑįȡȚȠ ȝȚĮȢ İȚįȚțȒȢ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ. ȉȠ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ İȟȑIJĮıİ IJȘȞ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȈIJȠ ʌĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțȩ īȡȐȝȝĮ İȞȫ İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİIJĮȚ Ș ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ įȣȠ ijȪȜȦȞ țĮȚ Ș ĮȞĮȖțĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ İȞİȡȖȠȪ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ 5

V. Karras, “Orthodox Theologies of Women and Ordained Ministry,” ıIJȠ Thinking Through Faith, edited by Aristotle Papanikolaou and Elizabeth Prodromou, Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2008, ı. 113-158. ȉȘȢ ȚįȓĮȢ, “An Orthodox Perspective on Feminist Theology,” ıIJo The Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America, edited by Rosemary Skinner Keller and Rosemary Radford Ruether, Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2006, ı. 523-532. Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, Woman, Women, and the Priesthood in the Trinitarian Theology of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2013, ı. 146. 6 Ȇİȡȓ IJȦȞ İȡȖĮıȚȫȞ IJȠȣ İȞ ȜȩȖȦ ıȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ ȕȜ. Ǽ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ. ȉȠ ǻȚȠȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȩȞ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠȞ ʌİȡȓ IJȘȢ șȑıİȦȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ İȞ IJȘ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȦ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ ʌİȡȓ IJȠȣ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ (ȇȩįȠȢ, 30 ȅțIJȦȕȡȓȠȣ – 7 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1988), ǹșȒȞĮȚ 1988. Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, “The InterOrthodox Theological Consultation on Women in the Church”, ıIJȠ Ecumenical Trends, 18 (1989), 33-34. ȉȘȢ ȚįȓĮȢ, Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness and Ministry, Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1999, ı. 160-167. 7 ȆȡȕȜ., ǼȜ. Ǻ., ȀĮııİȜȠȪȡȘ-ȋĮIJȗȘȕĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘ, ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ǼȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ: ȅ ʌĮȡȐȖȠȞIJĮȢ «ijȪȜȠ» ıIJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ, İțį. ȆȠȣȡȞĮȡȐȢ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2003, ı. 10. ǼȣĮȞșȓĮȢ ǹįĮȝIJȗȓȜȠȖȜȠȣ, «ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ: ȇȒȟȘ Ȓ ȖȑijȣȡĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ İȜȜȘȞȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ», ıIJȠ ȀĮș’ ȅįȩȞ 9 (1994), 2535. Ȁ. ȀĮȡțĮȜȐ-ǽȠȡȝʌȐ, «ȊʌȐȡȤİȚ ȤȫȡȠȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮ ȖȚĮ ȝȚĮ ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ;», ȩ. ʌ., ı. 210-211.

384

Chapter Twenty Six

ıIJȘȞ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, İȞIJȠȪIJȠȚȢ ıIJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ «ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ» IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ İȝʌȩįȚȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȑȞȦıȘ IJȦȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȫȞ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ șȑıȘ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ.8 ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ‘’ĮȟȚȠȜȩȖȘıȘ’’ IJȠȣ ȈȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ ʌȡȠțȪʌIJİȚ ȩIJȚ IJȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ «ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȑȞĮ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ ʌȠȣ ĮʌĮıȤȠȜİȓ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȑȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ, IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ ıȣȗȘIJȒșȘțİ ıIJȠ įȚȝİȡȒ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ įȚȐȜȠȖȠ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ȠȡșȠįȩȟȦȞ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ĮȖȖȜȚțĮȞȫȞ, ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȢ țĮȚ ıIJȠ ȝȑȜȜȠȞ țĮȚ ȐȜȜİȢ ʌȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȑȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ.9 Ǿ ĮȞĮȖțĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ įȘȜĮįȒ IJȘȢ ıȣȗȘIJȒıİȦȢ ıİ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȠ İʌȓʌİįȠ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȑȞĮȞ İȟȦȖİȞȒ ʌĮȡȐȖȠȞIJĮ, ȝȚĮ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȠȡșȠįȠȟȓĮȢ ȖİȞȚțȐ ĮʌȑȞĮȞIJȚ ıIJȠȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȩ țȩıȝȠ.10 ȆİȡȚȑȡȖȦȢ ȩȝȦȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ IJĮ ʌİȡȚșȫȡȚĮ 8

«Ǿ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ ȩȝȦȢ İijĮȡȝȠȖȒȢ IJȘȢ ȚıȩIJȘIJȠȢ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȠȣ ıȘȝİȓȠȣ ȞĮ İȟȑȜșȘ IJȦȞ țİțĮȞȠȞȚıȝȑȞȦȞ ȠȡȓȦȞ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠȞ ȞĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒ ȚıȠʌȑįȦıȚȞ țĮȚ ĮȣIJȫȞ ĮțȩȝȘ IJȦȞ ijȣıȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ įȚĮijȠȡȫȞ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮȞįȡȫȞ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȞĮ İʌİțIJİȓȞȘ IJĮȢ įȚİțįȚțȒıİȚȢ İȚȢ IJȠ ȤȫȡȠȞ IJȠȣ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJȘȢ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ įȚĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞĮțȚȞȘșȑȞIJȠȢ İıȤȐIJȦȢ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ IJȘȢ «ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ» IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȩʌİȡ ʌĮȡȑȤİȚ, ıȣȞ IJȠȚȢ ȐȜȜȠȚȢ, ĮȞȣʌȑȡȕȜȘIJĮ İȝʌȩįȚĮ İȚȢ IJȘȞ ʌȠșȠȪȝİȞȘȞ țĮȚ İʌȚįȚȦțȫȝİȞȘȞ ȑȞȦıȚȞ IJȦȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȫȞ, įİȞ ȑȤİȚ șȑıȚȞ İȞ IJȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ», ȂȒȞȣȝĮ IJȠȣ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȠȪ ȆĮIJȡȚȐȡȤȘ, ıIJȠ Ǿ șȑıȚȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ İȞ IJȘ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȦ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ IJĮ ʌİȡȓ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȩ.ʌ.,. ı. 22. 9 ī. ȁȣȝȠȪȡȘ, (ȞȪȞ ȂȘIJȡ. ȈĮııȓȝȦȞ), «ȅȡșȩįȠȟȠȚ IJȠʌȠșİIJȒıİȚȢ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȦȞ İIJİȡȠįȩȟȦȞ ĮʌȩȥİȦȞ ȣʌȑȡ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ», ıIJȠ Ǿ șȑıȚȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ İȞ IJȘ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȦ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ IJĮ ʌİȡȓ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȩ.ʌ., ı. 395 İȟ., Ȉ. īȚĮȖțȐȗȠȖȜȠȣ, «ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ: ȂȓĮ İțțȠıȝȚțİȣȝȑȞȘ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ;», ıIJȠ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȚ ĬȡȘıțİȓĮ: Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȩ. ʌ., ı. 243-247, ȩʌȠȣ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ: «Ǿ ĮȖȖȜȚțĮȞȚțȒ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ȝȐȢ İȞįȚĮijȑȡİȚ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJĮ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ ʌȡȠȕȜȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ ȑȤİȚ ȒįȘ ʌȡȠțĮȜȑıİȚ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJĮ İıȦIJİȡȚțȐ IJȘȢ ʌȡȐȖȝĮIJĮ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȖȚĮIJȓ ȕȡȚıțȩȝĮıIJİ ıİ ȝȓĮ ȐțȡȦȢ İʌȚțȓȞįȣȞȘ ijȐıȘ IJȠȣ įȚȝİȡȠȪȢ ǻȚĮȜȩȖȠȣ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȦȞ țĮȚ ǹȖȖȜȚțĮȞȫȞ. ǼȞ IJȦ ȝİIJĮȟȪ, ıIJȠ IJȑȜȠȢ IJȘȢ įİțĮİIJȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ’60 Ș ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȝİ ĮijİIJȘȡȓĮ IJȘȞ ǹȝİȡȚțȒ țĮȚ IJȘ īİȡȝĮȞȓĮ, İțʌȡȠıȦʌȠȪȝİȞȘ ȝİ țİȓȝİȞĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ șİȠȜȩȖȦȞ țȣȡȓȦȢ, İȝijĮȞȓȗİIJĮȚ ʌȜȑȠȞ ıȣȖțȡȠIJȘȝȑȞȘ ıIJĮ țȪȡȚĮ ȐȡșȡĮ IJȘȢ: ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ĮȞȐȖȞȦıȘ țĮȚ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ IJȘȢ ǺȓȕȜȠȣ, ĮʌİȜİȣșȑȡȦıȘ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ȣʌȩ IJȠ ijȦȢ IJȘȢ ıȣȞİȚįȘIJȠʌȠȓȘıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ İȝʌİȚȡȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ». 10 ȆȡȕȜ. ī. ȁȣȝȠȪȡȘ (ȞȪȞ ȂȘIJȡ. ȈĮııȓȝȦȞ), «ǿıIJȠȡȚțȒ țĮȚ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ İʌȚıțȩʌȘıȚȢ IJȘȢ ĮȞIJȚȝİIJȫʌȚıȘȢ IJȠȣ ʌİȡȓ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ țĮIJȐ IJĮȢ ȠȡșȠįȩȟȠȣȢ țĮȚ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȐȢ ıȣȞĮȞIJȒıİȚȢ țĮȚ ıȣıțȑȥİȚȢ İȚȢ IJȘȞ įȚȐȡțİȚĮȞ IJȠȣ 20Ƞȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ», ıIJȠ ȀȜȘȡȠȞȠȝȓĮ 32 (ǹ-Ǻ 2000), 65-99. ȃ. ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ, «Ǿ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȦȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ țĮȚ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ», ıIJȠ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩȢ ǻȚȐȜȠȖȠȢ, ǼțįȩıİȚȢ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒȢ ǻȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ: ǹșȒȞĮ 2005, ı. 123127.

The Question of Women’s Ordination

385

ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ «ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȐ įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ, IJȠȞȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ ȝȩȞȠ IJȠȞ İȞİȡȖȩ ȡȩȜȠ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȠ ıȤȑįȚȠ IJȘȢ ĬİȓĮȢ ȅȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ.11 ȈIJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ȩȝȦȢ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ IJȠ ĮȞIJȓșİIJȠ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ ĮȞĮijİȡșİȓ. ǹȞ țĮȚ ıIJȠ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ įȚĮțȘȡȪIJIJİIJĮȚ ȠȝȩijȦȞĮ ȩIJȚ ȩȜİȢ ȠȚ ʌȡȐȟİȚȢ ʌȠȣ ĮȡȞȠȪȞIJĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȟȚȠʌȡȑʌİȚĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, țȐșİ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮȞįȡȫȞ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȠ ijȪȜȠ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȝĮȡIJȓĮ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮıțȠȪȞ IJȠȣȢ «ȚįȓȠȣȢ ȡȩȜȠȣȢ», ĮȜȜȐ Ș ʌȡȩıȕĮıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ İʌȓ IJȘȢ ǹȖȓĮȢ ȉȡĮʌȑȗȘȢ ĮʌȠȡȡȓʌIJİIJĮȚ12. ȈIJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮȢ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȝȚĮ ȠȝȠijȦȞȓĮ ȝİȞ, ĮȜȜȐ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ İȡİȣȞȘșİȓ ıİ ȝİȖȐȜȠ ȕĮșȝȩ, ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJİȓ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ șȑȝĮ. ǹȣIJȩ ʌȡȠȑȡȤİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ ȝȚĮ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ İȚıȒȖȘıȘ IJȠȣ Ǽ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, ‘‘ȅ șİıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ ǻȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ İȞ IJȘ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȦ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ Ș įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘȢ ĮȞĮȕȚȫıİȦȢ ĮȣIJȠȪ’’13 țĮȚ IJȘȢ įȚįĮțIJȠȡȚțȒȢ įȚĮIJȡȚȕȒȢ IJȠȣ Ȁ. īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘ, Ǿ ǿİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȘȢ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȒȢ ȀȓȞȘıȘȢ.14 ǹʌȩ ĮȣIJȒȞ IJȘȞ ȐʌȠȥȘ Ș ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ «įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ ʌİȡȚșȫȡȚĮ ıIJȘȞ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ» ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ȒIJĮȞ ȝȚĮ ʌȡȩȤİȚȡȘ įȒȜȦıȘ, ʌȠȣ įȚĮțȡȓȞİȚ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ «ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ» Įʌȩ IJȠȞ șİıȝȩ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ,15 ȦȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ ʌȡȐȟȘ IJȘȢ ĮȡȤĮȓĮȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮȚ IJȦȞ įȣȞĮIJȠIJȒIJȦȞ İʌĮȞĮijȠȡȐȢ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ. ȂȚĮ ȝİIJĮIJȩʌȚıȘ, ȦȢ ʌȡȠįȡȠȝȚțȩ

11

ǵ.ʌ., ı. 19. ǵ.ʌ., ı. 28. 13 ǵ.ʌ., ı. 309 İȟ. ǼʌȓıȘȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȘȞ İȡȖĮıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȚįȓȠȣ, ȕȜ. Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, Women deacons in the Orthodox Church Called to holiness and ministry, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998. Davies, J. G., “Deacons, Deaconesses, and Minor Orders in the Patristic Period,” ıIJȠ Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 14 (1963), 1-23. Cipriano Vagaggini, “L’ordinazione delle diaconesse nella tradizione greca e bizantina,” ıIJȠ Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 40 (1974), 145-189. Maria Gwyn McDowell, “Deaconess,” ıIJȠ The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, edited by John Anthony McGuckin Print publication date 2011, ı. 178-180. V. Karras, “Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church,” ıIJȠ Church History 73 (2004), 272-316. 14 ǼțįȩıİȚȢ ȉȑȡIJȚȠȢ: ȀĮIJİȡȓȞȘ 1995. 15 Ǽ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, «੘ șİıȝઁȢ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ੑȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȚȞ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ਚȖȚȠȞ ȃİțIJȐȡȚȠȞ», ıIJȠ ‫ ݾ‬ȖȣȞĮțİ߿ȠȢ ȝȠȞĮȤȚıȝާȢ țĮ‫݀ ݸ ޥ‬ȖȚȠȢ ȃİțIJȐȡȚȠȢ, ȆȡĮțIJȚț੹ įȚȠȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ȝȠȞĮıIJȚțȠ૨ ıȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ ਥʌ੿ IJૌ ਦțĮIJȠȞʌİȞIJȘțȠȞIJĮİIJȘȡȓįȚ (1846-1996) ਕʌઁ IJોȢ ȖİȞȞȒıİȦȢ IJȠ૨ ਖȖȓȠȣ ȃİțIJĮȡȓȠȣ (ǹ੅ȖȚȞĮ 9-11 ȈİʌIJİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1996), ਝșોȞĮȚ 1998, ı. 222-223. ȉȠȣ ȚįȓȠȣ, ‫« ݠ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» ‫« ݙ‬ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ» IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ, ਝșોȞĮȚ 1954. 12

386

Chapter Twenty Six

ıȘȝİȓȠ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ıIJĮ ʌȠȡȓıȝĮIJĮ IJȠȣ ȈȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ İʌĮȞĮijȠȡȐ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ ȦȢ «ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮȞ».16 ȉȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ʌȡȠȑȡȤİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮȢ ıIJȠȞ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩ įȚȐȜȠȖȠ, Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ʌȡȩțȜȘıȘ ʌİȡȓ IJȘȢ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮȢ, ȩȝȦȢ ȝİ ȝȚĮ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ʌȡȐȟȘ IJȘȢ ʌȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ șİıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ. ȉȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ĮȣIJȩ ıȤİIJȚțȠʌȠȚİȓ ʌȠȜȜȐ Įʌȩ IJĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ ĮʌȩȡȡȚȥȘȢ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ IJȘȢ ‘’ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ’’ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. Ǿ ĮȞȣʌĮȡȟȓĮ țĮȚ Ș İʌĮȞĮijȠȡȐ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ ĮȣIJȠȪ ıȒȝİȡĮ ıIJȠȞ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȠ ȤȫȡȠ ȝĮȢ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİȚ IJȘȞ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ıIJȘ ıȣȞİȤİȓĮ IJȘȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞIJĮʌȩțȡȚıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ıİ ȞȑĮ įİįȠȝȑȞĮ. Ǿ «ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȦȢ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ ĮʌȠțȡȣıIJĮȜȜȦșİȓ įȚİȟȠįȚțȐ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ įȚȐșȡȦıȘ IJȘȢ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒȢ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘȢ ıȒȝİȡĮ. ȆİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ ȩȝȦȢ IJȠ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ, ȐȞȠȚȟİ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȐ IJȘȞ ȑȡİȣȞĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮȗȒIJȘıȘ ĮʌĮȞIJȒıİȦȞ, IJȩıȠ ȕȚȕȜȚțȐ ȩıȠ țĮȚ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȐ.

ȈȪȞȠȥȘ ȆȠȡȚıȝȐIJȦȞ Ǿ șİȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȦȞ ʌȠȡȚıȝȐIJȦȞ IJȠȣ ȈȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ17 ȕĮıȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ, ȚıIJȠȡȚțȒ țĮȚ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ, ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘȢ ȝİ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȑȢ ʌȡȠıİȖȖȓıİȚȢ. ȈIJȠ ʌȡȫIJȠ ȝȑȡȠȢ ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ:

16

Ǿ șȑıȚȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ İȞ IJȘ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȦ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ IJĮ ʌİȡȓ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȩ.ʌ., 39. ȃ. ȆĮʌĮȖİȦȡȖȓȠȣ, «Ǿ șȑıȘ țĮȚ Ƞ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ İțțȜȘıȓĮ», ıIJȠ įȚĮįȓțIJȣȠ http://cemes en.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/8/8/27884917/1_papageorgiou_n.pdf. ı. 4: «Ȃİ ĮijȠȡȝȒ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, IJȠ ȈȣȝʌȩıȚȠ IJȘȢ ȇȩįȠȣ İʌȚțȪȡȦıİ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮțȒ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ ĮȣIJȩ, İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȩȝȦȢ ȩIJȚ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ İʌĮȞȑȜșİȚ Ƞ șİıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ. ȆĮȡȐȜȜȘȜĮ ȩȝȦȢ ıȣȗȘIJȒșȘțİ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡĮ Ș șȑıȘ țĮȚ Ƞ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ. ȉȠ ȈȣȝʌȩıȚȠ İʌȚȕİȕĮȓȦıİ IJȘ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȒ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȠ ıȤȑįȚȠ IJȘȢ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ țȣȡȓȦȢ ȝȑıȦ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ, ĮȜȜȐ ʌĮȡȐȜȜȘȜĮ ĮȞĮȖȞȫȡȚıİ IJȘȞ ĮȞȐȖțȘ ȖȚĮ ʌȜȘȡȑıIJİȡȘ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», țĮȚ ĮȖȖȜȚıIJȓ ıIJȠȞ ʌĮȡȩȞIJĮ IJȩȝȠ. 17 ǺȜȑʌİ țĮȚ Ȁ. īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘ, «ȉȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȠȚ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ țĮȚ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ įȚĮıIJȐıİȚȢ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ», ıIJȠ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȚ ĬȡȘıțİȓĮ, ȩ. ʌ., ı. 275-290. Ȉ. īȚĮȖțȐȗȠȖȜȠȣ, «ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȝȚĮ İțțȠıȝȚțİȣȝȑȞȘ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ;», ıIJȠ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȚ ĬȡȘıțİȓĮ, ȩ. ʌ., ı. 267-269. ǻ. ȀȠȪțȠȣȡĮ, «Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ», ıIJȘȞ ǼʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȒ ǼʌİIJȘȡȓįĮ IJȘȢ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ȈȤȠȜȒȢ IJȠȣ ǹȡȚıIJȠIJİȜİȓȠȣ ȆĮȞİʌȚıIJȘȝȓȠȣ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘȢ, ȃȑĮ ȈİȚȡȐ. ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ: ȉȝȒȝĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJ. 11 (2001), 191-198.

The Question of Women’s Ordination

387

șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ʌȡȠıİȖȖȓıİȚȢ (§ 1-18)18: ȉȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ İȞıĮȡțȫıİȦȢ țĮȚ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ (§1-4). Ǿ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ (§ 5-7). Ǿ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ «ǹįȐȝ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ» țĮȚ «ǼȪĮȢ- ȂĮȡȓĮȢ» (§ 8-11). ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ țĮȚ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ İȞ IJȘ ĮȞĮțİijĮȜĮȚȫıİȚ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJȠȢ (§ 15-18). Ǻ. ǼȚįȚțĮȓ ĮȞĮijȠȡĮȓ (§ 19-43).19 - Ǿ ȚıȩIJȘȢ țĮȚ Ș įȚȐțȡȚıȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ĮȞįȡȫȞ (§19-22). - ȆȜȘȡİıIJȑȡĮ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İȚȢ IJȘȞ ȗȦȒȞ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ (§23-31). - ȅ įȚĮțȠȞȚțȩȢ ȕĮșȝȩȢ țĮȚ ȠȚ «țĮIJȫIJİȡȠȚ ȕĮșȝȠȓ» (§ 32-36). - ȆȡȠțȜȒıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȠȪ țȚȞȒȝĮIJȠȢ İȚȢ IJĮȢ ȝȘ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȠȣȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ (§ 37-39). - Ǿ țȜȒıȚȢ İȚȢ IJȘȞ ĮȖȚȩIJȘIJĮ (§40-43). ǹ. -

Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȦȢ ıȫȝĮ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ĮȞİȟȐȡIJȘIJĮ ȐȞįȡİȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȠȣ ȝİIJȑȤȠȣȞ Įʌȩ țȠȚȞȠȪ ıIJȠ ʌȡȠijȘIJȚțȩ, ĮȡȤȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ țĮȚ ȕĮıȚȜȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ. ȈIJȠ ȕĮıȓȜİȚȠ ȚİȡȐIJİȣȝĮ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ ȩȜȠȚ ȩıȠȚ İȓȞĮȚ ȕĮʌIJȚıȝȑȞȠȚ. ȈIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȦȢ ȈȫȝĮIJȠȢ Ƞ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȠȣ DZȖȓȠȣ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ İȓȞĮȚ ıȣȞįİIJȚțȩȢ țȡȓțȠȢ İȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ ʌȚıIJȫȞ. ȅ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ȦȢ țİijĮȜȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ Ƞ ȝȩȞȠȢ ȝİıȓIJȘȢ țĮȚ ǹȡȤȚİȡİȪȢ. Ǿ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȑȞĮ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡȠ ȤȐȡȚıȝĮ IJȠȣ ǹȖȓȠȣ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ. ǻȚĮțȡȓȞİIJĮȚ Ș ȖİȞȚțȒ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ İȚįȚțȒ Ȓ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ įȩșȘțİ ıIJȠȣȢ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ. ȈIJȘȞ İȚįȚțȒ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ĮʌȑțȜİȚıİ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤȒ IJȘȞ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȠ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ IJȠȣ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ, IJȘȢ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒȢ ȆĮȡĮįȩıİȦȢ țĮȚ IJȐȟİȦȢ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌĮȪȜİȚĮ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ıȤȑıȘ ĮȞįȡȩȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ (īĮȜ. 3, 27-29). ȀĮIJȐ IJȘȞ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞȐȜȣıȘ, İȞȫ ȠȚ ȐȞįȡİȢ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȝİIJȑȤȠȣȞ IJȘȢ İȚțȩȞĮȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ, ȠȚ ȡȩȜȠȚ įİȞ IJĮȣIJȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ. ȅ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ İțijȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ıȤȑıȘ ǼȪĮȢ-ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ,20 İȞȫ IJȠȣ ĮȞįȡȩȢ ıIJȘȞ ıȤȑıȘ ǹįȐȝ-ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ. Ǿ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ ijȦIJȓȗİȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȐ IJȠȞ ȡȩȜȠ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ʌȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ Ș İȞıȐȡțȦıȘ IJȠȣ ȃȑȠȣ ǹįȐȝ. Ǿ ıȤȑıȘ IJȠȣ ǹȖȓȠȣ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĬİȠIJȩțȠ țĮȚ IJȘȢ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ȆĮȜĮȚȩȢ-ȃȑȠȢ ǹįȐȝ İȓȞĮȚ IJĮ ȕĮıȚțȐ ıȘȝİȓĮ ʌȠȣ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗȠȣȞ IJȘȞ ıȤȑıȘ IJȠȣ ȐȞįȡĮ

18

‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ, ȩ. ʌ., ı. 25-33. ǵ. ʌ., ı. 33-42. 20 ȆȡȕȜ., Kyriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, “The Eve-Mary Typology and Women in the Orthodox Church: Reconsidering Rhodes,” ıIJȠ Anglican Theological Review, 84, (2002), ı. 627-644. 19

388

Chapter Twenty Six

țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ.21 ȈIJȘȞ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ĮȣIJȒ Ș ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ İȚțȠȞȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJȘȞ ȝȘIJȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ įİȞ ȝİIJȑȤİȚ ıIJȘȞ ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚțȒ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ.22 Ǿ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ĮʌȠįȣȞĮȝȫȞİȚ IJȘȞ ıȤȑıȘ ȋȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ ȆȞİȣȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ. īȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ țĮȚ IJȠ ĮįȪȞĮIJȠ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ ıIJȘȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJĮ İȟȒȢ ȕĮıȚțȐ ıȘȝİȓĮ: Į) ȅ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ įİȞ İʌȑȜİȟİ țĮȝȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, ȕ) Ǿ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ įİȞ ȐıțȘıİ țĮȞȑȞĮ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ, Ȗ) ǹȞȣʌĮȡȟȓĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ, į) ȀĮȚ IJȑȜȠȢ ȠȚ ʌĮȪȜİȚİȢ șȑıİȚȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ. ǹȞĮijȑȡİȚ ȩȝȦȢ ȩIJȚ : «...‫ݏ‬ȞİțĮ IJ߱Ȣ ܻȞșȡȦʌȓȞȘȢ ܻįȣȞĮȝȓĮȢ țĮȚ ܼȝĮȡIJȓĮȢ, Į‫ ݨ‬ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțĮȓ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJİȢ įȑȞ ‫ݗ‬įȣȞȒșȘıĮȞ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ țĮȚ ʌĮȞIJĮȤȠࠎ ȞȐ ‫݋‬ȟȠȣįİIJİȡȫıȠȣȞ ܻʌȠIJİȜİıȝĮIJȚțࠛȢ ܻȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ, ‫ݛ‬șȘ țĮȚ ‫ݏ‬șȚȝĮ, ‫ݨ‬ıIJȠȡȚțȐȢ ‫݋‬ȟİȜȓȟİȚȢ țĮȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȐȢ ıȣȞșȒțĮȢ, IJȐ ‫ݸ‬ʌȠ߿Į ܻʌȑȕĮȚȞȠȞ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ ʌȡȐȟİȚ įȚȐțȡȚıȚȢ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ ȕȐȡȠȢ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ. ‫ܻ ݠ‬ȞșȡȦʌȓȞȘ ܼȝĮȡIJȓĮ ‫ސ‬įȒȖȘıİȞ Ƞ‫ވ‬IJȦȢ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ ‫݋‬ȞİȡȖİȓĮȢ, Į‫ݸ ݨ‬ʌȠ߿ĮȚ Ƞ‫ރ‬įȩȜȦȢ ܻȞIJȚțĮIJȠʌIJȡȓȗȠȣȞ IJȘȞ ܻȜȘș߱ ijȪıȚȞ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȠࠎ ȋȡȚıIJȠࠎ».23 ǿįȚĮȓIJİȡȘ İʌȚıȒȝĮȞıȘ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ Ș ĮȞȐʌIJȣȟȘ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ, įȓȞȠȞIJĮȢ IJȠ ȑȞĮȣıȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȩIJİȡȘ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȠȣ ȜĮȧțȠȪ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȠȣ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ. ȅ ȡȩȜȠȢ ĮȣIJȩȢ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ İțijȡĮıIJİȓ ıİ įȚȐijȠȡȠȣȢ IJȠȝİȓȢ țĮȚ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȑȞĮ șȑȝĮ İȡȖĮıȓĮȢ țĮȚ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ İʌİȟİȡȖĮıȓĮȢ. ǼʌȓıȘȢ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡȘ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ 21

ȆȡȕȜ. ĭȡ. ǽĮȜȑȞ, «‫ ݟ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ܻİȚʌĮȡșȑȞȠȣ ȂĮȡȓĮȢ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȒȞ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮȞ ‫݋‬ʌǯ ܻȞĮijȠȡȐȢ ʌȡȩȢ IJȘȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȞ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ», ıIJȠ ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ, ȩ.ʌ, ı. 243-244. Ȁ. īțĮȜİȡȓȠȣ, «੗ȡșȠįȠȟȓĮ țĮȓ IJȩ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ ਕʌȠįȠȤોȢ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ İੁȢ IJȒȞ ੊İȡȦıȪȞȘȞ», ıIJȠ ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ, ȩ.ʌ., ı. 59-77. 22 «਺ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ, ੪Ȣ țĮȚ ਲ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ, įȑȤİIJĮȚ IJȠ ਚȖȚȠȞ ȆȞİ૨ȝĮ, IJૌ ਥȞİȡȖİȓ઺ IJȠ૨ ੒ʌȠȓȠȣ ȖİȞȞ઼IJĮȚ ੒ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ țĮȚ ਥʌȓıȘȢ IJȐ IJȑțȞĮ IJોȢ ȞȑĮȢ ਥȞ ȋȡȚıIJ૶ ਕȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJȠȢ ijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ İੁȢ IJȩȞ țȩıȝȠȞ. ȅ੢IJȦȢ, İੁȢ IJȘȞ ʌĮIJİȡȚțȒȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȚȞ ʌȡȠȕȐȜȜİIJĮȚ ਲ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ıȤȑıȚȢ IJોȢ ȝȘIJȡȩIJȘIJȠȢ IJોȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ țĮȚ IJોȢ ȝȘIJȡȩIJȘIJȠȢ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», ıIJȠ ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ, ȩ.ʌ, ı. 30. 23 Ȉ. 18: “That Conference proposed a study of ‘the issue of the ordination of women in order to promote relevant Orthodox doctrine in all her dialogues with Christian Churches and confessions proceeding with the ordination of women.’3 The consultation reaffirmed the ‘male character of the sacramental priesthood,’ citing ‘these ecclesiastically rooted positions,’” WCC, Faith and Order on women's ordination, ıIJȠ įȚĮįȓțIJȣȠ, http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/ecumenicalmovement-in-the-21st-century/member-churches/special-commission-onparticipation-of-orthodox-churches/sub-committee-ii-style-ethos-of-our-lifetogether/faith-and-order-on-womens-ordination.

The Question of Women’s Ordination

389

ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘ IJȘȢ IJȐȟȘȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȝİ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ, ȦȢ ȝȚĮ İȞİȡȖȩ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȠȞ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȩ ȤȫȡȠ. ȉȑȜȠȢ țȐșİ İȓįȠȣȢ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ʌȠȣ ĮȡȞİȓIJĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȟȓĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠȣ ʌȡȠıȫʌȠȣ țĮȚ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȝĮȡIJȓĮ. ȈIJȘȞ ıȣȞȠʌIJȚțȒ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮıȘ IJȦȞ ʌȠȡȚıȝȐIJȦȞ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡȠȪȝİ ȝȚĮ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ ıȣȝȕȚȕĮıȝȠȪ įȚĮijȩȡȦȞ IJȠʌȠșİIJȒıİȦȞ țĮȚ IJȐıİȦȞ. Ǿ ȂȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ įȚĮIJȘȡİȓ IJȠȞ ĮȞįȡȚțȩ IJȘȢ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ, ĮʌȠțȜİȓȠȞIJĮȢ IJȘȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ȩȤȚ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ ȝȚĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ ʌİȡȓ țĮIJȦIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮȢ Ȓ ĮțĮșĮȡıȓĮȢ ĮȜȜȐ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ. Ǿ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ ȦȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ĮȞ țĮȚ ȑȤİȚ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡȘ İʌȚıțȓĮıȘ Įʌȩ IJȠ DZȖȚȠ ȆȞİȪȝĮ, İȞIJȠȪIJȠȚȢ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ țĮȞȑȞĮ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ. ȉȠ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȩ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ȦȢ ǹȡȤȚİȡİȪȢ, ĮȞȒțİȚ ıIJȠ ĮȞįȡȚțȩ ijȪȜȠ țĮȚ țĮIJ’ İʌȑțIJĮıȘ ȠȚ ȚİȡİȓȢ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȐȞįȡİȢ.

Ǿ «İʌĮȞĮijȠȡȐ» IJȠȣ ĬİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ ǻȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȈIJȠ ĮįȪȞĮIJȠ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ İȟȚıȠȡȡȩʌȘıȘ IJȦȞ įȪȠ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ IJȐıİȦȞ, İȚıȑȡȤİIJĮȚ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ İʌĮȞĮijȠȡȐȢ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȦȢ «ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮȞ» țĮȚ ȩȤȚ «ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȞ» țĮȚ ıIJȠȞ «țĮIJȫIJİȡȠ țȜȒȡȠ». ȅ ĬİıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ ǻȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȦȢ «ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮȞ» ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıİ ȑȞĮ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȐȞİȣ ȝȚĮȢ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ıȤȑıȘȢ ȝİ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȩ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘȢ. Ǿ ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ IJȘȢ İțIJȑȜİıȘȢ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȦȞ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȫȞ țĮșȘțȩȞIJȦȞ, Ș įȚĮIJȒȡȘıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȞįȡȚțȒȢ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘȢ țĮȚ ıȣȖȤȡȩȞȦȢ Ș țĮȞȠȞȚțȒ ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ țĮȚ ıIJȠȣȢ IJȡİȚȢ ȕĮșȝȠȪȢ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘȢ, ȩʌȦȢ İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ țĮȚ Ƞ ț. Ǻ. ĭİȚįȐȢ: «‫ݑ‬ȐȞ ‫ ݘ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ܻʌİIJȑȜİȚ İ‫ݫ‬ıȠįȠȞ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȒȞ ‫ݨ‬İȡȦıȪȞȘȞ, IJȩIJİ șĮ ‫ݝ‬IJȠ ȐįȚĮȞȩȘIJȠȢ ‫ܻ ݸ‬ʌȠțȜİȚıȝȩȢ Į‫ރ‬IJࠛȞ ȑț IJ߱Ȣ ʌȡȠĮȖȦȖ߱Ȣ țĮȓ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȠȪȢ ܿȜȜȠȣȢ ȕĮșȝȠȪȢ IJȠࠎ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ»,24 ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıĮȞ IJĮ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ĮȓIJȚĮ ȝȘ șİȦȡȒıİȦȢ ȦȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ ȝİ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȐ țĮșȒțȠȞIJĮ. Ǿ țİȞIJȡȚțȒ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ IJȘȢ 32 ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ: «Ǿ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ IJȐȟȚȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ įȑȠȞ ȩʌȦȢ ĮȞĮȕȚȫıȘ. ǼȞ IJȘ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȦ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȠȣįȑʌȠIJİ İȖțĮIJİȜİȓijșȘ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ, țĮȓIJȠȚ ȑIJİȚȞİ ȞĮ ʌİȡȚʌȑıȘ İȚȢ ĮȤȡȘıIJȓĮȞ. ȊʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ ʌȠȜȜĮȓ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȢ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒȢ İʌȠȤȒȢ țĮȚ İț IJȘȢ ʌĮIJİȡȚțȒȢ, țĮȞȠȞȚțȒȢ țĮȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒȢ ʌĮȡĮįȩıİȦȢ İȞ IJȘ ȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞȒ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ (țĮȚ İʌȓ IJȦȞ ȘȝİȡȫȞ ȘȝȫȞ İȚıȑIJȚ) ȩIJȚ Ș IJȐȟȚȢ ĮȪIJȘ İIJȚȝȐIJȠ ȝİȖȐȜȦȢ. Ǿ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ İȤİȚȡȠșİIJİȓIJȠ İȞIJȩȢ IJȠȣ ȚİȡȠȪ ȕȒȝĮIJȠȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ĬİȓĮȞ ȁİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮȞ ȝİIJȐ įȪȠ İȣȤȫȞ, İȜȐȝȕĮȞİ IJȠ ȅȡȐȡȚȠȞ țĮȚ ȝİIJİȜȐȝȕĮȞİ IJȘȢ ĬİȓĮȢ ȀȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ 24

ǺȜ. ĭİȚįȐ, «ȉȩ ܻȞİʌȓIJȡİʌIJȠȞ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݰ‬İȡȦıȪȞȘȢ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ țĮIJȐ IJȠȪȢ ‫ݰ‬İȡȠȪȢ ȀĮȞȩȞĮȢ», ıIJȠ ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ, ȩ.ʌ., ı. 282.

390

Chapter Twenty Six

İȚȢ IJȘȞ DZȖȓĮȞ ȉȡȐʌİȗĮȞ».25 ȆİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ İʌȓıȘȢ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ ȝȚĮ țȠȚȞȒ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ «İȞ ȖȑȞİȚ ȕĮșȝȩ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ (ĮȡȡȑȞȦȞ țĮȚ șȒȜİȦȞ), ȝİ ĮʌȠțĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤȚțȒ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȪȝȠȡijȠ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ. ǼȞȫ IJĮ ȆȠȡȓıȝĮIJĮ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȠȞ șİıȝȩ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȦȢ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮȞ, ıȣȖȤȡȩȞȦȢ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ȜȩȖȠȢ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ șȑıȘ. ǹȣIJȩ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȩIJȚ įİȞ ȣʌȒȡȟİ ȝȚĮ ȝȠȞȠȜȚșȚțȒ țĮșȠȡȚıȝȑȞȘ țĮȚ ıȣȞȐȝĮ ĮʌȠįİțIJȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȦȞ ǻȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ. ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ, Ș șȑıȘ IJȦȞ ʌȠȡȚıȝȐIJȦȞ įȓȞİȚ IJȘȞ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ İʌĮȞİȟȑIJĮıȘȢ IJȦȞ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ țĮȚ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ ĮȡȤȫȞ. ȈȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ: «Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ įȑȠȞ ȩʌȦȢ İʌĮȞİȟİIJȐıİȚ IJȣȤȩȞ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȞIJĮ įİįȠȝȑȞĮ, ĮȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ țĮȚ İȞİȡȖİȓĮȢ, Įȓ ȠʌȠȓĮȚ įİȞ ıȣȞȐįȠȣȞ ʌȡȠȢ IJĮȢ ĮʌĮȡĮıĮȜİȪIJȠȣȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐȢ țĮȚ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐȢ ĮȡȤȐȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ, ĮȜȜ’ ȑȤȠȣȞ įȚİȚıįȪıİȚ ȑȟȦșİȞ țĮȚ, įȚĮȚȦȞȚȗȩȝİȞĮȚ İȞ IJȘ ʌȡȐȟİȚ, șĮ ȘįȪȞĮIJȠ ȞĮ İȡȝȘȞİȣșȠȪȞ ȦȢ ȝİȚȦIJȚțĮȓ įȚĮ IJĮȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ».26 ǼʌȐȞȦ ıİ ĮȣIJȑȢ IJȚȢ ȕĮıȚțȑȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ țĮȚ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ĮȡȤȑȢ, Ƞ ȅȝȩIJȚȝȠȢ ȀĮșȘȖȘIJȒȢ ț. Ǽ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ șĮ ijȑȡİȚ ıIJȠ ijȦȢ İțİȓȞĮ IJĮ ĮʌȠįİȚțIJȚțȐ ıIJȠȚȤİȓĮ, ʌȠȣ ȝİIJĮijȑȡȠȣȞ IJȠ șȑȝĮ Įʌȩ ȝȚĮ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ʌȡȩțȜȘıȘ ıİ ȝȚĮ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞȐįİȚȟȘ, ȠȝȚȜȫȞIJĮȢ ȖȚĮ «ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ, ȕĮșȝȩ ʌȠȣ ĮȞȒțİȚ ıIJȠȞ ĮȞȫIJİȡȠ țȜȒȡȠ. ȁȑȖİȚ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ: «Ǿ İțijȫȞȘıȚȢ «Ǿ șİȓĮ ȋȐȡȚȢ Ș IJĮ ĮıșİȞȒ șİȡĮʌİȪȠȣıĮ...», Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ĮțȠȪİIJĮȚ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȞ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȠȞȓııȘȢ, ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȖȞȫȡȚıȝĮ ȝȩȞȠȞ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞȦIJȑȡȦȞ țȜȘȡȚțȫȞ (İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ, ʌȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȠȣ, įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ), țĮș’ ȩıȠȞ Ș İțijȫȞȘıȚȢ ĮȪIJȘ ȠȣįȑʌȠIJİ ĮțȠȪİIJĮȚ İȚȢ IJĮȢ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮȢ IJȦȞ țĮIJȦIJȑȡȦȞ țȜȘȡȚțȫȞ, Ƞȣįȑ ĮȣIJȠȪ IJȠȣ ȣʌȠįȚĮțȩȞȠȣ. ȍıĮȪIJȦȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȐȟȚȠȞ ʌȡȠıȠȤȒȢ, ȩIJȚ İȚȢ IJĮȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞȦIJȑȡȦȞ țȜȘȡȚțȫȞ İʌİȝȕĮȓȞİȚ ȝİIJȐ IJȘȞ ʌȡȫIJȘȞ İȣȤȒȞ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȩȢ ȑȤȦȞ IJȠȞ ȓįȚȠȞ ȕĮșȝȩȞ, ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠȞ ʌȡȠȐȖİIJĮȚ Ƞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȪȝİȞȠȢ (İʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ İȚȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȞ İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ, ʌȡİıȕȪIJİȡȠȢ İȚȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȞ ʌȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȠȣ țĮȚ įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ İȚȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȞ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ), Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ĮʌĮȖȖȑȜȜİȚ IJĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ įȪȠ İȣȤȫȞ ʌĮȡİȝȕĮȜȜȩȝİȞĮ İȚȡȘȞȚțȐ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȞ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȠȞȓııȘȢ IJĮ İȚȡȘȞȚțȐ IJĮȪIJĮ ĮʌĮȖȖȑȜȜȠȞIJĮȚ ȣʌȩ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ. ȉȠȚȠȪIJȩȞ IJȚ ȠȣįȑʌȠIJİ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ İȚȢ IJĮȢ țĮIJȦIJȑȡĮȢ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮȢ, ĮȚ ȠʌȠȓĮȚ ȖȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ İțIJȩȢ IJȠȣ ȚİȡȠȪ ȕȒȝĮIJȠȢ».27

25

ȈIJȠ ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ , ȩ. ʌ., ı. 38. § 26, ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ, ȩ. ʌ., ı. 35. 27 Ǽ. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, «‫ ݾ‬șİıȝȩȢ IJࠛȞ ǻȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȒȞ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȓ ‫ݘ‬ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘȢ ܻȞĮȕȚȫıİȦȢ Į‫ރ‬IJȠࠎ», ıIJȠ ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ, ȩ. ʌ., ı. 336. 26

The Question of Women’s Ordination

391

ǼʌȓȜȠȖȠȢ ȋȦȡȓȢ ĮȝijȚȕȠȜȓĮ IJȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ǻȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ Įʌȩ ȝȚĮ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ʌȡȩțȜȘıȘ Ȓȡșİ ıİ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞȐįİȚȟȘ țĮȚ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ȦȢ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ȉȐȟȘ. ȈIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞȐįİȚȟȘ ȞȑĮ įİįȠȝȑȞĮ țĮȚ ȞȑİȢ ʌIJȣȤȑȢ IJȘȢ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒȢ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐȢ, IJȘȢ ʌĮIJİȡȚțȒȢ ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJİȓĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ, ʌȡȠıįȓįȠȣȞ ȝȚĮ İʌĮȞİȟȑIJĮıȘ IJȘȢ ıȤȑıİȦȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȝİ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘȢ. ȉȠ ǻȚȠȡșȩįȠȟȠ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ȇȩįȠȣ ıIJȘȞ İʌĮȞĮijȠȡȐ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ įİȞ țȐȞİȚ țĮȝȓĮ ıĮijȒ įȒȜȦıȘ, ʌȦȢ, ʌȩIJİ ĮȣIJȩ șĮ ȖȓȞİȚ İijȚțIJȩ.

ǺȚȕȜȚȠȖȡĮijȓĮ ȆȘȖȑȢ —. ȀĮȚȞȒ ǻȚĮșȒțȘ, Novum Testamentum Graece, İțįȩıİȚȢ E. Nestle-K. Aland, Stuttgard 1979 (26Ș ȑțį.). —. ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟ࠙ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓߠ țĮȓ IJȐ ʌİȡȓ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ», İțįȩıİȚȢ ȉȑȡIJȚȠȢ, ȀĮIJİȡȓȞȘ, 1994. —. ȅ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ǿİȡȐ ȈȪȞȠįȠȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȐįȠȢ, ǼȚįȚțȒ ȈȣȞȠįȚțȒ ǼʌȚIJȡȠʌȒ īȣȞĮȚțİȓȦȞ șİȝȐIJȦȞ ȆȡĮțIJȚțȐ IJȘȢ ǹǯ țĮȚ Ǻǯ ȈȣȞįȚĮıțȑȥİȦȢ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞ-ǼțʌȡȠıȫʌȦȞ ǿİȡȫȞ ȂȘIJȡȠʌȩȜİȦȞ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȐįȠȢ, ȀȜȐįȠȢ ǼțįȩıİȦȞ IJȘȢ ǼʌȚțȠȚȞȦȞȚĮțȒȢ țĮȚ ȂȠȡijȦIJȚțȒȢ ȊʌȘȡİıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼȜȜȐįȠȢ, ǹșȒȞĮȚ 2007. —. Women deacons in the Orthodox Church Called to Holiness and Ministry, by Dr. Kiriaki Karidoyanes FitzGerald, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1998.

ǺȠȘșȒȝĮIJĮ ǹįĮȝIJȗȓȜȠȖȜȠȣ ǼȣĮȞșȓĮ, “ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ: ȇȒȟȘ Ȓ ȖȑijȣȡĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ İȜȜȘȞȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ,” ıIJȠ ȀĮș’ ȅįȩȞ 9 (1994), 25-35. ǹșĮȞĮıȠʌȠȪȜȠȣ-ȀȣʌȡȓȠȣ Ȉ., “ȉȠ ĭĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ”, ıIJȠ ĬȡȘıțİȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ, 6/7 (2005), 103 -111. Behr-Sigel Elizabeth, ȉȠ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȝİIJijȡ. ȀĮȓIJȘ ȋȚȦIJȑȜȜȘ, ǹșȒȞĮ, ȐȞİȣ ȤȡȠȞȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ. Chaves Mark, “Ordaining Women: The Diffusion of an Organizational Innovation,” ıIJȠ American Journal of Sociology, 101 (1996), 797-839.

392

Chapter Twenty Six

īȚĮȖțȐȗȠȖȜȠȣ Ȉ., “ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ,” ıIJȠ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȚ ĬȡȘıțİȓĮ: Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ǿİȡȐ ȂȘIJȡȩʌȠȜȘ ǻȘȝȘIJȡȚȐįȠȢ, İțį. ǴȞįȚțIJȠȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2004, ı. 243. īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘ Ȁ., “ȉȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȠȚ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ țĮȚ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ įȚĮıIJȐıİȚȢ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ,” ıIJȠ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȚ ĬȡȘıțİȓĮ, Ǿ ĬȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ǿİȡȐ ȂȘIJȡȩʌȠȜȚȢ ǻȘȝȘIJȡȚȐįȠȢ, ǹțĮįȘȝȓĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ ȈʌȠȣįȫȞ, ǼțįȩıİȚȢ ǴȞįȚțIJȠȢ: ǹșȒȞĮȚ, 2004, ı. 275-290. īțĮȜİȡȓȠȣ Ȁ., “੗ȡșȠįȠȟȓĮ țĮȓ IJȩ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ ਕʌȠįȠȤોȢ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ İੁȢ IJȒȞ ੊İȡȦıȪȞȘȞ,” ıIJȠ ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟ࠙ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓߠ țĮȓ IJȐ ʌİȡȓ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ», İțįȩıİȚȢ ȉȑȡIJȚȠȢ, ȀĮIJİȡȓȞȘ,1994. Davies, J. G., “Deacons, Deaconesses, and Minor Orders in the Patristic Period”, ıIJȠ Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 14 (1963), 1-23. Dennis Michael, “The Ordination of Women: Tradition and Meaning,” ıIJȠ Theological Studies, 55 (1994) 706-719. Gibellini R., “ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ,” ıIJȠ Ǿ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣ ǼȚțȠıIJȠȪ ǹȚȫȞĮ, ȝIJijȡ. ȆĮȞĮȖȚȫIJȘȢ ǹȡ. ȊijĮȞIJȒȢ, İțį. DZȡIJȠȢ ǽȦȒȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2002, ı. 515-553. ǽĮȜȑȞ ĭȡ., “ਹ șȑıȚȢ IJોȢ ਕİȚʌĮȡșȑȞȠȣ ȂĮȡȓĮȢ İੁȢ IJȒȞ ੗ȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȞ ਥʌǯ ਕȞĮijȠȡȐȢ ʌȡȩȢ IJȘȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȞ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ,” ıIJȠ ‫ݠ‬ șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟ࠙ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓߠ țĮȓ IJȐ ʌİȡȓ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ, İțįȩıİȚȢ ȉȑȡIJȚȠȢ, ȀĮIJİȡȓȞȘ 1994, ı. 219-244. Hinlicky Sarah, Wilson, Woman, Women, and the Priesthood in the Trinitarian Theology of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, Publisher: T&T Clark, Publication Date: 2013. ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ E., ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩȢ țĮȚ ĭİȝȚȞȚıȝȩȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 1989. —. ȉȠ ǻȚȠȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȩȞ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠȞ ʌİȡȓ IJȘȢ șȑıİȦȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ İȞ IJȘ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȦ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ ʌİȡȓ IJȠȣ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ (ȇȩįȠȢ, 30 ȅțIJȦȕȡȓȠȣ – 7 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1988), ǹșȒȞĮȚ 1988. —. ’‫ ݾ‬șİıȝȩȢ IJࠛȞ ǻȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȒȞ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȓ ‫ݘ‬ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘȢ ܻȞĮȕȚȫıİȦȢ Į‫ރ‬IJȠࠎ», ıIJȠ ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțާȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟ࠙ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓߠ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJ‫ ޟ‬ʌİȡ‫ ޥ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ, ǻȚȠȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ șİȠȜȠȖȚțઁȞ ıȣȞȑįȡȚȠȞ ȇȩįȠȢ, 30 ੗țIJȦȕȡȓȠȣ7 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1988, ı. 309-356. —. ‫« ݠ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ» ‫« ݙ‬ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ» IJࠛȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııࠛȞ, ਝșોȞĮȚ 1954. —. “੘ șİıȝઁȢ IJ૵Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ੑȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȚȞ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ਚȖȚȠȞ ȃİțIJȐȡȚȠȞ,” ıIJȠ ‫ ݾ‬ȖȣȞĮțİ߿ȠȢ ȝȠȞĮȤȚıȝާȢ țĮ‫݀ ݸ ޥ‬ȖȚȠȢ ȃİțIJȐȡȚȠȢ, ȆȡĮțIJȚț੹ įȚȠȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ȝȠȞĮıIJȚțȠ૨ ıȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ ਥʌ੿ IJૌ ਦțĮIJȠȞʌİȞIJȘțȠȞIJĮİIJȘȡȓįȚ (1846-1996) ਕʌઁ IJોȢ ȖİȞȞȒıİȦȢ IJȠ૨ ਖȖȓȠȣ ȃİțIJĮȡȓȠȣ (ǹ੅ȖȚȞĮ 9-11 ȈİʌIJİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1996), ਝșોȞĮȚ 1998, ı. 222-223.

The Question of Women’s Ordination

393

ȀĮȡĮȕȚįȩʌȠȣȜȠȢ I., “ǹȚȡİIJȚțȑȢ ĮʌȠțȜȓıİȚȢ ıIJȚȢ įȚĮijȣȜȚțȑȢ ıȤȑıİȚȢ,” ıIJȠ ȈȪȞĮȟȘ 77 (2001), 13-17. Karras V., “Orthodox Theologies of Women and Ordained Ministry”, ıIJȠ Thinking Through Faith, ed. Aristotle Papanikolaou and Elizabeth Prodromou, Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2008, ı. 113-158. —. “An Orthodox Perspective on Feminist Theology”, ıIJȘ The Encyclopedia of Women and Religion in North America, ed. Rosemary Skinner Keller and Rosemary Radford Ruether, Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 2006, ı. 523-532. —. “Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church”, ıIJȠ Church History 73 (2004), 272-316. ȀĮȡțĮȜȐ-ǽȠȡȝʌȐ K., “ȊʌȐȡȤİȚ ȤȫȡȠȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮ ȖȚĮ ȝȚĮ ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ,” ıIJȠ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȚ ĬȡȘıțİȓĮ: Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ǿİȡȐ ȂȘIJȡȩʌȠȜȘ ǻȘȝȘIJȡȚȐįȠȢ, İțį. ǴȞįȚțIJȠȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2004. ȀĮııİȜȠȪȡȘ-ȋĮIJȗȘȕĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘ ǼȜ. Ǻ., ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ǼȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ: ȅ ʌĮȡȐȖȠȞIJĮȢ «ijȪȜȠ» ıIJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ, İțį. ȆȠȣȡȞĮȡȐȢ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2003. ȀȠȪțȠȣȡĮ ǻ., “Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ,” ıIJȘȞ ǼʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȒ ǼʌİIJȘȡȓįĮ IJȘȢ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ȈȤȠȜȒȢ IJȠȣ ǹȡȚıIJȠIJİȜİȓȠȣ ȆĮȞİʌȚıIJȘȝȓȠȣ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘȢ, ȃȑĮ ȈİȚȡȐ. ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ: ȉȝȒȝĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJ. 11 (2001), 191-198. ȁȣȝȠȪȡȘȢ, ī., ȞȪȞ ȂȘIJȡ. ȈĮııȓȝȦȞ, “ȅȡșȩįȠȟȠȚ IJȠʌȠșİIJȒıİȚȢ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȦȞ İIJİȡȠįȩȟȦȞ ĮʌȩȥİȦȞ ȣʌȑȡ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ,” ıIJȠ ‫ݠ‬ șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțާȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟ࠙ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓߠ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJ‫ ޟ‬ʌİȡ‫ ޥ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ, ǻȚȠȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ șİȠȜȠȖȚțઁȞ ıȣȞȑįȡȚȠȞ ȇȩįȠȢ, 30 ੗țIJȦȕȡȓȠȣ-7 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1988, ı. 395-422. —. “ǿıIJȠȡȚțȒ țĮȚ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ İʌȚıțȩʌȘıȚȢ IJȘȢ ĮȞIJȚȝİIJȫʌȚıȘȢ IJȠȣ ʌİȡȓ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ țĮIJȐ IJĮȢ ȠȡșȠįȩȟȠȣȢ țĮȚ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȐȢ ıȣȞĮȞIJȒıİȚȢ țĮȚ ıȣıțȑȥİȚȢ İȚȢ IJȘȞ įȚȐȡțİȚĮȞ IJȠȣ 20Ƞȣ ĮȚȫȞȠ,” ıIJȠ ȀȜȘȡȠȞȠȝȓĮ 32 (ǹ-Ǻ 2000), 65-99. ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ ȃ., “Ǿ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȦȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ țĮȚ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ,” ıIJȠ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩȢ ǻȚȐȜȠȖȠȢ, ǼțįȩıİȚȢ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒȢ ǻȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ: ǹșȒȞĮ 2005, ı. 123-127. McDowell Gwyn Maria, “Deaconess,” ıIJȠ The Encyclopedia of Eastern Orthodox Christianity, edited by John Anthony McGuckin, Print publication date 2011, ı. 178-180. ȆĮʌĮȖİȦȡȖȓȠȣ ī., ǾȖİȝȠȞȓĮ țĮȚ ĭİȝȚȞȚıȝȩȢ, İțį. ȉȣʌȦșȒIJȦ īȚȫȡȖȠȢ ǻȐȡįĮȞȠȢ: ǹșȒȞĮ, 2004, ı. 86-122.

394

Chapter Twenty Six

ȆĮʌĮȖİȦȡȖȓȠȣ ȃ., “Ǿ șȑıȘ țĮȚ Ƞ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ İțțȜȘıȓĮ,” ıIJȠ įȚĮįȓțIJȣȠ http://cemesen.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/8/8/27884917/1_papageorgiou _n.pdf.» Parvey C., “Ordination of Women,” ıIJȠ Ordination of Women in Ecumenical Perspective, Faith and Order, Geneva 1980, ı. 30-34. Radford Ruether R., “Feminist Theology,” ıIJȠ ȉhe New Dictionary of Theology, Komonchak J. & Collins M. (ed.), Glazier, Wilmington 1987, ı. 391-396. ĭȚIJȗİȡȐȜȞIJ K., “ȅȡșȩįȠȟȠȢ ĮȟȚȠȜȩȖȘıȚȢ IJȘȢ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ,” ıIJȠ Ǿ șȑıȚȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ İȞ IJȘ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȦ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ IJĮ ʌİȡȓ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȩ.ʌ., ı. 423 ț.İȟ. —. “The Inter-Orthodox Theological Consultation on Women in the Church”, ıIJȠ Ecumenical Trends, 18 (1989), 33-34. —. Women Deacons in the Orthodox Church: Called to Holiness and Ministry, Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1999. ĭȜȦȡȩijțıȣ, ī., ݄ȖȓĮ īȡĮijȒ, ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮ, ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ, ȝIJijȡ. ǻȘȝȘIJȡȓȠȣ ȉıȐȝȘ, ਥțįȩıİȚȢ ȆĮȞĮȖȚȫIJȘ ȆȠȣȡȞĮȡȐ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 1976. ĭȠȣȞIJȠȪȜȘ, ǿ, ਺ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İੁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚț੽Ȟ ȗȦ੽Ȟ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ਥȞȠȡȚĮț੽Ȟ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȞ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ıIJઁ ‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțާȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ IJ߲ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟ࠙ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓߠ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJ‫ ޟ‬ʌİȡ‫ ޥ‬ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ, ǻȚȠȡșȩįȠȟȠȞ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțઁȞ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠȞ, ȇȩįȠȢ, 30 ੗țIJȦȕȡȓȠȣ-7 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1988, ı. 295-307. Vagaggini Cipriano, ‘’L’ordinazione delle diaconesse nella tradizione greca e bizantina”, ıIJȠ Orientalia Christiana Periodica, 40 (1974), 145-189. WCC, “Faith and Order on women's ordination,” ıIJȠ įȚĮįȓțIJȣȠ, http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wccprogrammes/ecumenical-movement-in-the-21st-century/memberchurches/special-commission-on-participation-of-orthodoxchurches/sub-committee-ii-style-ethos-of-our-life-together/faith-andorder-on-womens-ordination.

CHAPTER TWENTY SEVEN ELISABETH BEHR-SIGEL AND THE INSTITUTION OF DEACONESSES ELENI KASSELOURI-HATZIVASSILIADI

Abstract: Elizabeth Behr-Sigel was one of the leading Orthodox theologians of the 20th century, a luminous presence whose life, theological ideas and witness reflect a constant commitment to truth, human dignity and the Church as the Kingdom of God. In the last quarter of her life, she collaborated with the World Council of Churches, lecturing on the question of women’s ordination in the Orthodox Church. The present paper explores the most important moments of her life and her ideas about the role of women in the Church, the ordination, and the institution of female deaconate.

I was happy and privileged to meet Elisabeth Behr Sigel at the Bossey Institute in 1997. I was a postgraduate student of theology, delivering a paper on women’s role in the Orthodox Church. After finishing my presentation, Elisabeth came to me (at that moment I did not know her personally) to congratulate me. Her first words were: “you know young lady, it is the first time that I listen to someone from Greece to speak about woman’s role in the church, and to absolutely agree with her analysis.” A few years later, after been inspired by her writings, I met Elisabeth again in Thessaloniki, where a meeting of the Ecumenical Forum of Christian European Women took place. In the intervening period, I had advanced in my theological studies. Meeting and discussing with Elisabeth was always a life lesson and a great pleasure. She did not only listen and respect ideas but also felt an agony and curiosity about what was going on in Greece, especially in the field of the ministry of women in the Church. Elisabeth’s personality and writings were a source of inspiration. I’ll never forget her invitation and challenge to Orthodox women around the world to “keep at it,” “break the silence,” and “dare.”

396

Chapter Twenty Seven

1. Who Elizabeth Behr-Sigel was Elisabeth Charlotte Sigel was born in 1907 in Strasbourg. In her long life, she confronted all the European tragedies of the 20th century. She was the daughter of a French Lutheran father and a Jewish Austrian mother born in the region of the Alsace. She was Lutheran and studied at the Protestant Faculty of Theology in Strasbourg. Personal encounters with emigrant students from Russia in Strasbourg and later, Paris, served as a bridge for her to become acquainted with the Orthodox tradition. Deeply touched by the Easter liturgy at the St. Sergius Theological Institute, led by Fr. Sergei Bulgakov, Elisabeth chose to enter the Orthodox Church at the age of 22. I went toward the Orthodox Church because I saw in it the Mother Church, where everyone could come together in mutual recognition, without losing their own charisma. There I discovered an evangelical Catholicism where the freedom of each person was respected.1

Soon after her conversion to Orthodoxy, Behr-Sigel undertook master’s level studies in theology in Berlin, under the direction of George Fedotov. Her topic was, as her book would eventually be entitled, Prayer and Holiness in the Russian Church. As her biographer Olga Lossky points out: Choosing a thesis topic relative to hagiography was significant for a Lutheran who had just embraced Orthodoxy. It showed Elisabeth’s determination to immerse herself in this new tradition, which she had made her own, notably in the cult of the saints, which was foreign to her Protestant [sensibilities].2

But the matter of hagiography is very closely connected to the new sense of the Church that Behr-Sigel gained on becoming Orthodox. In fact, it was this approach that drew her to Orthodoxy in the first place. According to her own testimony, as a Protestant, she had always thought of the Church as an institution. For the first time, through the writings of the Orthodox theologian, Alexis Khomiakov, she heard of it as “a 1

From the interview with Catherine Aubé-Elie, “Grandstémoins: Elisabeth BehrSigel”, Unité des chrétiens137/2003, 32. Olga Lossky, Toward the Endless Day: The Life of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, trans. Jerry Ryan (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2010), 29. 2 Olga Lossky, Toward the Endless Day: The Life of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, trans. Jerry Ryan (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 2010), 36.

Elisabeth Behr-Sigel and the Institution of Deaconesses

397

communion lived in faith and love.”3 As she wrote to her fiancé, André Behr, in a letter: we need guides if we are to arrive at a greater fullness of spiritual life, and it cannot be a question of each of us inventing his own particular way. It would take a lot of arrogance to believe ourselves capable of that. In this field, religion is not something purely personal but rather an ecclesial reality, because it is within the communion of the Church, in the communion of our brothers, and, above all, in the communion of the saints who are our older brothers, that we should try to go to God. And the goal is not our solitary communion with Him, but the union of everyone in the love of God, through the Holy Spirit. This is the Church in its mystical reality.4

According to Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, a well-known Lutheran theologian and ecumenist, who wrote about her life and theology: “what makes BehrSigel such a wonderful figure to study is that she never does things in a straightforward or traditional way, even as she is committed to the Orthodox faith of the church. From the beginning, her approach to hagiography was unique and challenging. She did not only invest herself in this traditional church practice, but she retooled it and reclaimed it for the ‘here and now’—one of her favorite phrases—discerning the signs of the times in her application of the deposit of the faith.”5 In Paris, as part of the francophone Russian parish and married to André Behr, she was well aware of the suffering and resistance of people under the Communist regime. She knew about the significant roles that women had fulfilled in the Orthodox churches during Soviet times. They had taken on considerable responsibilities and were prepared for selfsacrificing suffering. She recalls that often, elderly women (the babushkas) were the ones who saved the parish structures by having their grandchildren secretly baptized, or by forming the required group of 20 to make a request under the Khrushchev government to legalize the parish church into a state-owned place of worship. Behr-Sigel also observed how, in the years after Communism, young women took over their grandmothers’ 3

Ibid., 16. Ibid., 37–38. 5 Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, “Elisabeth Behr-Sigel’s New Hagiography and Its Ecumenical Potential,” in Being Human, Becoming Divine: Elisabeth Behr-Sigel’s Contributions to the Church, Doxa and Praxis Series, WCC and Volos Academy Publications (under publication). See also, Sarah Hinlicky Wilson, Woman, Women, and the Priesthood in the Trinitarian Theology of Elisabeth Behr-Sigel (Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013). 4

398

Chapter Twenty Seven

tasks. They were “effectively deaconesses but without title.” They courageously responded to the “signs of the times.” Elisabeth Behr-Sigel became a prominent mediator of Orthodox theology in the Western context. Without ever having a formal academic position in theology (she earned her living as a teacher of philosophy and literature in secondary schools), Elisabeth was a writer of many articles, books and book reviews, as well as co-editor of the French Orthodox journal, Contacts. She published studies on Russian spirituality, hagiography, and modern Orthodox theology, as well as an extensive biography on her spiritual father and friend, Lev Gillet (1893-1980), better known under his pseudonym, the “Monk of the Eastern Church.” In the last quarter of her life, she collaborated with the World Council of Churches, lecturing on the question of women’s ordination in the Orthodox Church.6 She taught courses at the St. Sergius Theological Institute, the Catholic Institute of Paris, the Dominican College of Ottawa, the Ecumenical Institute of Bossey, and the Ecumenical Institute of Tantur, near Jerusalem. Active to the very end of her life, Elisabeth Behr-Sigel died in Paris on November 5, 2005 at the venerable age of 98.

2. Elisabeth Behr-Sigel and the role of women in the church The combination of respect for tradition with openness, freedom and dialogical sense was the main parameter of Elisabeth’s ecclesiological vision. It was a vision of tradition that was grounded but living. While the essential contents remained the same, it changed as it confronted new and different situations, allowing the Church to discern the movement of the Holy Spirit or, as it says in the Gospel of Matthew, “discern the signs of the times” (16:3).7 6

Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, The Ministry of Women in the Church, Redondo Beach, CA: 1991. Two important essays are collected in Elisabeth Behr-Sigel and Kallistos Ware, The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church, Geneva, 2000: “Women in the Orthodox Church”, 1-10, and “The Ordination of Women. Also a Question for the Orthodox Churches”, 11-48. See further her various articles on the issue of (ordination of) women in the Orthodox Church, published in the journals Contacts and Irénikon. 7 See Teva Regule, “According to the Whole: Behr-Sigel’s Ecclesiological Vision,” in Being Human, Becoming Divine: Elisabeth Behr-Sigel’s Contributions to the Church, Doxa and Praxis Series, WCC and Volos Academy Publications (under publication).

Elisabeth Behr-Sigel and the Institution of Deaconesses

399

Elisabeth shared this way of thinking with a number of her contemporaries who were strongly rooted in the great spiritual Orthodox tradition and were, at the same time, liberal thinkers. The liberty within which they operated was necessary to respond to the new challenges to the traditional, redundant ways in which faith was handled in most churches and, in particular, in the Orthodox Church, often with the good intention of protecting the faith of the Fathers. While the great tradition, which is permanently faithful to the revelation, remains the criterion and critical eye for renewal in the Church, discernment in the spirit of liberty, humility, and brotherly love remains indispensable for Orthodox theologians, in order to avoid a reductionist approach to the divine mystery given to the Church, “speaking the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15). “What is the true Church?” asked Elisabeth in a paper she gave at the Bossey Seminar on “Authority and the Community of Women and Men in the Church” in 1997. The question aimed to elucidate the gift of life that Christ entrusted his Church with in the present. “What is the relationship between that which I would call the spiritual essence of the Church, the Church in the mind and eternal intention of God, and the Church on earth, the people of God called to live within the movement of history?”8 Elisabeth challenged the exclusion of women to the sacramental priesthood. She admitted that this was a topic that arose from outside the Orthodox Church and that the Orthodox were ill-prepared to engage with it. Her writings dissect the initial arguments against the ordination of women to the sacramental priesthood and articulate her own developing theological thought on the issue.9 She clarifies the meaning of Christian priesthood, understood in the sacramental sense. While initially thinking that the “iconic” argument rooted in liturgical symbolism had merit, she came to a fuller understanding of the symbolism in the “icon of Christ” based on her understanding of baptism. In Orthodox theology, the icon is not a naturalistic portrait. She explains: “The authentic icon is the human face become transparent through grace, radiating the other Face, the mysterious person of the God-man.”10 During the liturgy, it is Christ, as 8

See Teva Regule, “According to the Whole: Behr-Sigel’s Ecclesiological Vision,” in Being Human, Becoming Divine: Elisabeth Behr-Sigel’s Contributions to the Church, Doxa and Praxis Series, WCC and Volos Academy Publications (under publication). 9 See her chapter, “The Ordination of Women: Also a Question for the Orthodox Churches,” in Elisabeth Behr-Sigel and Kallistos Ware, The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church (Geneva: WCC, 2000). 10 Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, “The Ordination of Women: An Ecumenical Problem,” MaryMartha 2/2 (1992). Available online at

400

Chapter Twenty Seven

head of the Church, who offers to the Father. Christ is the only celebrant: the one offering and offered. All Christians participate in the ministry of Christ. It is within this context that she came to see the role of the priest as primarily functional although, implicitly, relational as well. She challenges those who understand Gal. 3:26-28, which she often cites, as referring only to baptism without realizing its implications for the sacramental priesthood. In her address to the Agapia Consultation participants, she writes: But surely the fundamental ontological unity through communion in the crucified and risen Christ as created by baptism is the foundation of the royal priesthood of all the baptized in which the ministry [specifically, the sacramental priesthood] has its origins as a special, personal vocation, according to the sovereign liberty of God. Moreover, the Church is a body made up of many limbs, with a hierarchy of functions to which corresponds the diversity of the gifts of the Spirit granted to each person (1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4:1-7). So, the question that arises is this: as a human being called by the Creator to fulfill herself according to the particular modes of her feminine being, can a woman not, therefore, aspire to the charism of the priesthood? In giving a negative answer to this, are we not in fact subordinating grace to a biological determinism, to nature which can and will transform as the fire blazes in the burning bush yet does not consume it?11

In appealing to the indeterminacy of God and the power of the Spirit, she privileges the divine aspect of the Church. If the human part is to cooperate in the eternal offering of Christ, referring to the words of Chrysostom, she asks why a woman could not be the one to lend her hands and tongue to Christ.12 It is when men and women work together to build up the body of Christ that the Church becomes more fully itself. She emphasizes: Finally, that the Church becomes that which she is—the supreme will of God: a community in faith, hope, and love, of men and women, of the mystery of individuals, ineffably equal yet different, in the image and radiance of the Divine Trinity. Such is the grand ecclesiological vision of members.iinet.net.au/~mmjournal/MaryMartha (accessed March 15, 2015). 11 Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, “The Meaning of the Participation of Women in the Life of the Church,” in Proceedings from the International Consultation on the Participation of Women in the Life of the Church, Agapia, Romania, 1976 (Geneva: WCC, 1977), 27-28. 12 John Chrysostom, Homily 77 on John 4 and On the Treachery of Judas 1,6, quoted in Behr-Sigel, “The Ordination of Women: Also a Question,” 22.

Elisabeth Behr-Sigel and the Institution of Deaconesses

401

the Orthodox Church. What remains is to translate it into our historical, empirical existence: a difficult task, seemingly impossible, to which we sometimes feel called, confident in the promise of the Christ to send us the Spirit from above who ‘will introduce the disciples to the entire Truth’ (Jn. 16:13).13

In the book, The Ordination of women in the Orthodox Church, where she and Bishop Kallistos Ware analyze the topic, she stresses the importance of women’s presence in the life of the Christian church: It should be added that the patristic period coincided with the development of the diaconate of women. It was a ministry in the service of women as a response to their particular needs within the patriarchal society. But, as the research of Evangelos Theodorou has demonstrated, it also had a theological basis: it was fairly complete ministry, with liturgical, catechetical and philanthropic roles, conferred in a genuine ordination.14

And she continues: The door does seem ajar in the Orthodox churches for an intelligent creative restoration of the diaconate of women accompanied by a comprehensive rethinking of this ministry. Perhaps we should push that door open, while at the same time still thinking together, in a free and conciliar way, on the question being asked by the churches which do ordain women to the ministry. The attitude of the Orthodox Churches to them should be modest, friendly and expectant, open to the possibility expresses towards the end of the Lima document ‘Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry’ “that the Spirit may well speak to one church through the insights of another”. The desire of the unity of the Lord’s followers in obedience to him should encourage the Orthodox churches — and other traditional churches — to face the question of women’s ordination to a full ministry within the Church. It is a difficult problem, to be approached in the light of the mystery of God, who became human so that humankind as a whole, in its communion with the Divine/Human Person by the Spirit, should be saved, sanctified and transfigured. 15

Although Elisabeth favored the ordination of women, she concentrates her energies more on the broader question of the role of women in the Orthodox Church. She was well aware of the Orthodox sensitivities on this issue and inclined to urge reflection and reform of thinking, as well as 13

Behr-Sigel, “Women in the Orthodox Church,” 11. Elisabeth Behr-Sigel and Kallistos Ware, The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church (Geneva: WCC, 2000), 4. 15 Ibid., 45. 14

402

Chapter Twenty Seven

practices grounded in the biblical and patristic teaching of the ontological equality of men and women, rather than shrill denunciations of male domination. Her writings were based on an attentive reading of scripture, the experience of the early Church, and patristic anthropology. Elisabeth helped create an awareness that women had been relegated to an inferior status that was not in accordance with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and which had to change. Unquestionably, Elisabeth’s Behr-Sigel’s thinking on women in the Church remains a landmark and reference in Orthodox theological reflection on this significant issue.16 Elisabeth, as Paul Ladoucaur, notes: “was one of the leading Orthodox theologians of the twentieth century, a luminous presence whose long and varied life reflected a constant commitment to truth, human dignity and the Church as the Kingdom of God, as much here and now as in the eschaton.”17 May her memory be eternal!

16

See, Elisabeth Behr-Sigel, The Ministry of Women in the Church (Torrance CA: Oakwood Publications, 1987). 17 Paul Ladoucaur, “Elisabeth Behr-Sigel” in Pantelis Kalaitzidis et al. eds., Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism. Resources for Theological Education, Volos Academy Publications (in co-operation with WCC Publications, Geneva, and Regnum Books International, Oxford) Volos, Greece, 2014, 190-193.

CHAPTER TWENTY EIGHT DEACONESSES AND THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN IN THE THEOLOGY OF NIKOS MATSOUKAS MARIA HATZIAPOSTOLOU

Abstract: ǿf Mary Magdalene, as a heroine of Kazantzakis, was the true refuge of Christ and yet was persecuted by humans, this impressively demonstrates the ambiguous position of women in God’s plan for the salvation of the world. The subject on which ǿ was asked to present is a challenge or, in other words, an invitation to communion. The thinking of Nikos Matsoukas, always subversive and groundbreaking, remains more relevant than ever. At the same time, the burning issue of the ordination of women has concerned quite a number of theologians. Such a great theologian and mentor of many important theologians could not but leave his mark on this issue. What, then, is the proposal by Nikos Matsoukas? Surely, always creative as well as dynamic: “Finally, I humbly make a suggestion to some theologians who produce such or similar theological arguments. Nothing is more powerful than the Church’s long tradition and practice. Therefore, the Church as a body of Christ and the fullness of truth, if it is convinced that this tradition should be left unchanged, it has all the comfort to keep it, and by no means does it not need such para-theological arguments that surely reduce the woman as a member of this body, or better destroy the very charismatic nature of this ecclesiastical body. In view of the fact, that in this charismatic community its members differ only by the specificity and receptivity, but in no case, in any way, no way, in parity and equality. Besides this, the exclusion of women from the priesthood has not reduced at all, nor does it reduce, the charismatic life of the Church.” «“ȂĮȡȓĮ, į‫ޡ‬Ȟ ‫ݏ‬ȤȦ ʌȠࠎ Ȟ‫ ޟ‬țȠȚȝȘșࠛ, țȡȣȫȞȦ! ȁĮȖȠȪȝȚĮ Ȟ‫ ޟ‬țȡȣijIJȠࠎȞ ‫ސ‬Ȣ țȚ Ƞ‫ܻ ݨ‬ȜİʌȠࠎįİȢ ‫ݏ‬ȤȠȣȞ, țȚ ‫ݏ‬ȤȠȣȞ ijȦȜȚ‫ޡ‬Ȣ ȗİıIJ‫ޡ‬Ȣ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJ‫ ޟ‬ʌȠȣȜȚ‫ޟ‬ –ȝȠȞȐȤȠȢ ‫݋‬Ȗޫ į‫ޡ‬Ȟ ‫ݏ‬ȤȦ ʌȠࠎ Ȟ‫ ޟ‬ȖİȓȡȦ IJާ țİijȐȜȚ! ȆȠȜީ įȚȥࠛ, țȣȡȐ ȝȠȣ, țĮ‫ ޥ‬ʌİȚȞࠛ, țȡȣȫȞȦ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ȝȚ‫ ޟ‬į‫ ޡ‬ȕȡȓıțİIJĮȚ țĮȡįȚ‫ ޟ‬Ȟ‫ ޟ‬ȝ‫ ޡ‬ȝĮȗȫȟİȚ!”. ȀȚ ‫݋‬Ȗޫ ıțȣijIJȒ, ȝ‫ޡ‬Ȣ ıIJާ Į‫ݮ‬ȝĮ IJȠȣ ʌȞȚȝȑȞȘ,

404

Chapter Twenty Eight ijȫȞĮȗĮ: “ȃȐ, ȀȪȡȚİ, IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ țĮȡįȚȐ ȝȠȣ!”. ȈȫʌĮȚȞĮ, țĮ‫ ޥ‬ʌȐȜȚ: “ȃȐ, ȀȪȡȚİ, IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ țĮȡįȚȐ ȝȠȣ!” țȜĮȓȖȠȞIJĮȢ ‫݋‬ȕȩȖțȠȣȞ. ȀȚ Į‫ރ‬IJާȢ ȤĮȝȠȖİȜȠࠎıİ, țȚ ‫ݼ‬ȜȠ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ʌȚާ ıȐȡțĮ ıIJİȡİȒ, ȗİıIJ‫ޣ‬ ȖȚȞȩIJĮȞ ‫ ݸ‬ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ȝĮȢ, ȆȑIJȡȠ, ‫ݜ‬ȝĮȡIJȠȞ, Ĭȑ ȝȠȣ! ‫ݑ‬Ȗޫ șĮȡȡİ߿Ȣ ʌޫȢ IJާȞ ȖİȞȞȠࠎıĮ!”». ȃȓțȠȣ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, ȉȡĮȖȦįȓĮ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ.

ȀȚ’ ĮȞ Ș ȂĮȡȓĮ Ș ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ ȦȢ ȘȡȦȓįĮ IJȠȣ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, ıIJȠ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ ĮʌȩıʌĮıȝĮ,1 ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıIJȠ țĮșȠȜȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ, İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ ĮȜȘșȚȞȩ țĮIJĮijȪȖȚȠ IJȠȣ țĮIJĮIJȡİȖȝȑȞȠȣ, Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢ, ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ĮȣIJȩ ȝĮȢ ijĮȞİȡȫȞİȚ ʌİȡȓIJȡĮȞĮ IJȘȞ ʌȠȜȣıȒȝĮȞIJȘ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȠ ıȤȑįȚȠ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮ IJȠȣ țȩıȝȠȣ. Ǿ țĮȡįȚȐ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȑȤİȚ IJȘ įȪȞĮȝȘ ȞĮ ȝİIJĮȝȠȡijȫıİȚ IJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ, ĮțȩȝȘ țĮȚ ȞĮ ıȫıİȚ IJȠȞ ȓįȚȠ IJȠ Ĭİȩ –ȝȑıȦ IJȘȢ İȜİȪșİȡȘȢ ĮʌȠįȠȤȒȢ IJȠȣ șİȜȒȝĮIJȩȢ ȉȠȣ, ȩʌȦȢ ıȣȞȑȕȘ țĮȚ ıIJȠȞ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȚıȝȩ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ– țȚ’ İțİȓȞȘ ȦȢ ʌȜȐıȝĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ, ȕȚȫȞİȚ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ IJȘȞ ĮȜȒșİȚĮ ĮȣIJȒ ȕĮșȚȐ ȝȑıĮ IJȘȢ. Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, ȐȜȜȠIJİ ȦȢ șȣȖĮIJȑȡĮ IJȘȢ ǼȪĮȢ țȚ’ ȐȜȜȠIJİ ȦȢ ĮʌȩȖȠȞȠȢ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ ʌȠȣ ȖȑȞȞȘıİ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ IJȠ ĭȦȢ, ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ʌȐȞIJĮ İȚțȩȞĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ IJȘȢ, ʌȠȣ ʌȠȡİȪİIJĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ ȠȝȠȓȦıȘ ȝ’ ǼțİȓȞȠȞ țȚ’ ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ ĮʌȠȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ șȑıȘ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ –ȝİ IJȘȞ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞȘ ıIJȘȜȓIJİȣıȘ İț ȝȑȡȠȣȢ IJȠȣ ıȣȖȖȡĮijȑȦȢ IJȠȣ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠȪ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıȝȠȪ IJȘȢ, ȩʌȠȣ țĮȚ ȩIJĮȞ İțİȓȞȠȢ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ– ĮȜȜȐ ȝİ IJȠ ıȣȞĮȚıșȘȝĮIJȚıȝȩ țĮȚ IJȘ ȝİȖĮȜȠıȪȞȘ IJȘȢ țĮȡįȚȐȢ IJȘȢ, ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ įİȞ ȣʌȠIJȚȝȐIJĮȚ, ĮȜȜȐ ȣʌİȡIJİȡİȓ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ ĮȞįȡȩȢ. Ǿ ȣʌİȡȠȤȒ ĮȣIJȒ İțijȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ țĮȡįȚȐ IJȘȢ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ȑȤİȚ IJȘ įȪȞĮȝȘ Ȟ’ ĮȞĮıIJȒıİȚ IJȠȣȢ ȞİțȡȠȪȢ, ĮțȩȝȘ țĮȚ ȞĮ ıȫıİȚ IJȠȞ ȓįȚȠ IJȠ Ĭİȩ. Ǿ ȂĮȡȓĮ Ș ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ IJȘȞ ȠȜȠȗȫȞIJĮȞȘ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ǹȞȐıIJĮıȘȢ țĮșȫȢ, «ਝȖȐʌȘ, ਖȖȞȩIJȘIJĮ, ʌĮȡșİȞȚț੽ įȡȠıȚȐ! ੘ ਕȞĮıIJȘȝȑȞȠȢ ੉ȘıȠ૨Ȣ ʌĮIJȐİȚ IJઁ ȤȜȦȡઁ ȤȠȡIJȐȡȚ. ȀĮ੿ IJઁ ȤȠȡIJȐȡȚ į੻ ȜȣȖȓȗİȚ țȐIJȦ ਕʌઁ IJ੹ ʌȩįȚĮ IJȠȣ, ȖȚĮIJ੿ ੖ȜȘ IJȠȣ ਲ ıȐȡțĮ ਩ȖȚȞİ ʌȞȑȝĮ. ਺ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ, ȝ’ ਕȞȠȚȤIJ੹ ȤȑȡȚĮ, ȤȚȝȐİȚ ʌȓıȦ IJȠȣ șȑȜİȚ Ȟ੹ IJઁȞ ਕȖȖȓȟİȚ, Ȟ੹ IJઁȞ ȝȣȡȚıIJİ૙, Ȟ੹ IJઁȞ ਕȖțĮȜȚȐıİȚ ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ʌȚıIJȑȥİȚ. ǼੇȞĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ. ǻ੻Ȟ ʌȚıIJİȪİȚ ıIJઁ ʌȞȑȝĮ. Ȃ੹ ਫțİ૙ȞȠȢ, IJઁ ਕȝȐȜĮȖȠ ȆȞȑȝĮ, ਕʌȠIJȡĮȕȚȑIJĮȚ țȚ ਕȞĮijȦȞİ૙ ȝ’ ਕȞȐȜĮijȡȠ ijȡȚțȓĮıȝĮ: “ȂȒ ȝȠȣ ਚʌIJȠȣ!”...».2 ǹȜȜȐ ıIJȠȞ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȝȠȞȐȤĮ Ƞ ĮȞĮıIJȐıȚȝȠȢ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚıȝȩȢ IJȘȢ ȂĮȡȓĮȢ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒȢ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ȐȜȜȦȞ ȂȣȡȠijȩȡȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, țĮșȫȢ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ȑȤİȚ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȝĮșȒIJȡȚİȢ, ıȣȞȠȝȚȜİȓ ĮȞȠȚȤIJȐ țĮȚ ijĮȞİȡȫȞİȚ ıIJȘ ȈĮȝĮȡİȓIJȚııĮ ȣȥȘȜȑȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ĮȜȒșİȚİȢ, ıȣȞĮȞĮıIJȡȑijİIJĮȚ ȝİ 1

ȃȓțȠȣ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, ĬȑĮIJȡȠ Ǻǯ. ȉȡĮȖȦįȓİȢ ȝİ ȕȣȗĮȞIJȚȞȐ șȑȝĮIJĮ. ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ, ‫ݯ‬ȠȣȜȚĮȞȩȢ ‫ ݸ‬ȆĮȡĮȕȐIJȘȢ, ȃȚțȘijȩȡȠȢ ĭȦțߢȢ, ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȞȠȢ ȆĮȜĮȚȠȜȩȖȠȢ. ȉȡĮȖȦįȓĮ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ, İțį. ǼȜ. ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, ǹșȒȞĮ 1964, ı. 26. 2 ȃȓțȠȣ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, ‫ ݾ‬ǺȡĮȤȩțȘʌȠȢ, İțį. ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, ȁİȣțȦıȓĮ 1981, ı. 109.

Deaconesses in the Theology of Nikos Matsoukas

405

ʌȩȡȞİȢ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ IJȚȢ ʌȡȠıȜȐȕİȚ țĮȚ ȞĮ IJȚȢ ıȫıİȚ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, įȑȤİIJĮȚ IJȘ ıIJȠȡȖȚțȒ ijȡȠȞIJȓįĮ IJȘȢ ȂȣȡĮȜİȓȥĮıĮȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ țȚ’ ĮȟȚȫȞİȚ IJȚȢ ȂȣȡȠijȩȡİȢ ȞĮ ȖȓȞȠȣȞ ȠȚ ʌȡȫIJȠȚ ȝȐȡIJȣȡİȢ IJȘȢ ǹȞĮıIJȐıİȫȢ IJȠȣ. ȉȠ șȑȝĮ ʌȠȣ țȜȒșȘțĮ ȞĮ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐıȦ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ʌȡȩțȜȘıȘ, IJȠȣIJȑıIJȚȞ ʌȡȩıțȜȘıȘ ıİ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ. ȃȓțȠȢ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮȢ. DzȞĮȢ ȝİȖȐȜȠȢ įȐıțĮȜȠȢ. Ǿ ıțȑȥȘ IJȠȣ ʌȐȞIJĮ ĮȞĮIJȡİʌIJȚțȒ țĮȚ ȡȘȟȚțȑȜİȣșȘ, ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ʌȠȣ IJȠȞ țĮșȚıIJȐ țĮȚ ȝİȖȐȜȠ. ȈIJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ, IJȠ ijȜȑȖȠȞ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ĮʌĮıȤȩȜȘıİ Ƞȣț ȠȜȓȖȠȣȢ șİȠȜȩȖȠȣȢ țĮȚ įİȞ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȑȞĮȢ IJȩıȠ ȝİȖȐȜȠȢ șİȠȜȩȖȠȢ țĮȚ įȐıțĮȜȠȢ IJȩıȠ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȫȞ șİȠȜȩȖȦȞ, ȞĮ ȝȘȞ ĮijȒıİȚ IJȠ ıIJȓȖȝĮ IJȠȣ ıIJȠ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚıȝȩ. DzIJıȚ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, țĮIJȐ IJȠ ȝĮțĮȡȚıIJȩ ȝĮȢ įȐıțĮȜȠ ȃȓțȠ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ: «ǹʌĮȡȤȒȢ ȦȢ ıȒȝİȡĮ, ȝȚȐ ȝĮțȡĮȓȦȞȘ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ĮʌȠțȜİȓİȚ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ǹȟȓȗİȚ, ȦıIJȩıȠ, ȞĮ İʌȚıȘȝȐȞİȚ țĮȞİȓȢ ȩIJȚ ĮȣIJȩȢ Ƞ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıȝȩȢ ȑȖȚȞİ ĮȞİʌĮȚıșȒIJȦȢ țĮȚ ıȚȦʌȘȡȫȢ, ȤȦȡȓȢ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒ șȑıʌȚıȘ. ȈIJȘȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȘ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌĮȡĮȓIJȘIJȠ ȞĮ ȣʌİȞșȣȝȓıİȚ țĮȞİȓȢ IJȠȣȢ ȖȞȦıIJȠȪȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠȪȢ ʌĮȡȐȖȠȞIJİȢ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ȚȑȡİȚİȢ IJȘȢ İȚįȦȜȠȜĮIJȡȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȑțȜİȚıĮȞ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ, ȦıIJȩıȠ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȑȞĮ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȩ ʌĮȡȐįȠȟȠ. ȀĮȚ İȟȘȖȠȪȝĮȚ. ǹȞ ȝİȜİIJȒıİȚ țĮȞİȓȢ IJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ ĮȡȤĮȓȠȣ ǼȜȜȘȞȚıȝȠȪ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJĮ țȜĮıȚțȐ țİȓȝİȞĮ, ʌȠȜȪ İȪțȠȜĮ șĮ įȚĮʌȚıIJȫıİȚ ȝȚĮ țĮIJĮșȜȚʌIJȚțȐ țȣȡȓĮȡȤȘ ĮȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȓĮ ȝİ ıȤİįȩȞ ʌȜȒȡȘ İȟȠȕİȜȚıȝȩ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ Įʌȩ IJĮ įȡȫȝİȞĮ IJȠȣ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȠȪ. ǹʌİȞĮȞIJȓĮȢ, ıIJȠȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩ ʌȠȣ țĮȜȜȚȑȡȖȘıİ Ș ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ įȚĮțȡȓȞİȚ țĮȞİȓȢ İȞIJȠȞȩIJĮIJĮ IJĮ ıȘȝİȓĮ ȝȚĮȢ ȝȘIJȡȚĮȡȤȓĮȢ. Ȃİ ȐȜȜĮ ȜȩȖȚĮ, įȚĮȤȑİIJĮȚ ȦȢ ĮȪȡĮ ȜİʌIJȒ ȑȞĮȢ ȝȘIJȡȠțİȞIJȡȚțȩȢ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩȢ».3 DzIJıȚ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, ȑȤİȚ țĮȞİȓȢ IJȘȞ ĮȓıșȘıȘ, ʌȦȢ ȠȚ șİȡȐʌȠȞIJİȢ IJȘȢ İʌȚıIJȒȝȘȢ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, țĮȜȠȪȞIJĮȚ ȞĮ ȝȚȜȒıȠȣȞ ȖȚĮ ȑȞĮ șȑȝĮ ĮȣIJȠȞȩȘIJȠ, İijȩıȠȞ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ, ȦȢ ȈĮȡțȦȝȑȞȠȢ ȁȩȖȠȢ, ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ĮțȑȡĮȚȠ ȠȜȐțİȡȠ IJȠȞ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ țĮȚ țĮIJĮȡȖİȓ țȐșİ İȓįȠȣȢ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJĮȣIJȠȤȡȩȞȦȢ ȖİȞȞȚȑIJĮȚ ȝȑıĮ ȝĮȢ Ș ĮȓıșȘıȘ ʌȦȢ IJȓʌȠIJĮ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ Ȓ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ șİȦȡȘșİȓ ĮȣIJȠȞȩȘIJȠ. Ȃİ IJȘȞ İȣțĮȚȡȓĮ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, IJȠȪIJȠȣ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚıȝȠȪ, ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȖİȞȞȘșİȓ ȑȞĮȢ ȐțȡȦȢ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȦȞ țĮȚ ȖȩȞȚȝȠȢ įȚȐȜȠȖȠȢ, ȑȞĮȢ įȚȐȜȠȖȠȢ Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ șĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȚțĮȞȩȢ Ȟ’ ĮȞĮIJȡȑȥİȚ țȐșİ ʌȡȠțĮIJȐȜȘȥȘ țĮȚ Ȟ’ ĮȜȜȐȟİȚ įȚĮ ʌĮȞIJȩȢ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ IJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ, ĮȜȜȐȗȠȞIJĮȢ ʌȡȦIJȓıIJȦȢ, ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ țĮȜȪIJİȡȠ, IJȠȞ ȓįȚȠ IJȠȞ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ. ȉȠȞ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ İțİȓȞȠȞ ʌȠȣ ʌȠȡİȪİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ıȫȝĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮȚ ĮȞĮȗȘIJȐ IJȠ ȈIJĮȣȡȦȝȑȞȠ țĮȚ ȖȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ ǹȞĮıIJȘȝȑȞȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ. ȉȠ «ȃȚțȒıĮȞIJĮ IJȠȞ DZįȘ»,4 țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ ȘȜȚȠʌȩIJȘ ǼȜȪIJȘ.

3

ȃȓțȠȣ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ, «Ǿ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȦȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ țĮȚ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ», ıIJȠȞ IJȩȝȠ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩȢ įȚȐȜȠȖȠȢ, İʌȚȝȑȜİȚĮ ȆȑIJȡȠȢ ǺĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘȢ, İțį. ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ǻȚĮțȠȞȓĮ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2005, ı. 124. 4 ȅįȣııȑĮ ǼȜȪIJȘ, ȉȠ DZȟȚȠȞ ǼıIJȓ, İțį. ǴțĮȡȠȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 1979, ı. 70.

406

Chapter Twenty Eight

īȣȞĮȓțĮ. ǹʌȩȖȠȞȠȢ IJȘȢ ǼȪĮȢ Ȓ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ; ǵȝȦȢ, Ș ਥȞ ȋȡȚıIJ૶ įȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ: «Ƞ੝ț ਩ȞȚ ਙȡıİȞ țĮȓ șોȜȣ»5, țĮIJĮȡȖİȓ țȐșİ İȓįȠȣȢ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ țĮșȫȢ, «ǹȞ Ș ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ ȦȢ İȚțȩȞĮ IJȘȢ ਥȞ ȋȡȚıIJ૶ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ IJȩIJİ Ƞ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ İȓIJİ ȦȢ ȐȞįȡĮȢ İȓIJİ ȦȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȑȤİȚ IJȘ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ»,6 ĮȞ ȩȞIJȦȢ įİȤIJȠȪȝİ IJȘȞ ĮȜȒșİȚĮ ʌȦȢ, «ȅ ȩȜȠȢ ĬİȩȢ, ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ IJȠȞ ȩȜȠ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ ȖİȞȩȝİȞȠȢ ਥȞ IJ૶ ʌȡȠıȫʌ૳ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ ȩȜȠȢ ĬİȩȢ țĮȚ ȩȜȠȢ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ, ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȢ IJȘȞ ȩȜȘ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ijȪıȘ».7 ȆȐȞIJȦȢ, IJȠ ȝȩȞȠ ıȓȖȠȣȡȠ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȦȢ, «īȚĮ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȩȝȦȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ IJȘȢ ǹȖȐʌȘȢ įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ ĮįȚȑȟȠįĮ. ǺȑȕĮȚĮ, țȐșİ ȝȠȡijȒ įȚȐțȡȚıȘȢ țĮȚ įȚĮȓȡİıȘȢ, ȩʌȦȢ IJȠ ijȪȜȠ, ʌȡȠțĮȜİȓ IJȠ ıIJĮıȚĮıȝȩ, IJȘȞ ĮȞIJȚʌĮȜȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ IJȘ ıȪȖțȡȠȣıȘ».8 ǹʌȩ IJȠȞ ĮʌȠIJȡȩʌĮȚȠ ijȩȞȠ IJȘȢ ȞİȠʌȜĮIJȦȞȚțȒȢ ijȚȜȠıȩijȠȣ ȊʌĮIJȓĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞIJĮȖȦȞȚıIJȚțȒ ıȤȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȀĮııȚĮȞȒȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ĬİȠijȓȜȠȣ, ȦȢ IJȘȞ ȪȥȚıIJȘ IJȚȝȒ IJȠȣ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȠȪ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ ıİ ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ʌȠȣ țȣȠijȩȡȘıİ IJȘ ǽȦȒ, Ƞ ĮȜȘșȚȞȩȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠȢ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩȢ9 ʌȠȡİȪİIJĮȚ įȡĮȝĮIJȚțȐ țĮȚ įİȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ıİ țĮȝȓĮ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ıIJĮIJȚțȒ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ, ĮȜȜȐ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ Įʌȩ IJȘ įȣȞĮȝȚțȒ IJȠȣ ʌȠȡİȓĮ.10 5

īĮȜ. 3, 28. ȋȡȚıIJȩijȠȡȠȣ ǹȡȕĮȞȓIJȘ, ‫ ݠ‬șȡȘıțİȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮȓ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ބ‬ʌȠIJĮȖ߱Ȣ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȩȞ ܿȞįȡĮ. ȅ‫݋ ݨ‬țțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ IJȘȢ ıȣȞȑʌİȚİȢ, ı. 56. 7 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ. ǼʌȓıȘȢ, ȕȜ. ǿȦȐȞȞȠȣ ǻĮȝĮıțȘȞȠȪ, ‫ݕ‬țįȠıȚȢ ܻțȡȚȕȒȢ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ȆȓıIJİȦȢ, 3, 12, P.G. 94, 1029A. 8 ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȞȠȣ īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘ, ȉȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ǹțĮįȘȝȓĮ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ ıʌȠȣįȫȞ, http://www.acadimia.gr/content/view/100/35/lang,el/ 9 ȋȡȚıIJȩijȠȡȠȣ ǹȡȕĮȞȓIJȘ, ‫ ݠ‬șȡȘıțİȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ, ı. 11: «ȆĮȡȐ IJĮ ʌȠȜȜȐ țİȓȝİȞĮ ʌȠȣ ȑȤȠȣȞ ȖȡĮijİȓ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ȝİȜȑIJİȢ ʌȠȣ ȑȤȠȣȞ țĮIJĮIJİșİȓ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJİțȝȘȡȚȦȝȑȞĮ IJȘȞ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ IJȘȢ İȝʌİȚȡȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ, Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıȣȞİȤȓȗİȚ ȞĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ șİȡĮʌĮȚȞȓįĮ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ȣʌȠțİȓȝİȞȠ IJȠȣ ʌȐșȠȣȢ, IJȘȢ ijȚȜȓĮȢ, IJȘȢ ȑȜȟȘȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȑȡȦIJĮ. ȆĮȡ’ ȩIJȚ, ȩʌȦȢ İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ Ƞ țĮșȘȖȘIJȒȢ ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȢ ȈIJĮȝȠȪȜȘȢ, Ƞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩȢ įİȞ ȣʌȒȡȟİ ȖȑȞȞȘȝĮ IJȠȣ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȠȪ, ʌȠȜȪ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ įİȞ ȖİȞȞȒșȘțİ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩ, İȞ IJȠȪIJȠȚȢ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ʌĮȡȐ ȞĮ ȖİȞȞȐ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩ, țĮȞİȓȢ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȝȘ įȚĮʌȚıIJȫıİȚ IJȘȞ ȑțʌIJȦıȘ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȑțʌIJȦıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ ıIJȚȢ țȣȡȓĮȡȤİȢ ĮʌȩȥİȚȢ țĮȚ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȑȢ IJȠȣ șİıȝȚțȠȪ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȠȪ». ǼʌȓıȘȢ, ȕȜ. ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȣ ȈIJĮȝȠȪȜȘ, ȀȐȜȜȠȢ IJȩ ݈ȖȚȠȞ. ȆȡȠȜİȖȩȝİȞĮ ıIJȘ ijȚȜȩțĮȜȘ ĮȚıșȘIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮȢ, İțį. ਝțȡȓIJĮȢ, ਝșȒȞĮ 2004, ı. 17. 10 ȋȡȚıIJȩijȠȡȠȣ ǹȡȕĮȞȓIJȘ, ‫ ݠ‬șȡȘıțİȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ, ı. 58: «Ǿ İȞĮȞșȡȫʌȚıȘ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ȁȩȖȠȣ İț ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ ǹȖȓȠȣ țĮȚ ȂĮȡȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȆĮȡșȑȞȠȣ țĮIJĮȡȖİȓ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȐ IJȘȞ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ IJȠȣ ijȪȜȠȣ ȦȢ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȚįȚĮȚIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ țĮȚ ȩʌȦȢ İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ Ƞ ȀȦȞ/ȞȠȢ īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘȢ, ȩIJĮȞ ȠȚ ȆĮIJȑȡİȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ijȪıȘ IJȠȣ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚȠȪȞ IJȠȣȢ ȩȡȠȣȢ ıȐȡȟ, ı૵ȝĮ, ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ, ਕȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ, ȤȦȡȓȢ ȞĮ țȐȞȠȣȞ țĮȝȓĮ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȠ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ IJȠȣ ȐȡȡİȞ ijȪȜȠ. ǵIJĮȞ įİ Ƞ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ǻĮȝĮıțȘȞȩȢ ȝȚȜȐ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ĮȞįȡȚțȩ ijȪȜȠ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ, IJȠ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ 6

Deaconesses in the Theology of Nikos Matsoukas

407

ȉȠ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞ IJȠȣ ȃȓțȠȣ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ijȜȑȖȠȞ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ijĮȞİȡȫȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ țĮșȠȜȚțȩ IJȠȣ ȑȡȖȠ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıIJȘ șȑȜȘıȒ IJȠȣ ȖȚĮ İȞİȡȖȒ ȝİIJȠȤȒ ıIJȠȞ İȞ ȜȩȖȦ įȚȐȜȠȖȠ.11 ȆȐȞIJĮ ĮȞĮIJȡİʌIJȚțȩȢ țĮȚ ĮȞIJȚİȟȠȣıȚĮıIJȒȢ IJȠȞȓȗİȚ ʌȦȢ, «ĭȠȕȐȝĮȚ ȩIJȚ ȝİȡȚțȠȓ İȡȝȘȞİȪȠȣȞ IJĮ ĮıțȘIJȚțȐ țİȓȝİȞĮ ȝİ IJĮ ȖȣĮȜȚȐ IJȠȣ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȣ ʌȠȣȡȚIJĮȞȚıȝȠȪ. ȅ ĮıțȘIJȒȢ, Ƞ ĮțIJȒȝȦȞ, Ƞ ĮİIJȩȢ ȣȥȚʌȑIJȘȢ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮȤȫȡȘıȘ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȐıțȘıȘ įİȞ țĮIJĮįȚțȐȗİȚ ȝȒIJİ țĮIJȐ țȪȡȚȠ ȜȩȖȠ ĮʌȠȡȡȓʌIJİȚ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ –ĮȣIJȠȞȠȒIJȦȢ țȐȞȠȣȝİ ȜȩȖȠ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ ĮıțȘIJȒ– ĮȜȜȐ įȚĮȝĮȡIJȣȡȩȝİȞȠȢ țĮIJĮȡȤȒȞ İȞĮȞIJȓȠȞ İȞȩȢ ıȣȝȕĮIJȚțȠȪ țĮȚ ȣʌȠțȡȚIJȚțȠȪ țȩıȝȠȣ, ĮȡȞİȓIJĮȚ țȐșİ țȠıȝȚțȒ İȟȐȡIJȘıȘ. ȈIJȘȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȘ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ȦȢ ıȪȝȕȠȜȠ ʌȜȑȠȞ, İȓȞĮȚ ȑȞĮȢ ȝİȖȐȜȠȢ ʌİȚȡĮıȝȩȢ ʌȠȣ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ įȑıİȚ IJȠȞ ĮıțȘIJȒ ȝİ IJȠ ıȣȝȕĮIJȚțȩ țĮȚ ȣʌȠțȡȚIJȚțȩ țȩıȝȠ. ǼʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ, IJȠ ȡȣʌĮȡȩ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ĮȜȜȐ ȡȣʌĮȡȩȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ țȩıȝȠȢ IJȘȢ ȣʌȠțȡȚıȓĮȢ».12 ǵȜȠȚ IJȠȪIJȠȚ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, ȠȚ șȚĮıȫIJİȢ IJȠȣ ʌȠȣȡȚIJĮȞȚıȝȠȪ įİȞ ȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ ȣʌȩȥȘ ȠȪIJİ țĮȞ «IJȘȞ ȑȞIJȠȞȘ įȚĮȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ İȞȩȢ īȡȘȖȠȡȓȠȣ ĬİȠȜȩȖȠȣ, ȐțȡȦȢ ʌȡȦIJȠʌȠȡȚĮțȠȪ: ਙȞįȡİȢ ਷ıĮȞ Ƞੂ ȞȠȝȠșİIJȠ૨ȞIJİȢ țĮȓ țĮIJȐ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ਥȞȠȝȠșȑIJȘıĮȞ (ȇG: 36, 289 ǹǺ). ǹʌȩ IJȚȢ IJȡȚĮȞIJĮijȣȜȜȚȑȢ įİȞ țȩȕȠȣȝİ ĮȖțȐșȚĮ ĮȜȜȐ IJȡȚĮȞIJȐijȣȜȜĮ».13 ȀĮȚ ıȣȞİȤȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJȠȞ ȐțȡȦȢ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮ ıȣȜȜȠȖȚıȝȩ IJȠȣ Ƞ ȃȓțȠȢ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮȢ IJȠȞȓȗİȚ ʌȦȢ, «ȉȑȜȠȢ ȞĮ ıȘȝİȚȫıȦ İįȫ ȩIJȚ ȩʌȦȢ Ƞ ȃIJȠıIJȠȖȚȑijıțȣ ȝĮȢ ȑįȦıİ țĮȚ İʌȚIJȣȤȑıIJİȡȘ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ IJȦȞ ʌİȚȡĮıȝȫȞ IJȠȣ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ ȝİ IJȠ ıȣȞĮȟȐȡȚ IJȠȣ ȂİȖȐȜȠȣ ǿİȡȠİȟİIJĮıIJȒ, ȑIJıȚ țĮȚ Ƞ ȃ. ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘȢ, ȝȚȜȫȞIJĮȢ ad hominem, İȓʌİ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȚȫȞȣȝȘ ijȡȐıȘ: IJȠȞ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ĮȞȑıIJȘıĮȞ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ»14 țȚ’ ȑIJıȚ ȑȡȤİIJĮȚ Ƞ ȓįȚȠȢ Ƞ ȀȡȘIJȚțȩȢ ıȣȖȖȡĮijȑĮȢ ȞĮ İʌĮȜȘșİȪıİȚ IJȠ ȝİȖȐȜȠ įȐıțĮȜȠ ʌİȡȓIJȡĮȞĮ țĮșȫȢ, «ȀȚ ੒ ıIJĮȣȡઁȢ ਕȜȐțİȡȠȢ İੇȤİ ਕȞșȓıİȚ, ਕʌઁ IJ੽ ȡȓȗĮ ੬Ȣ IJ੽Ȟ țȠȡijȒ, țȚ İੇȤİ ʌİIJȐȟİȚ IJȡȚĮȞIJĮijȣȜȜȑȞȚĮ ȜȠȣȜȠȣįȐțȚĮ, șĮȡȡİ૙Ȣ țȚ ਷IJĮȞ ȝȣȖįĮȜȚ੹ ਕȞșȚıȝȑȞȘ. ȂȑıĮ ıIJ੹ ȜȠȣȜȠȪįȚĮ țĮ੿ ıIJ੹ ʌȠȣȜȚȐ ਷IJĮȞ ੒ ȋȡȚıIJઁȢ ıIJĮȣȡȦȝȑȞȠȢ țĮ੿ ȤĮȝȠȖİȜȠ૨ıİ țĮ੿ ıIJ੽ ȡȓȗĮ IJȠ૨ ıIJĮȣȡȠ૨ ਲ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞ੽ ȜȑȖȠȞIJĮȢ ȩIJȚ ĮȣIJȩ ȑȤİȚ țȣȡȓȦȢ ıȘȝİȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ: “੆ȞĮ ȝİȓȞૉ ਲ ੁįȚȩIJȘȢ ਕțȓȞȘIJȠȢ, ȊੂȩȢ ੭Ȟ ȖȐȡ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨ ȣੂȩȢ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ȖȑȖȠȞİȞ... țĮȓ Ƞ੝ț ਩ȟİıIJȚȞ IJોȢ ȠੁțİȓĮȢ ੁįȚȩIJȘIJȠȢ”». ǼʌȓıȘȢ, ȕȜ. ǿȦȐȞȞȠȣ ǻĮȝĮıțȘȞȠȪ, ‫ݕ‬țįȠıȚȢ ܻțȡȚȕȒȢ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ȆȓıIJİȦȢ, 44, P.G. 94, 1108A. 11 ȃȓțȠȣ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ, Ǿ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ı. 122: «ǼȟȐȜȜȠȣ İȞ ȑIJİȚ ıȦIJȘȡȓȦ 1988, Įʌȩ 30 ȅțIJȦȕȡȓȠȣ ȦȢ 7 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ İȚįȚțȩ ǻȚȠȡșȩįȠȟȠ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ ıIJȘ ȇȩįȠ ĮıȤȠȜȒșȘțİ İȣȡȪIJĮIJĮ ȝİ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ȂȠȜȠȞȩIJȚ Ș ǿİȡȐ ȈȪȞȠįȠȢ IJȠȣ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȠȪ ȆĮIJȡȚĮȡȤİȓȠȣ ȝȠȣ İȓȤİ țȐȞİȚ IJȘȞ ȣȥȓıIJȘ IJȚȝȒ ȞĮ ȝİ țĮȜȑıİȚ ȞĮ ʌĮȡĮıIJȫ ȦȢ İȚįȚțȩȢ ıȪȝȕȠȣȜȠȢ, ĮIJȣȤȫȢ ȖȚĮ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȠȪȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ įİȞ ȝʌȩȡİıĮ ȞĮ ıȣȝȝİIJȐıȤȦ. ȍıIJȩıȠ ijȡȩȞIJȚıĮ ȞĮ ȝİȜİIJȒıȦ IJȚȢ șȑıİȚȢ țĮȚ IJĮ ʌȠȡȓıȝĮIJĮ IJȠȣ ıȣȞİįȡȓȠȣ». 12 ȃȓțȠȣ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ, Ǿ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ı. 125. 13 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ. 14 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ.

408

Chapter Twenty Eight

ਲ ʌȩȡȞȘ, țĮȞȑȞĮȢ ਙȜȜȠȢ, țĮ੿ ıijȠȪȖȖȚȗİ ȝ੻ IJ੹ ȟȑʌȜİțĮ ȝĮȜȜȚȐ IJȘȢ IJઁ ĮੈȝĮ ʌȠઃ ȤȪȞȠȣȞIJĮȞ ਕʌઁ IJ੹ ʌȩįȚĮ IJȠ૨ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨... ੘ ȂĮȞȠȜȚઁȢ țȐșȠȣȞIJĮȞ ıIJઁ ʌİȗȠȪȜȚ ਕʌȩȟȦ ਕʌઁ IJઁ ȝĮȞIJȡ੿ țĮ੿ IJȠઃȢ ʌİȡȓȝİȞİ. ǼੇȤİ ȜȠȣıIJİ૙, İੇȤİ ȕȐȜİȚ IJ੹ țȣȡȚĮțȐIJȚțȐ IJȠȣ, țȡĮIJȠ૨ıİ IJ੽Ȟ ਚȖȚĮ ʌȡȠıȠȥȓįĮ ʌȠȪ ’Ȥİ ıțĮȜȓıİȚ țĮ੿ țȠȓIJĮȗİ IJઁ ıIJȩȝĮ IJȠ૨ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨. ȆȩIJİ țĮIJĮʌȡȩıȦʌĮ, ʌȩIJİ IJȩ ’ıIJȡȚȕİ įİȟȐ, ʌȩIJİ ȗİȡȕȐ, ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ȤĮȡİ૙ IJઁ țȜȐȝĮ, IJઁȞ ʌȩȞȠ țĮ੿ IJઁ ȤĮȝȩȖİȜȠ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨. ੘ ȂĮȞȠȜȚઁȢ ʌોȡİ IJ੹ į૵ȡĮ, ʌȡȠıțȪȞȘıİ IJઁ Ǽ੝ĮȖȖȑȜȚȠ, țȠȓIJĮȟİ ʌȠȜȜ੽Ȟ ੮ȡĮ IJ੽ ȈIJĮȪȡȦıȘ. – ǻ੻Ȟ İੇȞĮȚ IJȠȪIJȘ ਲ ȈIJĮȪȡȦıȘ, İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ਡȞȠȚȟȘ, ȝȠȣȡȝȠȪȡȚıİ».15 īȚĮ ȞĮ İȚıȑȜșȠȣȝİ, ȩȝȦȢ, ĮțȩȝȘ ʌȚȠ įȣȞĮȝȚțȐ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒ IJȠȣ ȃȓțȠȣ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ țĮȚ ʌȚȠ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ, «ȈȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȚȢ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑıİȚȢ țĮȚ IJȘ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ IJȠȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȠijİȓȜİȚ țĮȞİȓȢ ȞĮ İʌȚıȘȝȐȞİȚ įȪȠ IJȚȞȐ: Į) Ș ȗȦȒ IJȠȣ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȠȪ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ ȝİ țİijĮȜȒ IJȠȞ IJİȜİIJȐȡȤȘ țĮȚ ĮȡȤȚİȡȑĮ ȋȡȚıIJȩ İțijȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ıİ ȝȚĮ ʌȠȚțȚȜȓĮ ȤĮȡȚıȝȐIJȦȞ –țĮȚ İʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ ȝȑıȦ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȫȞ ijȠȡȑȦȞ– ȝİ ʌȜȒȡȘ ȚıȠIJȚȝȓĮ țĮȚ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ ȝİȜȫȞ, ȩʌȦȢ ıȣȝȕĮȓȞİȚ țĮIJȐ ijȪıȘ ı’ ȑȞĮ ıȫȝĮ, țĮȚ ȕ) Ș ȤȠȡȒȖȘıȘ IJȦȞ ȤĮȡȚıȝȐIJȦȞ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ IJİȜİIJȐȡȤȘ ĮȡȤȚİȡȑĮ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȫȞİIJĮȚ ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȚįȚĮȚIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ IJȘ įİțIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ țȐșİ ȝȑȜȠȣȢ İȞȫ Ș ȚıȠIJȚȝȓĮ țĮȚ Ș ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ ȝȑȞȠȣȞ ĮȝİIJĮțȓȞȘIJİȢ».16 ǼʌİȚįȒ, «Ǿ ȝĮțȡĮȓȦȞȘ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȩʌȦȢ İȚʌȫșȘțİ țȚȩȜĮȢ, ĮʌȑțȜİȚıİ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ, ȤȦȡȓȢ ȦıIJȩıȠ ȞĮ șİıʌȓıİȚ, ȝȒIJİ Ȟ’ ĮȞĮʌIJȪȟİȚ ıȤİIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ. DzIJıȚ țĮIJĮȜĮȕĮȓȞİȚ țĮȞİȓȢ İȪțȠȜĮ IJȘ įȣıțȠȜȓĮ İȞįİȤȠȝȑȞȦȢ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȝȘȤĮȞȓĮ ȞİȩIJİȡȦȞ ȠȡșȠįȩȟȦȞ șİȠȜȩȖȦȞ, ʌȠȣ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȘ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ İʌȚȤİȚȡȠȪȞ ȞĮ șİȝİȜȚȫıȠȣȞ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ IJȠȪIJȠ IJȠȞ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıȝȩ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ, İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞȠȞIJĮȢ țȣȡȓȦȢ IJȠȣȢ ȑȟȘȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ: Į) ȅ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ȦȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ țȐȜİıİ ȝȩȞȠ ȐȞįȡİȢ țĮȚ ȝİIJȐ IJĮȪIJĮ ȠȚ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ țĮșȚȑȡȦıĮȞ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ įȚĮįȠȤȒ. ǵȝȦȢ, ı’ ĮȣIJȒ IJȘȞ țȜȒıȘ țĮȚ ıIJȘ ȝİIJȑʌİȚIJĮ įȚĮįȠȤȒ, șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ Ȟ’ ĮȞIJİȚʌİȓ țĮȞİȓȢ, ȖȚĮ ȑȞĮ IJȩıȠ ıʌȠȣįĮȓȠ șȑȝĮ, ȩʌȦȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ș İȟĮȓȡİıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ, įİ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ țĮȝȚȐ ĮʌȠȜȪIJȦȢ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒ ĮʌȩijĮȞıȘ țĮȚ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ȡȘIJȫȢ İțʌİijȡĮıȝȑȞȘ, ȩʌȦȢ șĮ ȑʌȡİʌİ. DzʌİȚIJĮ, Ș ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ țĮȚ IJĮ ȖȡĮʌIJȐ ȝȞȘȝİȓĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ įİȓȤȞȠȣȞ ȩIJȚ IJȩıȠ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ȩıȠ țĮȚ Ș ȝİIJȑʌİȚIJĮ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ȑįȦıĮȞ ʌİȡȓȠʌIJȘ șȑıȘ ıIJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ. ǹʌȜȫȢ İȞįİȚțIJȚțȐ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ țĮȞİȓȢ Ȟ’ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ IJȠȞ İȣĮȖȖİȜȚıIJȒ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ, ʌȠȣ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİȚ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ıIJȘ ȈȣȤȐȡ IJȘȢ ȈĮȝȐȡİȚĮȢ įȓʌȜĮ ı’ ȑȞĮ ʌȘȖȐįȚ Ȟ’ ĮȞĮʌIJȪııİȚ țĮȚ Ȟ’ ĮʌȠțĮȜȪʌIJİȚ IJȘȞ ȣȥȘȜȩIJİȡȘ ĮȜȒșİȚĮ ȖȚĮ IJȠ Ĭİȩ țĮȚ IJȘ șİȓĮ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ ıİ ȝȚĮ ĮȝĮȡIJȦȜȒ ȈĮȝĮȡİȓIJȚııĮ. ȀȚ ĮȣIJȒ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ĮȝȑıȦȢ 15

ȃȓțȠȣ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, ‫ ݾ‬ȋȡȚıIJާȢ ȟĮȞĮıIJĮȣȡȫȞİIJĮȚ, İțį. ǼȜ. ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, ǹșȒȞĮ 1970, ı. 174. 16 ȃȓțȠȣ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ, Ǿ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ı. 125.

Deaconesses in the Theology of Nikos Matsoukas

409

ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ țȒȡȣțĮȢ țĮȚ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ ĮȜȒșİȚĮȢ (ǿȦ. 4, 4-30). ǼȟȐȜȜȠȣ Ƞ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ țȐȞİȚ ȜȩȖȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȦȢ ʌȡȠijȘIJİȪȠȣıĮ (ǹǯ ȀȠȡ. 11, 5). ȕ) Ǿ ȆĮȞĮȖȓĮ įİȞ ȐıțȘıİ ȡȩȜȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ, ȜȑȞİ. ȀĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȘ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ İȓȞĮȚ ȑțįȘȜȘ Ș ĮȞİʌȐȡțİȚĮ ĮȣIJȠȪ IJȠȣ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJȠȢ. ȆȑȡĮ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȩIJȚ Ș ʌĮIJİȡȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ıIJȘ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȒ ȚİȡĮȡȤȓĮ IJȠʌȠșİIJİȓ IJȘ ĬİȠIJȩțȠ ĮȝȑıȦȢ ȝİIJȐ IJȘȞ ǹȖȓĮ ȉȡȚȐįĮ, ʌȠȣșİȞȐ ȖȚĮ ȑȞĮ IJȩıȠ ıȠȕĮȡȩ șȑȝĮ, ȩʌȦȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ș İȟĮȓȡİıȒ IJȘȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ, įİ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ȡȘIJȩȢ ȜȩȖȠȢ. Ȃİ ȐȜȜĮ ȜȩȖȚĮ, ȠijİȓȜȦ ȞĮ IJȠȞȓıȦ ȝİ ȑȝijĮıȘ ȩIJȚ ĮȣIJȐ IJĮ įȪȠ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ ȑIJıȚ țȚ ĮȜȜȚȫȢ ʌȐıȤȠȣȞ ȖȚĮ įȪȠ ıȠȕĮȡȠȪȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ. ȆȡȫIJȠ, ȖȚĮ țȐșİ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒ ĮȜȒșİȚĮ ĮʌĮȚIJİȓIJĮȚ ĮțȡȓȕİȚĮ, țĮȚ įİȪIJİȡȠ, ĮțȩȝȘ țĮȚ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȠijȚȜȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ĮȞİʌĮȡțȒ İȓȞĮȚ IJĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞȐȖȠȞIJĮȚ ex silentio (İț IJȘȢ ıȚȦʌȒȢ) Ȓ țĮȜȪIJİȡĮ ex absentia (İț IJȘȢ ĮʌȠȣıȓĮȢ)».17 ǼʌȓıȘȢ,18 «DzȞĮ IJȡȓIJȠ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ, ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠıȐȖİIJĮȚ, İȓȞĮȚ ȐțȡȦȢ İʌȚȗȒȝȚȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ IJȘȞ ȣʌȩıIJĮıȘ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ. ȁȑȖİIJĮȚ, įȘȜĮįȒ, ȩIJȚ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ, Ƞ ıĮȡțȦȝȑȞȠȢ ȁȩȖȠȢ, ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐıIJȘțİ țȚ ȑįȡĮıİ ȦȢ ȐȞįȡĮȢ! ȉȠȪIJȠ IJȠ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ, ʌȑȡĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȞİʌȐȡțİȚĮ IJȠȣ, țĮIJĮıIJȡȑijİȚ –ıIJȘ șİȦȡȓĮ İȞȞȠİȓIJĮȚ! – IJȠ įȩȖȝĮ IJȘȢ ȋĮȜțȘįȩȞĮȢ. ǼȞįİȚțIJȚțȐ șĮ ĮijȒıȦ ȞĮ ȝȚȜȒıİȚ Ƞ ȂȐȟȚȝȠȢ Ƞ ȅȝȠȜȠȖȘIJȒȢ, ʌȠȣ ȡȘIJȫȢ ĮʌȠijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ȁȩȖȠȢ ȝİ 17

ȃȓțȠȣ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ, Ǿ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ıı. 125-126. ȀȣȡȓȜȜȠȣ ǹȜİȟĮȞįȡİȓĮȢ, ȅȝȚȜȓĮ ǻǯ. ‫ݑ‬Ȟ ‫ݑ‬ijȑı࠙ ȜİȤșİ߿ıĮ ʌȡȩȢ ȃİıIJȩȡȚȠȞ, ‫ݘ‬ȞȓțĮ țĮIJ߱ȜșȠȞ Ƞ‫݌ ݨ‬ʌIJȐ ʌȡȩȢ IJȒȞ ܼȖȓĮȞ ȂĮȡȓĮȞ, P.G. 77, 992B: «[...] ȋĮȓȡȠȚȢ, ਲ IJȩȞ ਕȤȫȡȘIJȠȞ ȤȦȡȒıĮıĮ ਥȞ ȝȒIJȡ઺ ਖȖȓ઺ ʌĮȡșİȞȚțૌ įȚ’ ਸȢ ȉȡȚȐȢ ਖȖȚȐȗİIJĮȚ įȚ’ ਸȢ ıIJĮȣȡȩȢ IJȓȝȚȠȢ ੑȞȠȝȐȗİIJĮȚ, țĮȓ ʌȡȠıțȣȞİ૙IJĮȚ İੁȢ ʌ઼ıĮȞ IJȒȞ ȠੁțȠȣȝȑȞȘȞ […]». īȚĮ IJȠ įȠȟĮıȝȩ IJȘȢ ǹȖȓĮȢ ȉȡȚȐįĮȢ İț ȝȑȡȠȣȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ, ȕȜ. ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȣ ȈIJĮȝȠȪȜȘ, ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ țĮȚ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȠ įȩȖȝĮ. ȈʌȠȣįȒ ıIJȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ IJȠȣ ǹȖ. ȀȣȡȓȜȜȠȣ ǹȜİȟĮȞįȡİȓĮȢ, İțį. ȉȠ ȆĮȜȓȝȥȘıIJȠȞ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2003, ı. 233: «ȈȣȞȠȥȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ, ȠijİȓȜȠȣȝİ ȞĮ ıȘȝİȚȫıȠȣȝİ ȩIJȚ Ș țȣȡȓȜȜİȚĮ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ IJȘȢ ıȤȑıȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ țĮȚ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȦȢ ĮʌȩȜȣIJĮ ȤȡȚıIJȠțİȞIJȡȚțȒ, įȚĮijȣȜȐııİȚ IJȘȞ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ʌİȡȓ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ Įʌȩ İȟȐȡıİȚȢ ȣʌİȡIJȠȞȚıȝȠȪ țĮȚ ȣʌȠIJȠȞȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ȆĮȡȐȜȜȘȜĮ, ĮȞĮįİȚțȞȪİȚ IJȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ ȦȢ țȜİȚįȓ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ʌȠȡİȓĮ IJȠȣ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȅȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȕȐȜȜİȚ IJȘ įȣȞĮȝȚțȒ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠȣ ʌĮȡȐȖȠȞIJĮ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞİȡȖȐȗİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȠȞ ʌȡȠıțĮȜȑıĮȞIJĮ Ĭİȩ. Ǿ ʌİȡȓ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ İȞIJȐııȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȘȢ ȅȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞįȑİIJĮȚ ȐȝİıĮ țĮȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȉȡȚĮįȠȜȠȖȓĮ. ǼȓȞĮȚ ȟİțȐșĮȡȠ ȩIJȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ĮȜİȟĮȞįȡȚȞȩ, ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ıȪȞȠȜȠ IJȦȞ ȆĮIJȑȡȦȞ, Ș ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ ĮțȡĮȚijȞȫȢ įȠȟȠȜȠȖȚțȒ. Ǿ įȩȟĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ IJȘ įȩȟĮ IJȠȣ ȆĮIJȡȩȢ, IJȠȣ ȊȚȠȪ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ǹȖȓȠȣ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ. Ǿ ȩȜȘ ȉȡȚȐįĮ įȠȟȐȗİȚ țĮȚ įȠȟȐȗİIJĮȚ, țĮșȫȢ Ș ȩȜȘ ȉȡȚȐįĮ İȞİȡȖİȓ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ İȞĮȞșȡȫʌȘıȘȢ, IJȠȣ ȠʌȠȓȠȣ ȣʌȠȣȡȖȩȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ ȂĮȡȓĮ. īȚ’ ĮȣIJȩȞ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ IJȠ ȜȩȖȠ Ș įȠȟȠȜȠȖȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣ ȀȣȡȓȜȜȠȣ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑIJİȚ IJȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȘȢ ĬİȠȝȒIJȠȡȠȢ, Ș ĮȞȪȝȞȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȠʌȠȓȠȣ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞȘ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ıȣȞİʌȫȢ įȠȟĮıȝȩ IJȘȢ ȉȡȚĮįȚțȒȢ ĬİȩIJȘIJĮȢ». 18

410

Chapter Twenty Eight

IJȘȞ İȞĮȞșȡȫʌȘıȘ IJȠȣ, ȦȢ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ, țĮIJȐȡȖȘıİ IJȘ įȚĮijȠȡȐ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣ ȐȞįȡĮ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, țĮȚ ĮȞIJȓ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ȜȩȖȠȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ țĮȚ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, IJȠȞ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ ȝȠȞȐȤĮ ĮȞȑįİȚȟİ: Ȇİȡȓ įȚĮijȩȡȦȞ ਕʌȠȡȚ૵Ȟ (ȇG 91, 1309 D) «ʌȡ૵IJȠȞ ਦȞȫıĮȢ ਲȝ૙Ȟ ਦĮȣIJȠȪȢ ਥȞ ਦĮȣIJ૶ įȚȐ IJોȢ ܻijĮȚȡȑıİȦȢ IJોȢ țĮIJȐ IJȩ ਙȡȡİȞ țĮȓ IJȩ șોȜȣ įȚĮijȠȡߢȢ, țĮȓ ਕȞIJȓ ܻȞįȡࠛȞ țĮȓ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ, ȠੈȢ ੒ IJોȢ įȚĮȚȡȑıİȦȢ ਥșİȦȡİ૙IJĮȚ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ IJȡȩʌȠȢ, ܻȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢ ȝȩȞȠȞ (IJĮ ʌȜȐȖȚĮ įȚțȐ ȝȠȣ) ਕʌȠįİȓȟĮȢ, țĮIJ’ Į੝IJȩȞ įȚ’ ੖ȜȠȣ ȝİȝȠȡijȦȝȑȞȠȣȢ țĮȓ ıȫĮȞ Į੝IJȠ૨ țĮȓ ʌĮȞIJİȜ૵Ȣ ਕțȓȕįȘȜȠȞ IJȒȞ İੁțȩȞĮ ijȑȡȠȞIJĮȢ».19 ǵȝȦȢ, «ıİ ȕȚȕȜȚțȐ țİȓȝİȞĮ, ȆĮȜĮȚȐȢ țĮȚ ȀĮȚȞȒȢ ǻȚĮșȒțȘȢ, ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ ıİ ȩȜĮ IJĮ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȐ IJȦȞ ʌĮIJȑȡȦȞ, Ș ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ țȣȡȓĮȡȤȘ. ȆȡȠijȒIJȚııİȢ Ƞȣț ȠȜȓȖİȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ IJȩıȠ ıIJȘȞ ȆĮȜĮȚȐ ȩıȠ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȀĮȚȞȒ ǻȚĮșȒțȘ. [...] Ƞ ȝȘIJȡȠțİȞIJȡȚțȩȢ IJȩȞȠȢ İȓȞĮȚ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩȢ. DzIJıȚ ȝİ IJȘ ĬİȠIJȩțȠ ȂĮȡȓĮ, ʌȠȣ İțʌȜȒȡȦıİ IJȘ ȝİııȚĮȞȚțȒ İȜʌȓįĮ IJȘȢ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ, ȡȓȗȦıİ ȕĮșȪIJİȡĮ Ƞ ȝȘIJȡȠțİȞIJȡȚțȩȢ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩȢ, ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠIJȣʌȫȞİIJĮȚ ʌȠȚȘIJȚțȐ ıIJȠȞ ǹțȐșȚıIJȠ ǶȝȞȠ. ȀĮȚ ȠȚ ȤĮȚȡİIJȚıȝȠȓ, ĮțȩȝȘ țĮȚ ȝİ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȠ-ijȚȜȠȜȠȖȚțȐ țȡȚIJȒȡȚĮ, ȑȤȠȣȞ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJȠ DZıȝĮ ǹıȝȐIJȦȞ».20 ȅʌȠȚĮįȒʌȠIJİ įȚĮȓȡİıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ijȪıȘȢ, ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ ijȜİȡIJȐȡİȚ ȝ’ ȑȞĮȞ ȪʌȠȣȜȠ țĮȚ ȣijȑȡʌȠȞIJĮ ȘșȚțȚıIJȚțȩ ȝȠȞȠijȣıȚIJȚıȝȩ, ĮȜȜȐ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ țĮȚ įĮȚȝȠȞȚțȒ țĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ țĮșȫȢ, «Ǿ İȞĮȞșȡȫʌȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, ʌȑȡĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ țĮșĮȓȡİıȘ IJȠȣ ȈĮIJĮȞȐ, ıȣȞȐȝĮ ĮȞĮįİȚțȞȪİȚ țĮȚ IJȘȞ İȞȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ȦȢ ʌȡȠıȫʌȠȣ, ʌȡȐȖȝĮ ʌȠȣ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȩIJȚ IJȠ ܿȡȡİȞ țĮȚ IJȠ ș߱Ȝȣ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȜȑȠȞ ıȣȝȕİȕȘțȩIJĮ. Ǿ İȞĮȞșȡȫʌȘıȘ ĮijĮȓȡİıİ IJȘȞ țĮIJȐ ıĮIJĮȞȚțȩ IJȡȩʌȠ țĮșȚİȡȦȝȑȞȘ įȚĮijȠȡȐ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ țĮȚ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȠ ȂȐȟȚȝȠ ȅȝȠȜȠȖȘIJȒ IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠ, ȩıȠȚ ĮțȩȝȘ ıȒȝİȡĮ, șİȠȜȩȖȠȚ țĮIJİȟȠȤȒȞ, țȐȞȠȣȞ ȜȩȖȠ ȖȚĮ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȒ įȚĮijȠȡȐ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣ ȐȞįȡĮ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, ıțȑʌIJȠȞIJĮȚ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ įĮȚȝȠȞȚțȐ. ȀĮȚ ȩıȠȚ ĮʌȠțĮȜȠȪȞ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ȐȞįȡĮ ıİ ĮȞIJȓșİıȘ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ –șİĮȞįȡȚțȒ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ȝȠȡijȒ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, țĮȚ ȜȑȖİIJĮȚ ĬİȩȢ țĮȚ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ– įȚĮʌȡȐIJIJȠȣȞ IJȘ įİȚȞȩIJİȡȘ ʌĮȡĮȤȐȡĮȟȘ IJȠȣ įȩȖȝĮIJȠȢ IJȘȢ ȋĮȜțȘįȩȞĮȢ. ȀĮȚ IJȠȪIJȠ ıȣȝȕĮȓȞİȚ, İʌİȚįȒ Ș țĮș’ ȣʌȩıIJĮıȘ ȑȞȦıȘ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪıȦȞ ܻijĮȚȡİ߿ IJȒ įȚĮijȠȡȐ țĮIJȐ IJȩ ܿȡȡİȞ țĮȓ IJȩ ș߱Ȝȣ, țĮȓ ܻȞIJȓ ܻȞįȡࠛȞ țĮȓ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ ܻʌȠįİȚțȞȪİȚ ȝȩȞȠȞ ܻȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢ țȣȡȓȦȢ IJİ țĮȓ ܻȜȘșࠛȢ».21 Ȉİ IJȠȪIJȘ IJȘȞ ĮȞȑȡĮıIJȘ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ĮʌȐȞșȡȦʌȠȣ ȘșȚțȚıȝȠȪ İȞȠȤȠʌȠȚİȓIJĮȚ ĮțȩȝȘ țĮȚ Ƞ ȓįȚȠȢ Ƞ ȑȡȦIJĮȢ, ȠįȘȖȫȞIJĮȢ ıİ ȝȚĮ ʌĮșȠȜȠȖȓĮ Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ıȓȖȠȣȡĮ įİȞ İțijȡȐȗİȚ IJȘȞ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮșȫȢ, «īȓȞİIJĮȚ ıĮijȑȢ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, ȩIJȚ Ș țĮIJĮȟȓȦıȘ IJȠȣ ȑȡȦIJĮ ȑȤİȚ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȕȐıȘ, țĮȚ İȓȞĮȚ IJȠȪIJȘ Ș ȕȐıȘ ʌȠȣ įȓȞİȚ IJȘ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ȖȚĮ ȝȚĮ ȣʌȠıIJĮIJȚțȒ, ȐȜȜȦȢ 19

ȃȓțȠȣ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ, Ǿ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ıı. 126-127. ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ı. 124. 21 ȃȓțȠȣ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ, ǻȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒ țĮȚ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚțȒ ǻǯ. ȅ ȈĮIJĮȞȐȢ, İțį. ȆȠȣȡȞĮȡȐ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2005, ıı. 188-189. 20

Deaconesses in the Theology of Nikos Matsoukas

411

țĮIJ’ ĮȜȒșİȚĮȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ʌȠȣ țȚȞİȓIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ İȞȠȤȠʌȠȓȘıȘ țĮȚ IJȠȞ ĮȖȚĮıȝȩ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠıijȑȡİȚ Ș ıȐȡțȦıȘ, Ƞ ȈIJĮȣȡȩȢ țĮȚ Ș ǹȞȐıIJĮıȘ».22 ȀĮIJ’ İʌȑțIJĮıȚȞ, ıIJȘȞ İȞȠȤȠʌȠȓȘıȘ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, İȞĮȞIJȓȠȞ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ23 ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȝȠȞȠȝİȡȒȢ țĮIJĮȝİȡȚıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ İȣșȣȞȫȞ, įȓȤȦȢ ȞĮ ȜĮȝȕȐȞİIJĮȚ ȣʌȩȥȚȞ Ș ʌȠȜȣıȒȝĮȞIJȘ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȠ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ ȖȓȖȞİıșĮȚ.24 DzIJıȚ, ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ijȠȡȑȢ İȓȞĮȚ ĮįȣıȫʌȘIJȘ țĮȚ Ș ȓįȚĮ Ș ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ țĮșȫȢ, «ȅȚ ȆĮIJȑȡİȢ, ȩȝȦȢ, ĮȚıșȐȞȠȞIJĮȚ ȝİȡȚțȑȢ ijȠȡȑȢ ĮȚȤȝȐȜȦIJȠȚ țȚ İȖțȜȦȕȚıȝȑȞȠȚ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘȢ IJȠȣ īĮȜ. 3,28 “Ƞȣț ȑȞȚ ȐȡıİȞ țĮȚ șȒȜȣ” țĮȚ IJȦȞ ıȣȞșȘțȫȞ IJȠȣ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıIJȚțȠȪ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞIJȠȢ. Ǿ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ĮȣIJȒ ȣʌȠIJȐııİȚ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ țĮȚ ȠįȘȖİȓ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ijȠȡȑȢ ıIJȘ įȚĮȓȡİıȘ țĮȚ IJȠȞ ĮȞIJĮȖȦȞȚıȝȩ»25 ĮijȠȪ, «ȉĮ ȜȩȖȚĮ IJȠȣ ĮȖȖȑȜȠȣ ʌȡȠȢ IJȚȢ ȝȣȡȠijȩȡİȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, ʌȠȣ ĮțȠȪȝİ ıIJȠ ȠȡșȚȞȩ İȣĮȖȖȑȜȚȠ IJȘȢ ǹȞĮıIJȐıİȦȢ (Ȃț. 16, 68) ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijȠȣȞ ȝİ șĮȣȝĮıIJȩ IJȡȩʌȠ IJȠ ȝȒȞȣȝĮ ʌȠȣ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ țĮȜȠȪȞIJĮȚ ȞĮ ȝİIJĮijȑȡȠȣȞ ıIJȠ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞ IJȠȣȢ: “IJȚ ȗȘIJİȓIJİ IJȠȞ ȗȫȞIJĮ ȝİIJȐ IJȦȞ ȞİțȡȫȞ; IJȚ șȡȘȞİȓIJİ IJȠȞ ȐijșȠȡȠȞ ȦȢ İȞ ijșȠȡȐ; ĮʌİȜșȠȪıĮȚ țȘȡȪȟĮIJİ IJȠȚȢ ĮȣIJȠȪ ȝĮșȘIJĮȓȢ”. ȉȠ ǼȣĮȖȖȑȜȚȠ įİȞ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİȚ įȣĮȜȚıȝȩ, țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ ĮȡıİȞȚțȩ țĮȚ șȘȜȣțȩ ĮȞIJȚIJȓșİȞIJĮȚ țĮȚ ıȣȖțȡȠȪȠȞIJĮȚ. ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ, ʌȡȠıijȑȡİȚ ȝȚĮ ʌȡȩIJĮıȘ țĮȚ ȑȞĮ ȩȡĮȝĮ ȗȦȒȢ țĮȚ ıȤȑıȘȢ, ʌȠȣ Ș İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȜİȓIJĮȚ ȞĮ İȞıĮȡțȫıİȚ».26 ȀĮȚ ıȓȖȠȣȡĮ IJȠ 22

ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȣ ȈIJĮȝȠȪȜȘ, DzȡȦȢ țĮȚ șȐȞĮIJȠȢ. ǻȠțȚȝȒ ȖȚĮ ȑȞĮȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩ IJȘȢ ıȐȡțȦıȘȢ, İțį. ǹțȡȓIJĮȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2009, ı. 172. 23 ȅ ĮȞĮıIJȠȤĮıȝȩȢ ıIJȘ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ȑȡİȣȞĮ. ȈțȚĮȖȡȐijȘıȘ ȝȚĮȢ ĮȝijȓșȣȝȘȢ ıȤȑıȘȢ, İʌȚȝȑȜİȚĮ ȋȡȣıȒ ǿȖȖȜȑıȘ, İțį. ȅįȣııȑĮȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2001, ıı. 162-163: «ȆȠȜȣıȒȝĮȞIJȠ ıȪȝȕȠȜȠ, Ș ȆȡȫIJȘ īȣȞĮȓțĮ ıȣȝʌȣțȞȫȞİȚ IJȚȢ ȑȞȞȠȚİȢ IJȘȢ İʌȚșȣȝȓĮȢ, IJȘȢ ĮȞȣʌĮțȠȒȢ, IJȘȢ IJȚȝȦȡȓĮȢ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȘȢ țĮIJĮıIJȡȠijȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ȍȢ ȣʌĮȓIJȚĮ IJȘȢ ȆIJȫıȘȢ, Ș ǼȪĮ ıȣȞİʌȐȖİIJĮȚ ĮʌȫȜİȚĮ IJȠȣ ȆĮȡĮįİȓıȠȣ țĮȚ șȞȘIJȩIJȘIJĮ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ ȖȑȞȠȢ». 24 ǹȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ țĮȚ ijȪȜȠ, İʌȚȝȑȜİȚĮ ǹȜİȟȐȞįȡĮ ȂʌĮțĮȜȐțȘ, țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȦȞ S. Ortner, M. Strathern, M. Rosaldo, İțį. ǹȜİȟȐȞįȡİȚĮ, ǹșȒȞĮ 1994, ı. 21: «ȅȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȩȝȦȢ İȓȞĮȚ İʌȓıȘȢ İțİȓȞİȢ ʌȠȣ įȚĮȝİıȠȜĮȕȠȪȞ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȘȢ ijȪıȘȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȠȪ. ȍȢ ȝȘIJȑȡİȢ țĮȚ ȣʌİȪșȣȞİȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ȠȚțȚĮțȩ ȤȫȡȠ ĮȞĮȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ ȞĮ ȝİIJĮıȤȘȝĮIJȓıȠȣȞ IJĮ ʌȡȠȧȩȞIJĮ IJȘȢ ijȪıȘȢ țĮȚ ȞĮ IJĮ İȞIJȐȟȠȣȞ ıIJȠȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩ. Ǿ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȦȞ ȝȚțȡȫȞ ʌĮȚįȚȫȞ țĮȚ Ș ȝĮȖİȚȡȚțȒ İȓȞĮȚ Įʌȩ IJĮ țȣȡȚȩIJİȡĮ țĮșȒțȠȞIJȐ IJȠȣȢ. Ǿ İȞįȚȐȝİıȘ șȑıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȘȢ ijȪıȘȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȠȪ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ İȟȘȖİȓ țĮȚ IJȠȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ ȑȜİȖȤȠ ıIJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ ĮȣIJȑȢ ȣʌȩțİȚȞIJĮȚ ȦȢ ȣʌİȪșȣȞİȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȝİIJĮıȤȘȝĮIJȚıȝȩ ijȣıȚțȫȞ ʌȡȠȧȩȞIJȦȞ ıİ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȐ ĮȞIJȚțİȓȝİȞĮ, țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ IJȘȞ IJȐıȘ ȞĮ ĮȞIJȚʌȡȠıȦʌİȪȠȣȞ ĮȞIJȓșİIJİȢ ıȘȝĮıȓİȢ (ʌ.Ȥ. IJȘ ȗȦȒ țĮȚ IJȠ șȐȞĮIJȠ, IJȘȞ ĮȖȞȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ IJȘ ȝȚĮȡȩIJȘIJĮ) țĮȚ ȞĮ ıȣȝȕȠȜȓȗȠȣȞ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȝȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮIJȡȠʌȒ IJȘȢ IJȐȟȘȢ ıIJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȐȜȜȘ IJȘȞ ȣʌȑȡȕĮıȒ IJȘȢ». 25 ǼȜȑȞȘȢ ȀĮııİȜȠȪȡȘ-ȋĮIJȗȘȕĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘ, ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ ǼȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ. ȅ ʌĮȡȐȖȠȞIJĮȢ “ijȪȜȠ” ıIJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ, İțį. ȆȠȣȡȞĮȡȐ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2003, ı. 111. 26 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ı. 139.

412

Chapter Twenty Eight

ʌȠȜȣʌȩșȘIJȠ ȚįĮȞȚțȩ șĮ İȓȞĮȚ, «Ǿ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ, Ș įȚțĮȚȠıȪȞȘ țĮȚ Ș İȜİȣșİȡȓĮ IJȦȞ ȝİȜȫȞ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ, ʌȠȣ ȕȚȫȞİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ įȡȐıȘ IJȠȣ ǹȖȓȠȣ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ǼȣȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌĮȡĮȓIJȘIJȠ ȞĮ įȚĮʌȠIJȓıİȚ IJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ, ȫıIJİ Ƞ țȩıȝȠȢ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ İțțȜȘıȓĮ ȩʌȠȣ “Ƞȣț ȑȞȚ ǿȠȣįĮȓȠȢ Ƞȣįȑ DzȜȜȘȞ, Ƞȣț ȑȞȚ įȠȪȜȠȢ Ƞȣįȑ İȜİȪșİȡȠȢ, Ƞȣț ȑȞȚ ȐȡıİȞ țĮȚ șȒȜȣ ʌȐȞIJİȢ ȖĮȡ ȣȝİȓȢ İȚȢ İıIJȑ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ ǿȘıȠȪ” (īĮȜ. 3, 28)».27 ǼʌİȚįȒ, ĮȞIJȓșİIJĮ ȝİ IJȠ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ țĮIJİıIJȘȝȑȞȠ,28 «ǼȓȞĮȚ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ, ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ ıİ ʌȠȜȜȐ ȐȜȜĮ șȑȝĮIJĮ, ȑIJıȚ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ ʌȠȣ ĮțȠȜȠȪșȘıİ ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıİ “ıțȐȞįĮȜȠ” ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ IJȠȣ. ǼȓȞĮȚ ȖȞȦıIJȩ ȩIJȚ ȩIJĮȞ IJȠȞ ıȣȞȐȞIJȘıĮȞ ȠȚ ȝĮșȘIJȑȢ IJȠȣ ȞĮ ȠȝȚȜİȓ ȝİ IJȘ ȈĮȝĮȡİȓIJȚįĮ, ĮʌȩȡȘıĮȞ ʌȠȣ ȝȚȜȠȪıİ ȝİ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ. ȅȚ ǼȕȡĮȓȠȚ IJȠȞ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȠȪıĮȞ ȩIJȚ ȑIJȡȦȖİ ȝİ ʌȩȡȞİȢ țĮȚ IJİȜȫȞİȢ. ǼȓȞĮȚ ȖȞȦıIJȩ ĮțȩȝȘ ȩIJȚ ıIJȠȞ İȣȡȪ țȪțȜȠ IJȦȞ ȝĮșȘIJȫȞ IJȠȣ İȓȤİ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȑijİȡĮȞ IJȠ ȤĮȡȝȩıȣȞȠ ȝȒȞȣȝĮ IJȘȢ ǹȞȐıIJĮıȘȢ»29 ĮȜȜȐ, «ȋȦȡȓȢ ĮȝijȚȕȠȜȓĮ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ıʌȐȗİȚ IJĮ țȣȡȓĮȡȤĮ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ IJȠȣ țȩıȝȠȣ IJȘȢ İʌȠȤȒȢ İțİȓȞȘȢ, ȚİȡȐȡȤȘıȘ țĮȚ ȝİıȚIJİȓĮ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȒ Ȓ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȒ, IJȠȞȓȗİȚ IJȘȞ İȣșȪȞȘ țȐșİ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ĮʌȑȞĮȞIJȚ ıIJȠȞ Ĭİȩ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡȘ ĮȟȓĮ IJȠȣ, țĮȚ țĮȜİȓ ȩȜȠȣȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ ıȤȑıİȦȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ ȝȑıȦ IJȘȢ ĮȖȐʌȘȢ. īȚĮ ȩȜĮ ĮȣIJȐ ĮȞIJȚȝİIJȦʌȓȗİIJĮȚ ĮʌĮȡȤȒȢ ȝİ țĮȤȣʌȠȥȓĮ țĮȚ șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ ȦȢ İʌȚțȓȞįȣȞȠȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ-șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȩ status, ʌȡȐȖȝĮ ʌȠȣ IJİȜȚțȐ IJȠȞ ȠįȘȖİȓ ıIJȠ ȈIJĮȣȡȩ».30 27

ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ı. 140. ǿȦȐȞȞȘ ȆȑIJȡȠȣ, «ĭȪȜȠ, țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠȓ ȡȩȜȠȚ, ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮ ıIJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ İȜȜȘȞȚțȒ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ», ǼʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȒ ǼʌİIJȘȡȓįĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ȈȤȠȜȒȢ, IJȚȝȘIJȚțȩ ĮijȚȑȡȦȝĮ ıIJȠȣȢ ȠȝȩIJȚȝȠȣȢ țĮșȘȖȘIJȑȢ ȆȡȩįȡȠȝȠ ǹțĮȞșȩʌȠȣȜȠ țĮȚ ǺĮıȓȜİȚȠ ȌİȣIJȠȖțȐ, ȉȝȒȝĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, ǹȡȚıIJȠIJȑȜİȚȠ ȆĮȞİʌȚıIJȒȝȚȠ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘȢ, ȉȩȝȠȢ 11ȠȢ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2001, ı. 259: «ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ Ƞ īȡȘȖȩȡȚȠȢ Ƞ ĬİȠȜȩȖȠȢ İʌȑțȡȚȞİ IJȠȣȢ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȣȢ IJȠȣ ȖȚĮ įȚĮțȡȓıİȚȢ, İʌİȚįȒ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȝȠȚȤİȓĮȢ ȠįȘȖȠȪıİ ıİ țĮIJĮįȓțȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮȚ įİȞ ȓıȤȣİ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ ȖȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ. ȋĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ ʌĮȡĮIJȒȡȘıİ “ਡȞįȡİȢ ਷ıĮȞ Ƞੂ ȞȠȝȠșİIJȠ૨ȞIJİȢ įȚ੹ IJȠ૨IJȠ țĮIJ੹ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ਲ ȞȠȝȠșİıȓĮ”. Ǿ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ıȣȞȒșȦȢ ʌȡȠȕȐȜȜİȚ ȦȢ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ıȣȝȕȠȜȒ IJȘȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮȞȪȥȦıȘ IJȘȢ șȑıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, IJȘȞ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡȘ șȑıȘ ʌȠȣ țĮIJȑȤİȚ ıIJȠ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩ ʌİįȓȠ Ș ȆĮȞĮȖȓĮ. ǹȣIJȩ ȩȝȦȢ ʌȠȣ ȚıȤȪİȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȘȢ ȆĮȞĮȖȓĮȢ įİȞ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȩIJȚ ȓıȤȣİ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ȣʌȩȜȠȚʌİȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ. Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȘȞ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮțȒ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ įİȞ ȑʌĮȣıİ ʌȠIJȑ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ʌİȡȚșȦȡȚȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȘ țĮȚ ȞĮ șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ ȦȢ Ș ĮȚIJȓĮ ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ țĮțȫȞ». 29 ǿȦȐȞȞȘ ȆȑIJȡȠȣ, «Ǿ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ IJȠ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ», ıIJȠȞ IJȩȝȠ ĭȪȜȠ țĮȚ șȡȘıțİȓĮ. Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, İʌȠʌIJİȓĮ-ıȣȞIJȠȞȚıȝȩȢ ȪȜȘȢ ȆĮȞIJİȜȒȢ ȀĮȜĮȧIJȗȓįȘȢ-ȃȓțȠȢ ȃIJȩȞIJȠȢ, ǿİȡȐ ȂȘIJȡȩʌȠȜȚȢ ǻȘȝȘIJȡȚȐįȠȢ, ǹțĮįȘȝȓĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ ȈʌȠȣįȫȞ, İțį. ǴȞįȚțIJȠȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2004, ı. 154. 30 ǿȦȐȞȞȘ ȆȑIJȡȠȣ, «ȉȠ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ țĮȚ Ș İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ», 28

Deaconesses in the Theology of Nikos Matsoukas

413

ȄİțȐșĮȡĮ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, «ȅ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ȩȝȦȢ İʌĮȚȞİȓ IJȘ ȂĮȡȓĮ ʌȠȣ “ȕȖĮȓȞİȚ” Įʌȩ IJȘȞ țȠȣȗȓȞĮ, țȐșİIJĮȚ ıIJĮ ʌȩįȚĮ ȉȠȣ țĮȚ ȉȠȞ ĮțȠȪİȚ. īȓȞİIJĮȚ ȝĮșȒIJȡȚȐ ȉȠȣ șȑIJȠȞIJĮȢ ȦȢ ʌȡȠIJİȡĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȞ IJİȜİȓȦıȘ țĮȚ IJȘ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮ ȦȢ ȝȑȜȠȢ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ǼȓȞĮȚ Ƞ IJȪʌȠȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ʌȠȣ ĮțȠȜȠȣșİȓ IJȠ įȐıțĮȜȠ, ȚıȩIJȚȝĮ ȩʌȦȢ ȠȚ ȐȞIJȡİȢ ȝĮșȘIJȑȢ IJȠȣ, ĮȖȚȐȗİIJĮȚ, ıȫȗİIJĮȚ țĮȚ șİȫȞİIJĮȚ. ǼțijȡȐȗİȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌȩʌİȚȡĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȞĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒıİȚ ȦȢ ʌȜȒȡİȢ țĮȚ ȚıȩIJȚȝȠ ȝȑȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȞȑĮȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ Ƞ ȓįȚȠȢ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ İȖțĮȚȞȚȐȗİȚ țĮȚ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȫȞİȚ».31 ȀĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ȝİIJĮȝȩȡijȦıȘȢ, Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ įİȞ įȚıIJȐȗİȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıȜȐȕİȚ țȐșİ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ ʌȠȣ ȑȤİȚ İțIJȡĮʌİȓ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȠȡİȓĮ IJȘȢ șȑȦıȘȢ țĮșȫȢ, «ȆȠȜȪ İȪțȠȜĮ ȝʌȠȡİȓ țĮȞİȓȢ ȞĮ ıȣȖțȡȓȞİȚ IJĮ țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȠȣ Ȃ. ǹșĮȞĮıȓȠȣ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ǿıĮȐț IJȠȣ ȈȪȡȠȣ ȝİ IJȚȢ įȚȘȖȒıİȚȢ ʌȠȣ țȐȞİȚ Ƞ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘȢ, țĮȚ ȕȜȑʌİȚ ĮȝȑıȦȢ ʌȩıȠ ȐȥȠȖİȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ țĮȚ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮțȐ İȓȞĮȚ. ǼȟȐȜȜȠȣ Ș İʌȓıțİȥȘ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ıIJȠ ıʌȓIJȚ IJȘȢ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒȢ ȑȤİȚ ȟİțĮșĮȡȚıȝȑȞȠ ıțȠʌȩ ʌȠȣ ȝȑȞİȚ ĮIJĮȜȐȞIJİȣIJȠȢ ȦȢ IJȠ IJȑȜȠȢ. ȅ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ șȑȜİȚ ȞĮ IJȘ ıȫıİȚ, țĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ ĮȣIJȩ. DZȜȜȦıIJİ țĮȚ Ƞ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȚıIJȒȢ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİȚ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ȞĮ ȝȚȜȐİȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȩȡȞȘ IJȘ ȈĮȝĮȡȓIJȚııĮ. ȍıIJȩıȠ IJȘ ıțȘȞȒ IJȘȢ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒȢ Ƞ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘȢ IJȘ įĮȞİȓȗİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ įȚȘȖȒıİȚȢ ĮıțȘIJȚțȫȞ țİȚȝȑȞȦȞ ʌȠȣ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗȠȣȞ ĮıțȘIJȑȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣȢ “įȚȐ ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ ıĮȜȠȪȢ”, ʌȠȣ İʌȚıțȑijIJȠȞIJĮȚ ʌȩȡȞİȢ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ IJȚȢ ıȫıȠȣȞ Ȓ İȟĮȚIJȓĮȢ IJȘȢ İʌȓıțİȥȘȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ ȞĮ İʌȚțȡȚșȠȪȞ ȠȚ ȓįȚȠȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ țĮȚ ȞĮ IJĮʌİȚȞȦșȠȪȞ».32 DzIJıȚ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ țĮȞİȞȩȢ İȓįȠȣȢ įȣĮȜȚıȝȩȢ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJĮ įȪȠ ijȪȜĮ,33 ȖȚĮIJȓ țȐIJȚ IJȑIJȠȚȠ ș’ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪıİ ȕĮșȪIJĮIJȠ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ,34 țĮșȫȢ Ƞ ȝĮȞȚȤĮȧıȝȩȢ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ȟȑȞȘ ʌȡȠȢ ǼʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȒ ǼʌİIJȘȡȓįĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ȈȤȠȜȒȢ, ȉȝȒȝĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, ǹȡȚıIJȠIJȑȜİȚȠ ȆĮȞİʌȚıIJȒȝȚȠ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘȢ, ȉȩȝȠȢ 10ȠȢ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2000, ı. 228. 31 ȃȓțȘȢ ȆĮʌĮȖİȦȡȖȓȠȣ, «Ǿ șȑıȘ țĮȚ Ƞ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ», ıIJȠȞ IJȩȝȠ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩȢ ǻȚȐȜȠȖȠȢ, İʌȚȝȑȜİȚĮ ȆȑIJȡȠȢ ǺĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘȢ, İțį. ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ǻȚĮțȠȞȓĮ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2005, ı. 113. 32 ȃȓțȠȣ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ, Ǿ İȜȜȘȞȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ıIJȠȞ ȃȓțȠ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, İțį. ǺȐȞȚĮȢ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 1989, ı. 47. 33 Maria Clara Lucchetti Bingemer, «ǵʌȠȣ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȕȚȫȞȠȣȞ IJȘȞ İȝʌİȚȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ĮįȚțȓĮȢ», ȝIJijȡ. ǺȐıȦ ȈIJĮșȠțȫıIJĮ, ȀĮș’ ȅįȩȞ, īȣȞĮȓțĮ: Ș DZȞșȡȦʌȠȢ, IJİȪȤȠȢ 9, ȈİʌIJȑȝȕȡȚȠȢ-ǻİțȑȝȕȡȚȠȢ 1994, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ, İțį. ȆĮȡĮIJȘȡȘIJȒȢ, ı. 84: «ȉȠ ǼȣĮȖȖȑȜȚȠ įİȞ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİȚ ȑȞĮ įȣĮȜȚıȝȩ, țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ ĮȡıİȞȚțȩ țĮȚ șȘȜȣțȩ ĮȞIJȚIJȓșİȞIJĮȚ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣȢ, ıȣȖțȡȠȪȠȞIJĮȚ Ȓ İȓȞĮȚ “ıȣȝʌȜȘȡȦȝĮIJȚțȐ”. ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ, ʌȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ ȝȚĮ ʌȡȩIJĮıȘ ȗȦȒȢ țĮȚ ıȤȑıȘȢ, ȩʌȠȣ IJȠ ȝȚıȩ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ, ʌİȡȚijȡȠȞȘȝȑȞȠ țĮȚ ʌĮȡĮȖțȦȞȚıȝȑȞȠ, ȑȤİȚ įȚțĮȓȦȝĮ țĮȚ ʌȡȩıȕĮıȘ ıİ ȝȚĮ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ țĮȚ ȚıȩIJȚȝȘ ıȤȑıȘ, ȫȡȚȝȘ țĮȚ ȣʌİȪșȣȞȘ. Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ıȒȝİȡĮ țĮȜİȓIJĮȚ ȩȜȠ țĮȚ ʌȚȠ İʌȓȝȠȞĮ ȞĮ țȐȞİȚ ʌȡȐȟȘ IJȠ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ, ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȚıIJȒ ıIJȠ ǼȣĮȖȖȑȜȚȠ ʌȠȣ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ țȘȡȪııİȚ ıIJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ». 34 ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȞȠȣ īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘ, Ǿ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȘȢ

414

Chapter Twenty Eight

IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ.35 DzIJıȚ, Ș ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȗȦȞIJĮȞȩ ıȫȝĮ36 țĮȚ Ƞ ĬİȩȢ țĮIJĮȟȚȫȞİȚ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝİ IJȘ ȈȐȡțȦıȘ IJȠȣ ȊȚȠȪ ȉȠȣ.37 ǹțȠȜȠȪșȦȢ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ İȟȣȥȫȞİȚ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ,38 ĮijȠȪ İțİȓȞȘ įİȞ įȚĮijȑȡİȚ ıİ țȐIJȚ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ39 țĮȚ IJȘȞ țĮșȚıIJȐ ȝȐȡIJȣȡĮ IJȘȢ ǹȞĮıIJȐıİȫȢ IJȠȣ.40 īȚĮIJȓ, ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ țĮȡįȚȐ IJȘȢ41 Ƞ ǼıIJĮȣȡȦȝȑȞȠȢ

ȠțȠȣȝİȞȚțȒȢ țȓȞȘıȘȢ, İțį. ǼʌȑțIJĮıȘ, ȀĮIJİȡȓȞȘ 1995, ı. 141: «ȅ ǹʌ. ȆĮȪȜȠȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȢ IJȘȞ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ȐȞįȡĮ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ, IJȘ įȚĮıijĮȜȓȗİȚ. Ǿ ȐȡȞȘıȘ Ȓ Ș ĮʌȩȡȡȚȥȒ IJȘȢ ȠįȘȖİȓ ĮȝȑıȦȢ ıIJȘȞ ȐȡȞȘıȘ IJȘȢ țȣȡȚȩIJȘIJĮȢ, IJȠȣ ȚıȩIJȚȝȠȣ, IJȠȣ ıȣȞȐȞĮȡȤȠȣ țĮȚ ȠȝȩIJȚȝȠȣ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠıȫʌȠȣ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ Ĭİȩ. Ǿ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ șİȝİȜȓȦıȘ IJȘȢ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ȝȚȐ IJȑIJȠȚĮ įȣȞĮȝȚțȒ, ȫıIJİ Ș ĮȝijȚıȕȒIJȘıȘ Ȓ Ș ȐȡȞȘıȒ IJȘȢ ȞĮ İʌȘȡİȐȗİȚ țĮIJĮȜȣIJȚțȐ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ». 35 Maria Clara Lucchetti Bingemer, ǵʌȠȣ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, ı. 82: «ǵ,IJȚ ȖȞȦȡȓȗȠȣȝİ Įʌȩ IJĮ IJȑııİȡĮ ǼȣĮȖȖȑȜȚĮ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȩ ǿȘıȠȪ IJȠȞ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİȚ ȦȢ IJȠȞ ȚįȡȣIJȒ ȝȚĮȢ ʌİȡȚʌȜĮȞȫȝİȞȘȢ țĮȚ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȒȢ țȓȞȘıȘȢ, ȩʌȠȣ ȐȞįȡİȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȖȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ ĮʌȠįİțIJȠȓ ıİ ĮȖĮʌȘIJȚțȒ ıȤȑıȘ». 36 ȀĮȓIJȘȢ ȋȚȦIJȑȜȜȘ, «Ǿ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ țĮȚ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», ȀĮș’ ȅįȩȞ, īȣȞĮȓțĮ: Ș DZȞșȡȦʌȠȢ, ı. 119: «ȂȚĮ ʌĮȖȚȦȝȑȞȘ, ıIJĮIJȚțȒ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ IJȘȢ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ įİ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ ȑȤİȚ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ ȑȞĮ ȗȦȞIJĮȞȩ ȈȫȝĮ ʌȠȣ țȠȚȞȦȞİȓ IJȘ ǽȦȒ». 37 ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣ ȂʌȠȣȡȞȑȜȘ, Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ ǿİȡȩȞ ȋȡȣıȩıIJȠȝȠȞ, įȚįĮțIJȠȡȚțȒ įȚĮIJȡȚȕȒ ȣʌȠȕȜȘșİȓıĮ ıIJȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȈȤȠȜȒ IJȠȣ ǹȡȚıIJȠIJİȜİȓȠȣ ȆĮȞİʌȚıIJȘȝȓȠȣ ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘȢ, ǾȡȐțȜİȚȠ ȀȡȒIJȘȢ 2004, ı. 67: «Ȃİ IJȘȞ İȞĮȞșȡȫʌȘıȒ IJȠȣ Ƞ ȊȚȩȢ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ IJȚȝȐ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮȚ įȚ’ ĮȣIJȒȢ țĮIJȑȡȤİIJĮȚ İȚȢ IJȠȞ țȩıȝȠȞ, ȖȚĮ ȞĮ IJȠȞ İȟĮȖȚȐıİȚ». 38 ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȞȠȣ īȚȠțĮȡȓȞȘ, Ǿ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ı. 176: «ȅ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ȝİ IJȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ȉȠȣ țĮȚ IJȚȢ țĮIJȐ ʌİȡȚıIJȐıİȚȢ İȣțĮȚȡȓİȢ ʌȡȠȐȖİȚ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ İȟȣȥȫȞİȚ ıIJȠ İʌȓʌİįȠ IJȠȣ ȚıȩIJȚȝȠȣ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ ʌȡȠıȫʌȠȣ, ĮȞĮȖȞȦȡȓȗȠȞIJȐȢ IJȘȢ IJȘȞ ȚțĮȞȩIJȘIJĮ ĮȣIJȠțĮIJĮȟȓȦıȒȢ IJȘȢ». 39 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ı. 179: «Ǿ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ȐȞįȡĮ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ İțʌȘȖȐȗİȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ İȞĮȞșȡȦʌȒıĮȞIJĮ Ĭİȩ ȁȩȖȠ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ șİȝİȜȚȫįȘ ʌȓıIJȘ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȠȪ». 40 ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣ ȂʌȠȣȡȞȑȜȘ, Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, ı. 98: «ȂİIJȐ IJȠ ȤĮȡȝȩıȣȞȠ ȐȖȖİȜȝĮ “ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ǹȞȑıIJȘ” Ș ȂĮȡȓĮ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ İʌȚıIJȡȑijİȚ țĮȚ țȐșİIJĮȚ İʌȓ IJȠȣ IJȐijȠȣ, ȩʌȠȣ İȝijĮȞȓȗİIJĮȚ Ƞ ĮȞĮıIJȐȢ ȀȪȡȚȠȢ. ȉȩIJİ İțİȓȞȘ IJȡȑȤİȚ ȞĮ ĮıʌĮıIJİȓ IJĮ ʌȩįȚĮ IJȠȣ, ȞȠȝȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ıȣȞİȤȓȗİȚ IJȠ İʌȓȖİȚȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ». 41 ȃȓțȠȣ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, ‫ ݾ‬ȉİȜİȣIJĮ߿ȠȢ ȆİȚȡĮıȝȩȢ, İțį. ǼȜ. ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, ǹșȒȞĮ 1970, ı. 390: «– ĬȐȞĮIJȠ! ਩țĮȝİ ਲ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞ੽ țĮ੿ IJઁ ıIJોșȠȢ IJોȢ ਩ȜȚȦıİ șȐȞĮIJȠ! Ȃ੹ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ Į੝IJઁȢ Ȟ੹ ʌİșȐȞİȚ, ʌĮIJȑȡĮ; ੘ ȖİȡȠ ȡĮȕȓȞȠȢ țȠȓIJĮȟİ IJ੽ șȣȖĮIJȑȡĮ IJȠȣ, ȤĮȝȠȖȑȜĮıİ ʌȚțȡȐ: – ਯIJıȚ Ȝȑȝİ ʌȐȞIJĮ ȖȚ੹ IJȠઃȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢ ʌȠȪ ਕȖĮʌȠ૨ȝİ, ȝȠȣȡȝȠȪȡȚıİ țĮȓ ıȫʌĮıİ. – Ȃ੹ į੻Ȟ İੇȞĮȚ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ ı੹Ȟ țȚ ਥȝ઼Ȣ ੒ ȡĮȕȒȢ, į੻Ȟ İੇȞĮȚ! ਩țĮȝİ ਲ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞ੽ ਕʌİȜʌȚıȝȑȞȘ į੻Ȟ İੇȞĮȚ! į੻Ȟ İੇȞĮȚ! ਩ȜİȖİ țĮ੿ ȟĮȞȐȜİȖİ, ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ȟȠȡțȓıİȚ IJઁȞ IJȡȩȝȠ IJȘȢ. – Ȇ૵Ȣ IJઁ ȟȑȡİȚȢ; İੇʌİ ੒ ȖȑȡȠȢ țȚ ਲ țĮȡįȚȐ IJȠ૨ ਕȞĮʌİIJȐȡȚıİ, ȖȚĮIJ੿ İੇȤİ ਥȝʌȚıIJȠıȪȞȘ ıIJ੹ ȥȣȤĮȞİȝȓıȝĮIJĮ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ. – ȉઁ ȟȑȡȦ,

Deaconesses in the Theology of Nikos Matsoukas

415

DzȡȦIJĮȢ ıIJĮȣȡȫȞİIJĮȚ țȚ’ ĮȞĮıIJĮȓȞİIJĮȚ įȚĮȡțȫȢ42 țĮșȫȢ, «DzIJıȚ, ıIJȠȞ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ IJȠ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ, ȩʌȦȢ țȣȡȓĮȡȤȘ İȓȞĮȚ țĮȚ Ș ıțȑȥȘ IJȘȢ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮȢ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮʌȩȜȣIJȘ ʌȡȩıȜȘȥȘ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ. ȉĮȣIJȠȤȡȩȞȦȢ, ȝİ IJȠȞ ĮȜȜȘȖȠȡȚțȩ ĮȣIJȩ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚıȝȩ, Ș ȂĮȡȓĮ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ IJȠ alter ego, IJȘȞ ȐȜȜȘ ȩȥȘ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ʌȜİȣȡȐȢ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ. Ǿ ȂĮȡȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ İțİȓȞȘ Ș ȝȐȡIJȣȡĮȢ ʌȠȣ ȝİ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ IJȘȢ įȚĮȓıșȘıȘ, țĮIJĮȞȠİȓ ʌȦȢ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ ĮʌȑȞĮȞIJȓ IJȘȢ ȑȞĮȞ țȠȚȞȩ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ, ȝĮ IJȠȞ ȓįȚȠ IJȠ Ĭİȩ».43 ȀĮȚ Ƞ ȃȓțȠȢ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮȢ ıȣȞİȤȓȗİȚ įȣȞĮȝȚțȐ țĮȚ ʌȐȞIJĮ ȝİ ȖȜĮijȣȡȩ IJȡȩʌȠ IJȠ ıȣȜȜȠȖȚıȝȩ IJȠȣ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȫȞIJĮȢ ʌȦȢ, «DZȞ ȒȝȠȣȞĮ ȣʌȠȥȒijȚȠȢ įȚįȐțIJȠȡĮȢ, İȟȐʌĮȞIJȠȢ șĮ ȝİ İʌȑțȡȚȞĮȞ ȩIJȚ İȓȝĮȚ İțIJȩȢ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ Ȓ ȩIJȚ ȑȤȦ ĮIJȘȝȑȜȘIJȠ ȪijȠȢ! ǼȣIJȣȤȫȢ ʌȠȣ įİȞ İȓȝĮȚ, țĮȚ ȑIJıȚ İȣșȪȢ İȟĮȡȤȒȢ İʌȚșȣȝȫ ȞĮ IJȠȞȓıȦ ȝİ ȑȝijĮıȘ ȩIJȚ Ș ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ ȝȒIJİ Įʌȩ țȠțțȚȞȠıțȠȣijȓIJıİȢ ȖȡȐijİIJĮȚ ȝȒIJİ ȝİ ȝȠȞȠȝİȡİȓȢ İʌȚȜȠȖȑȢ ʌȠȣȡȚIJĮȞȚțȠȪ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ țĮIJȐ IJȠ įȠțȠȪȞ țȡȓȞİIJĮȚ».44 ǼʌİȚįȒ, «ǹȞ, ȜȩȖȠȣ ȤȐȡȘ, ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȒ țĮțȠȒșİȚĮ İʌȚıȘȝȐȞİȚ țĮȞİȓȢ ȑȞĮ ȕȚȕȜȚțȩ Ȓ ʌĮIJİȡȚțȩ įȚĮȝȐȞIJȚ ʌȡȠȩįȠȣ țĮȚ ĮȞșȡȦʌȚȐȢ, įİȞ ȤȐȞİȚ IJȘȞ ʌĮȚįİȣIJȚțȒ ĮȟȓĮ țĮȚ ȝİȖĮȜȦıȪȞȘ IJȠȣ, țĮșȫȢ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ ĮʌĮȡȚșȝİȓ “IJĮ ȕĮȡİIJȐ İțİȓȞĮ” țȚ ȐȜȜĮ ȘȤȘȡȐ țĮȚ IJİIJȡȚȝȝȑȞĮ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩȢ, țĮȚ țȣȡȓȦȢ Ƞ ĮıțȘIJȚıȝȩȢ, ȣʌȠIJȓȝȘıİ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ Ȓ (ĮʌĮȡĮȓIJȘIJĮ) ȩIJȚ IJȠ ǺȣȗȐȞIJȚȠ IJȘȞ țĮIJĮʌȓİıİ Ȓ ȩIJȚ ȝİ İȞIJȠȜȒ IJȠȣ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ IJȘȞ ȣʌȠȤȡȑȦıİ ȞĮ ijȠȡȐİȚ țĮȜȪʌIJȡĮ (!) Ȓ ȩIJȚ IJȘȢ ıIJȑȡȘıİ IJȘ șİȓĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ țĮIJȐ IJȘ įȚȐȡțİȚĮ IJȘȢ İȝȝȘȞȠȡȡȣıȓĮȢ! DzȤȠȣȝİ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ ȝĮȤȩȝİȞȘ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ, țĮȚ ʌȡȠʌĮȞIJȩȢ ʌȠȡİȓĮ ȖȚĮ ȝȚȐ IJİȜİȓȦıȘ Įʌȩ IJȠ ǹ ȦȢ IJȠ ȍ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ, ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJĮ ȠįȣȞȘȡȐ ıȣȞIJȡȓȝȝȚĮ IJȘȢ țIJȚıIJȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȦȞ ȩȞIJȦȞ. DZȜȜȠȢ įȡȩȝȠȢ įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ».45 ਕʌȠțȡȓșȘțİ ਲ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ, ȝ੽ ȝ੻ ȡȦIJ઼Ȣ IJઁ ʌ૵Ȣ İੇȝĮȚ ıȓȖȠȣȡȘ. Ȃ੽ ijȠȕ઼ıĮȚ, ʌĮIJȑȡĮ ʌȠȚȩȢ IJȠȜȝȐİȚ Ȟ੹ IJઁȞ ਕȖȖȓȟİȚ IJȫȡĮ ʌȠઃ ਕȞȐıIJȘıİ IJઁ ȁȐȗĮȡȠ;». 42 ȃȓțȠȣ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, ݃ȞĮijȠȡ‫ ޟ‬ıIJާȞ īțȡȑțȠ, İțį. ǼȜ. ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, ǹșȒȞĮ 1961, ı. 292: «ǽȪȖȦȞİ ਲ ǺįȠȝȐįĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȆĮș૵Ȟ, ı੻ ੖ȜȘ IJ੽ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠıȪȞȘ ș੹ ıIJĮȣȡȫȞȠȣȞIJĮȞ ੒ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ, ș੹ ȟĮȞȐȞȠȚȖĮȞ Ƞੂ ʌȑȞIJİ ਕșȐȞĮIJİȢ ʌȜȘȖ੻Ȣ țĮ੿ șȐ ’ȡȤȠȣȞIJĮȞ ʌȐȜȚ ਲ țĮȡįȚ੹ ਲ ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞ੽ Ȟ੹ ʌĮȜȑȥİȚ ȝ੻ IJઁ șȐȞĮIJȠ. ȉȓ İ੝IJȣȤȓĮ ȞȐ ’ȞĮȚ ਕțȩȝĮ ਲ țĮȡįȚȐ ıȠȣ ı੹Ȟ IJȠ૨ ʌĮȚįȚȠ૨ țĮ੿ Ȟ੹ ਫ਼ʌȠijȑȡİȚȢ IJ੿Ȣ ȝȑȡİȢ ਥIJȠ૨IJİȢ, Ȟ੹ ȝ੽Ȟ ȝʌȠȡİ૙Ȣ Ȟ੹ ij઼Ȣ, Ȟ੹ ȝ੽Ȟ ȝʌȠȡİ૙Ȣ Ȟ੹ țȠȚȝȘșİ૙Ȣ, Ȟ੹ ʌȘȖĮȓȞİȚȢ ıIJ੿Ȣ ĮȖȡȣʌȞȚ੻Ȣ țĮ੿ Ȟ੹ IJȡȑȤȠȣȞ IJ੹ įȐțȡȣȐ ıȠȣ șȦȡȫȞIJĮȢ ਕʌȐȞȦ ıIJઁ ıIJĮȣȡઁ Ȟ੹ ıʌĮȡȐȗİȚ IJઁ ı૵ȝĮ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨ ıȠȣ, ijȠȡIJȦȝȑȞȠ ȜİȝȠȞĮȞșȠȪȢ! ȀĮ੿ ȞȐ ’ȞĮȚ ਕȞȠȚȤIJ੹ IJ੹ ʌĮȡȐșȣȡĮ IJોȢ ਥțțȜȘıȚ઼Ȣ, Ȟ੹ ȝʌĮȓȞİȚ ਲ ਙȞȠȚȟȘ». 43 ȂĮȡȓĮȢ ȋĮIJȗȘĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣ, ȉȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ıIJȠ ȃȓțȠ ȀĮȗĮȞIJȗȐțȘ, İțį. ǹȡȝȩȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2013, ı. 91. 44 ȃȓțȠȣ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ, Ǿ ǼȪĮ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țĮȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ. Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ IJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ, ʌİȡȚȠįȚțȩ ȈȪȞĮȟȘ, IJİȪȤȠȢ 36Ƞ, ȅțIJȫȕȡȚȠȢǻİțȑȝȕȡȚȠȢ 1990, ǹșȒȞĮ, ı. 6. 45 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ.

416

Chapter Twenty Eight

ǹȞĮȝijȚıȕȒIJȘIJĮ, «ȈIJȘ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ, ʌȠȣ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ țĮȞİȓȢ ȞĮ IJȘȞ ȠȞȠȝȐIJȚȗİ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ, Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȞȠȘȝĮIJȠįȠIJİȓIJĮȚ Įʌȩ ȝȚȐ ȕĮıȚțȒ ijȚȜȠıȠijȓĮ: İȓȞĮȚ Ș ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ IJȘȢ ǼȪĮȢ ȦȢ ǽȦȒȢ, ĮȣIJȒ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠıȖİȚȫȞİȚ IJȠȞ ȐȞIJȡĮ ıIJȘ ȝȘIJȑȡĮ ȖȘ, țȡĮIJȐİȚ IJĮ șİȝȑȜȚĮ IJȠȣ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ʌĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțȒȢ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮȢ, țĮȚ ıȣȞȐȝĮ įȚĮțȡȓȞİIJĮȚ, ıʌȐȞȚĮ ĮȜȜȐ ȤIJȣʌȘIJȐ țĮȚ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȚțȐ, ȦȢ ʌȡȦIJĮȖȦȞȚıIJȚțȩ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ»46 țĮȚ «ȉȠȪIJȘ Ș șİȝİȜȚĮțȒ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ, ʌȠȣ Ș ĮȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȚțȒ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȓĮ ȝİ ȜȠȖȚȫ ȜȠȖȚȫ țĮIJĮʌȚȑıİȚȢ ʌȩIJİ IJȘȞ ĮȝĮȣȡȫȞİȚ țĮȚ ʌȠIJȑ ĮʌİȞĮȞIJȓĮȢ, ȓıȦȢ İȟĮȚIJȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ıțȜȘȡȒȢ įȚĮȜİțIJȚțȒȢ ĮȞIJȚʌĮȡȐșİıȘȢ, IJȘȞ țȐȞİȚ ȞĮ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȜĮȝʌȡȩIJİȡȘ, ĮȞĮįİȓȤIJȘțİ ĮțȩȝȘ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ țĮȚ ȡȓȗȦıİ ȕĮșȪIJİȡĮ ıIJȚȢ ȝİııȚĮȞȚțȑȢ İȜʌȓįİȢ. ȀȐʌȠȚĮ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ IJȠȣ ǿıȡĮȒȜ șĮ ȒIJĮȞ Ș İȣȜȠȖȘȝȑȞȘ ȞĮ țȣȠijȠȡȒıİȚ IJȠ ȂİııȓĮ țĮȚ ȞĮ ȖİȞȞȠȕȠȜȒıİȚ IJȘ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȒ İȜʌȓįĮ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ. ȈIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȠȣ ǿıȡĮȒȜ İȓȞĮȚ įȚȐȤȣIJȘ Ș ĮȪȡĮ İȞȩȢ ȝȘIJȡȠțİȞIJȡȚțȠȪ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȠȪ, ʌȠȣ IJ’ ĮȤȞȐȡȚĮ IJȠȣ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȞ ȞĮ İȞIJȠʌȚıIJȠȪȞ țĮȚ ıIJȠ DZıȝĮ ĮıȝȐIJȦȞ».47 ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ. Ǿ ȂȘIJȑȡĮ IJȠȣ ĭȦIJȩȢ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, țĮșȫȢ, «ȈIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ Ș ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ ȂĮȡȓĮ, țĮIJĮȖȩȝİȞȘ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ǼȪĮ, țȚ ĮȣIJȒ țĮIJĮȟȚȫȞİȚ țȐșİ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ĮțȩȝȘ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ, ĮijȠȪ ʌȚȐ Ƞ ȜĮȩȢ įİȞ ĮȞĮȝȑȞİȚ IJȘ ȖȑȞȞȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȂİııȓĮ Įʌȩ țȐʌȠȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ĮȜȜȐ Ș ȓįȚĮ Ș ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ ȖȑȞȞȘıİ IJȠ ıĮȡțȦȝȑȞȠ ȁȩȖȠ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ “ܻıȐȡțȦȢ ‫݋‬ȞİįȒȝİȚ IJȠ߿Ȣ ʌȡȠijȒIJĮȚȢ”, țĮȚ İʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ ĮȣIJȩȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ ȂİııȓĮȢ»48 ĮijȠȪ, «DzIJıȚ ȝİ IJȘ ĬİȠIJȩțȠ ȂĮȡȓĮ, ʌȠȣ İțʌȜȒȡȦıİ IJȘ ȝİııȚĮȞȚțȒ İȜʌȓįĮ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ, ȡȓȗȦıİ ȕĮșȪIJİȡĮ Ƞ ȝȘIJȡȠțİȞIJȡȚțȩȢ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩȢ, ʌȠȣ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȑȞIJȠȞȠȢ ıIJȠȞ ǹțȐșȚıIJȠ ǶȝȞȠ. ȀĮȚ ȠȚ ȋĮȚȡİIJȚıȝȠȓ ȞȠȘȝĮIJȚțȐ țĮȚ ijȚȜȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ȑȤȠȣȞ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJȠ DZıȝĮ ĮıȝȐIJȦȞ. ȉȠȪIJȘ Ș ȠȡȖĮȞȚțȒ ıȤȑıȘ ǼȪĮȢ țĮȚ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ ȂĮȡȓĮȢ, ʌȠȣ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ įȚĮȤȑİȚ IJȠ ȝȘIJȡȠțİȞIJȡȚțȩ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩ, ȑʌȡİʌİ ȞĮ șİȝİȜȚȦșİȓ ıIJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ IJȘ įȚȒȖȘıȘ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠʌĮIJȠȡȚțȠȪ ĮȝĮȡIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ».49 ǼʌİȚįȒ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, Ș ĮȜȒșİȚĮ įİȞ ĮȝĮȣȡȫȞİIJĮȚ, ȠȪIJİ ĮʌȠıȚȦʌȐIJĮȚ,50 ĮȞĮȝijȚıȕȒIJȘIJĮ, «ȈIJȠ İʌȓȝȠȞȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ, ĮȞ Ș șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ įȑȤİIJĮȚ IJȘȞ ȚıȠIJȚȝȓĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣ ȐȞIJȡĮ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ Ȟ’ ĮʌĮȞIJȒıȠȣȝİ țĮIJĮijĮIJȚțȐ. DZȜȜȦıIJİ IJȠȪIJȘ Ș ȚıȠIJȚȝȓĮ ʌȒȡİ ıȐȡțĮ țĮȚ ȠıIJȐ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ȗȦȒȢ. Ǿ ʌİȡȚȫȞȣȝȘ ȡȒıȘ IJȠȣ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ “Ƞ‫ރ‬ț ‫ݏ‬ȞȚ ܿȡıİȞ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ș߱Ȝȣ” įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȚĮ ĮʌȜȒ șİȦȡȘIJȚțȒ įȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ. ȀĮȝȚȐ 46

ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ. ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ı. 7. 48 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ı. 8. 49 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ. 50 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ıı. 8-9: «ǼȣIJȣȤȫȢ Ș șİȝİȜȚĮțȒ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ ȝȒIJİ ĮȝĮȣȡȫșȘțİ ȝȒIJİ țȜȠȞȓıIJȘțİ Įʌȩ ȝȚȐ ʌĮȡĮijȚȜȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ʌĮȡĮșİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ʌİȡȓ ʌȡȠʌĮIJȠȡȚțȠȪ ĮȝĮȡIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ, ʌȠȣ ĮIJȣȤȫȢ ĮȞșİȓ ȦȢ IJȚȢ ȘȝȑȡİȢ ȝĮȢ, ĮțȩȝȘ țĮȚ ıİ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȠȪȢ țȪțȜȠȣȢ». 47

Deaconesses in the Theology of Nikos Matsoukas

417

ıȘȝĮıȓĮ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ Ș ȚıȠIJȚȝȓĮ ĮȣIJȒ ʌȡȠȤȦȡȐİȚ ĮȖțȠȝĮȤȫȞIJĮȢ ȕȒȝĮ ȕȒȝĮ. Ǿ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȝĮȖİȓĮ».51 DZȡĮ, «ǼʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ Ƞ ȝȘIJȡȠțİȞIJȡȚțȩȢ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩȢ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ țĮșĮȡȩ ʌȡȠȧȩȞ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ ijȪıȘȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ȝȚĮȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ʌȡȠȩįȠȣ, ȝȚĮȢ ıȣȝijȚȜȓȦıȘȢ, ȩıȠ İȓȞĮȚ İijȚțIJȩ, ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣ ȐȞIJȡĮ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, įȘȜĮįȒ ȝȚĮȢ ȐȡıȘȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞIJĮȖȦȞȚıIJȚțȫȞ ıȤȑıİȦȞ. ǹȞ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ Ƞ ijİȝȚȞȚıȝȩȢ İțįȘȜȫȞİIJĮȚ ȦȢ ĮȞIJĮȖȦȞȚıIJȚțȩ țȓȞȘȝĮ ʌȡȠȢ IJĮ ĮȞįȡȚțȐ ʌȡȠȞȩȝȚĮ, ȕȡȓıțİIJĮȚ IJȠʌȠșİIJȘȝȑȞȠȢ ıİ İʌȚıijĮȜȒ ȕȐıȘ, ĮȞİȟȐȡIJȘIJĮ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ȝȪȡȚİȢ ȩıİȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ țĮIJĮțIJȒıİȚȢ. ȈIJȘȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȘ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ, șĮ ȑȜİȖĮ ȩIJȚ Ƞ Freud Įʌȩ IJȘ ıțȠʌȚȐ IJȠȣ ʌȠȜȪ ıȦıIJȐ İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ʌȦȢ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩȢ ȦȢ șȡȘıțİȓĮ IJȠȣ ȊȚȠȪ, țĮȚ ȐȡĮ ȝȘIJȡȠțİȞIJȚțȩȢ, ĮȝȕȜȪȞİȚ IJȘȞ ʌĮIJȡȚțȒ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȚțȩIJȘIJĮ».52 ǵȝȦȢ, ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȠ ıȣȜȜȠȖȚıIJȚțȩ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚıȝȩ IJȠȣ, Ƞ ȃȓțȠȢ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮȢ įȚĮIJȘȡİȓ ʌȐȞIJĮ IJȘȞ ȚįĮȞȚțȒ ȚıȠȡȡȠʌȓĮ, țĮșȫȢ ȠȝȠȜȠȖİȓ ʌȦȢ, «ĭȠȕȐȝĮȚ ȩIJȚ țĮȚ IJȠ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘ ǻȪıȘ ıȒȝİȡĮ İȝʌȜȑȤIJȘțİ ıIJȚȢ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ IJȐıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ijİȝȚȞȚıȝȠȪ. ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ȐȜȜȘ ȝİȡȚȐ ʌȠȜȜȠȓ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȠȚ șİȠȜȩȖȠȚ, ĮȞIJȚIJȚșȑȝİȞȠȚ ȡȚȗȚțȐ ıIJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ʌȡȠıȐȖȠȣȞ İıijĮȜȝȑȞĮ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ, ȩIJȚ Ș ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ įİȞ İȓȤİ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ țĮȚ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȐȞįȡĮȢ! Ǽįȫ įİȞ șĮ ĮȞĮȜȪıȦ IJȠȪIJȠ IJȠ șȑȝĮ, ȖȚĮIJȓ İȟȐʌĮȞIJȠȢ ȑȤİȚ ȝȚĮ ĮȣIJȩȞȠȝȘ ȚįȚĮȚIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮ. ȂȩȞȠ șȑȜȦ ȞĮ ȣʌİȞșȣȝȓıȦ ȜȚȖȐțȚ IJȠ įȩȖȝĮ IJȘȢ ȋĮȜțȘįȩȞĮȢ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ıȣȞȑʌİȚȑȢ IJȠȣ, țĮȚ ȞĮ IJȠ ıțİijIJȠȪȝİ ĮʌȜȫȢ de lege lata įȓțȘȞ ȞȠȝȚțȫȞ. īȚĮ ȝĮȢ ȐȞIJȡĮȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ȝ’ ȩȜĮ IJĮ ĮȞIJĮȖȦȞȚıIJȚțȐ ıȣȝʌĮȡȠȝĮȡIJȠȪȞIJĮ, įȚĮțȡȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȘȞ İȡȦIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ IJȘ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ. Ǿ ȠȜȠțȜȒȡȦıȘ IJȠȣ țĮșİȞȩȢ ȕȡȓıțİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ İȞȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ IJȘ ıȣȝijȚȜȓȦıȘ: IJȩIJİ İȓȝĮıIJİ, țĮIJȐ IJȠ İijȚțIJȩ, ȠȜȠțȜȘȡȦȝȑȞȠȚ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȚ. DzIJıȚ IJȓșİIJĮȚ IJȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ țĮIJȐ IJȠ įȩȖȝĮ IJȘȢ ȋĮȜțȘįȩȞĮȢ: ȝİ ʌȠȚȐ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȐȞįȡĮȢ; ĭȣıȚțȐ ȩȤȚ ȝİ IJȠȪIJȘ IJȘȢ ĮȞIJĮȖȦȞȚıIJȚțȒȢ ıȤȑıȘȢ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠȡȡȑİȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ İȡȦIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ IJȘ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȠ įȩȖȝĮ IJȘȢ ȋĮȜțȘįȩȞĮȢ ıIJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ, ȦȢ IJȑȜİȚȠ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ, įİȞ ıIJĮıȚȐȗȠȣȞ ȝȒIJİ IJȠ ĮȞįȡȚțȩ ȝȒIJİ IJȠ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȠ. Ǿ IJȑȜİȚĮ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ijȪıȘ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ‘ȞĮȚ ȝȠȞȐȤĮ ĮȞįȡȚțȒ, ȖȚĮIJȓ ĮȞ ıȣȞȑȕĮȚȞİ IJȠȪIJȠ, IJȩIJİ șĮ ȓıȤȣİ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ Ș ȡȒıȘ IJȠȣ īȡȘȖȠȡȓȠȣ ĬİȠȜȩȖȠȣ: “ȉާ ܻʌȡȩıȜȘʌIJȠȞ ܻșİȡȐʌİȣIJȠȞ” (PG 37, 181C-184A). ȂȘ ȖȑȞȠȚIJȠ!».53 ȀȚ’ ȩȝȦȢ, «ȅ ȀȜȒȝȘȢ ȇȫȝȘȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ ȑȞĮ DZȖȡĮijȠ –ʌȠȣ ȠȚ İȡİȣȞȘIJȑȢ Zahn țĮȚ Grenfel IJȠ șİȦȡȠȪȞ ĮȣșİȞIJȚțȩ ȜȩȖȚȠ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ–, ȩʌȠȣ Ș ȈĮȜȫȝȘ ȡȦIJȐ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ: “ȆȩIJİ șĮ ȑȜșİȚ Ș ȕĮıȚȜİȓĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ;”. ȅ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ĮʌĮȞIJȐ: “ǵIJĮȞ ĮijĮȞȓıİIJİ IJȠ ȞIJȪȝĮ IJȘȢ ȞIJȡȠʌȒȢ, țĮȚ ȩIJĮȞ ȐȞIJȡĮȢ 51

ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ı. 9. ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ı. 14. 53 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ıı. 14-15. 52

418

Chapter Twenty Eight

țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȖȓȞȠȣȞ ȑȞĮ”. īȚĮ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ įİȞ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ țĮȞİȓȢ ȞĮ șȑıİȚ ȝȒIJİ ĮȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȚțȐ ȝȒIJİ ȖȣȞĮȚțȠțȡĮIJȚțȐ țȡȚIJȒȡȚĮ. ȀȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȓȢ ıİ ȩ,IJȚ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, țĮȝȚȐ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒ ĮʌȩijĮȞıȘ įİȞ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠțȜİȓİȚ, ʌĮȡȐ ȝȩȞȠ țĮȞȠȞȚțȒ ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ țĮȚ ȜȩȖȠȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠȓ».54 DzIJıȚ, «Ǿ ǼȪĮ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ. Ǿ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ įȓȞİȚ ȑȝijĮıȘ ıIJĮ ȝȘIJȡȠțİȞIJȡȚțȐ ıIJȠȚȤİȓĮ ȑIJıȚ țȚ ĮȜȜȚȫȢ. Ȃİ IJȠȪIJĮ IJĮ ıIJȠȚȤİȓĮ Ș ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ ĮȞȣȥȫȞİIJĮȚ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȐ, ȩȤȚ İʌİȚįȒ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝȩȞȠ ȑȤİȚ IJȚȢ țĮIJĮȕȠȜȑȢ ȝȚĮȢ IJȑIJȠȚĮȢ ĮȞȪȥȦıȘȢ, ĮȜȜȐ İʌİȚįȒ ȝȚȐ ıȣȝijȚȜȓȦıȘ ıIJĮ ȩȡȚĮ IJȘȢ ȝȘIJȡȠțİȞIJȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ ıȣȞIJİȜİȓ ıIJȘȞ ȠȜȠțȜȒȡȦıȘ IJȘȢ ʌȠȡİȣȩȝİȞȘȢ IJİȜİȓȦıȘȢ, ȩIJĮȞ țĮȚ ȩıȠ IJȠȪIJȠ İȓȞĮȚ İijȚțIJȩ ıIJȘȞ ʌȠȡİȓĮ IJȘȢ țIJȓıȘȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ».55 ǼʌİȚįȒ, «ȂȚȐ ਥțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ਥʌȚȕȐȜȜİȚ IJȒȞ ੂİȡȦıȪȞȘ ੪Ȣ ਕȞįȡȚțȩ įȚțĮȓȦȝĮ ਕȡȞİ૙IJĮȚ țĮIJ’ Į੝IJȩ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ IJȩȞ ȋȡȚıIJȩ, ੪Ȣ ʌȜȒȡȘ Ĭİȩ țĮȓ ੪Ȣ ʌȜȒȡȘ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠ».56 ȀĮIJȐ IJȠȞ țĮșȘȖȘIJȒ ȆȑIJȡȠ ǺĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘ, «ȉȠ ĮȓIJȘȝĮ ȕȑȕĮȚĮ IJȘȢ ĮʌȠțĮIJȐıIJĮıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȠȡĮIJȒȢ İȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ įİȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȝȩȞȠȞ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ĮȞĮȖțĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ, ĮȜȜȐ ȪȥȚıIJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮȚ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ İʌȚIJĮȖȒ».57 DzIJıȚ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, țȡȓȞİIJĮȚ ȗȦIJȚțȒȢ ıȘȝĮıȓĮȢ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ İȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ, ȦȢ IJȘȢ ʌȠȜȣʌȩșȘIJȘȢ İțİȓȞȘȢ ȑȞȦıȘȢ IJȦȞ ʌȐȞIJȦȞ ıIJȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ. ȉȠ ȗȘIJȠȪȝİȞȠ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȞĮ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȦȢ ȈȫȝĮ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ țĮȚ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ȦȢ ıȪıIJȘȝĮ. ȅ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȫȞ IJȘȢ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȩȢ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ İȟȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȩȢ. ȀĮȚ țȣȡȓȦȢ, ȞĮ ʌĮȪıȠȣȞ ȞĮ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ ȠȚ ȝȪșȠȚ țĮȚ IJĮ ıIJİȡİȩIJȣʌĮ –IJĮ İȞIJȑȤȞȦȢ țĮȚ İıțİȝȝȑȞȦȢ țĮȜȜȚİȡȖȘȝȑȞĮ, ȝĮȗȓ ȝİ IJȘȞ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞȘ ĮʌİȞİȤȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ ijȪıȘȢ, IJȘȢ ıȦȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ İȡȦIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ȀĮȚ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ İʌȚIJȑȜȠȣȢ Ș ȣʌȑȡȕĮıȘ. ǷıIJİ ȞĮ ȝİȓȞİȚ ıIJȠ IJȑȜȠȢ IJȠ țĮIJİȟȠȤȒȞ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ. ȅ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ. Ǿ ȑȞȦıȘ IJȦȞ ʌȐȞIJȦȞ. ȆȠȚĮ İȓȞĮȚ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, Ș ʌȡȩIJĮıȘ IJȠȣ ȃȓțȠȣ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ; ȈȓȖȠȣȡĮ, ʌȐȞIJĮ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȚțȒ țĮȚ įȣȞĮȝȚțȒ țĮșȫȢ, «ȉȑȜȠȢ șĮ ȒșİȜĮ ȝİIJȡȚȠijȡȩȞȦȢ ȞĮ țȐȞȦ ȝȚĮ ȣʌȩįİȚȟȘ ıIJȠȣȢ ȩʌȠȚȠȣȢ șİȠȜȩȖȠȣȢ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠıȐȖȠȣȞ IJȑIJȠȚĮ Ȓ 54

ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ı. 15. ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ. 56 ȋȡȚıIJȩijȠȡȠȣ ǹȡȕĮȞȓIJȘ, ‫ ݠ‬șȡȘıțİȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ, ı. 56. ǼʌȓıȘȢ, ȕȜ. ʌ. ǹȜİȟȐȞįȡȠȣ ȈȝȑȝĮȞ, Ǿ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ IJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ, ʌİȡȚȠįȚțȩ ȈȪȞĮȟȘ, IJİȪȤȠȢ 36Ƞ, ȅțIJȫȕȡȚȠȢ-ǻİțȑȝȕȡȚȠȢ 1990, ǹșȒȞĮ, ıı. 50-51: «ȆȠȜȪ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ ı’ ĮȣIJȒ IJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ, ıIJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ ȖȓȞĮȝİ ȝȑIJȠȤȠȚ İįȫ țĮȚ IJȫȡĮ ȩȜȠȚ –ȐȞįȡİȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮįȚȐțȡȚIJĮ– İȓȝĮıIJİ “ȕĮıȚȜİȓȢ țĮȚ ȚİȡİȓȢ”, ȖȚĮIJȓ ĮȣIJȒ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ijȪıȘȢ țĮȚ țȜȓıȘȢ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠțĮIJȑıIJȘıİ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ıİ ȝĮȢ». 57 ȆȑIJȡȠȣ ǺĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘ, «ȅȚ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȑȢ IJȠȣ įȚĮȜȩȖȠȣ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», ıIJȠȞ IJȩȝȠ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩȢ ǻȚȐȜȠȖȠȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2005, ı. 196. 55

Deaconesses in the Theology of Nikos Matsoukas

419

ʌĮȡȩȝȠȚĮ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ. ȉȓʌȠIJĮ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȚȠ ȚıȤȣȡȩ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȝĮțȡĮȓȦȞȘ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌȡȐȟȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ǼʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ, ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȦȢ ıȫȝĮ țĮȚ ʌȜȒȡȦȝĮ ĮȜȘșİȓĮȢ, İijȩıȠȞ İȓȞĮȚ ʌİʌİȚıȝȑȞȘ ȩIJȚ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ș ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ĮȣIJȒ ȞĮ ȝİȓȞİȚ ĮȞĮȜȜȠȓȦIJȘ, ȑȤİȚ ȩȜȘ IJȘȞ ȐȞİıȘ ȞĮ IJȘȞ țȡĮIJȒıİȚ, țĮȚ įȚȩȜȠȣ įİȞ ȤȡİȚȐȗİIJĮȚ IJȑIJȠȚȠȣ İȓįȠȣȢ ʌĮȡĮșİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ, ʌȠȣ İȟȐʌĮȞIJȠȢ ȝİȚȫȞȠȣȞ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȦȢ ȝȑȜȠȢ IJȠȣ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ Ȓ țĮȜȪIJİȡĮ ȜȣȝĮȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ IJȘ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȒ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ĮȣIJȠȪ IJȠȣ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȠȪ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ. ȀĮȚ IJȠȪIJȠ ıȣȝȕĮȓȞİȚ, İʌİȚįȒ ı’ ĮȣIJȒ IJȘ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȒ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ IJĮ ȝȑȜȘ įȚĮijȑȡȠȣȞ ȝȩȞȠ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȚįȚĮȚIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ IJȘ įİțIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ, ȩȝȦȢ İȞ ȠȣįİȞȓ țĮIJ’ ȠȣįȑȞĮ IJȡȩʌȠ ȠȣįĮȝȫȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȚıȠIJȚȝȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ. DZȜȜȦıIJİ Ș İȟĮȓȡİıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ įȚȩȜȠȣ įİȞ ȝİȓȦıİ ȝȒIJİ ȝİȚȫȞİȚ IJȘ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ».58 Ȉİ IJȠȪIJȘ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ, «ȍıIJȩıȠ țĮȞİȓȢ įİȞ İʌȚIJȡȑʌİIJĮȚ ȞĮ İijȘıȣȤȐȗİȚ ȝʌȡȠıIJȐ ıİ IJȩıȠ ȡĮȖįĮȓİȢ țĮȚ İțȡȘțIJȚțȑȢ ĮȜȜĮȖȑȢ IJȦȞ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȫȞ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȒ ȝȠȣ ȖȞȫȝȘ, Ș ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ĮȡȖȐ Ș ȖȡȒȖȠȡĮ șĮ ȣȚȠșİIJȒıİȚ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ȉȚ ȝȑȜȜİȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȐȟİȚ Ș ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮ; ǼțİȓȞȠ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ țȐȞİȚ Ș ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȠİIJȠȚȝȐȗİIJĮȚ ȩȤȚ ȝİ IJȑIJȠȚĮ ıĮșȡȐ țĮȚ İʌȚȗȒȝȚĮ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ ĮȜȜȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȐȡIJȚĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ ȠȡȖȐȞȦıȘ IJȘȢ ȗȦȒȢ IJȘȢ, ȩʌȠȣ ȐȞįȡİȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȝİ ʌȜȒȡȘ ȚıȠIJȚȝȓĮ țĮȚ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ ȞĮ İȡȖȐȗȠȞIJĮȚ ĮȞĮįİȚțȞȪȠȞIJĮȢ ʌȜȠȪıȚȠȣȢ țĮȡʌȠȪȢ ȤĮȡȚıȝĮIJȚțȒȢ ȗȦȒȢ țĮȚ țĮȜȜȚİȡȖȫȞIJĮȢ IJȘȞ ʌĮȚįİȓĮ țĮȚ IJȠȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩ».59 ǼʌİȚįȒ IJȠ ȝȑȜȜȠȞ țĮIJĮțIJȐIJĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȝİ ĮȖȫȞİȢ țĮȚ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘ įȡĮȝĮIJȚțȒ ʌȠȡİȓĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ ǿıIJȠȡȓĮ.

58 59

ȃȓțȠȣ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ, Ǿ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ı. 127. ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ.

CHAPTER TWENTY NINE PROBLEMS IN THE REJUVENATION OF THE MINISTRY OF DEACONESSES DIMITRA A. KOUKOURA

Abstract: This paper will look at the Pan-Orthodox reception and lack of initiatives in terms of the order of deaconesses and its role. Why did the order fall into disuse? It will discuss the contemporary role of the laity in the life of the Church and the role of women, the return of the order of deaconesses and the problems regarding its restoration, the royal priesthood and re-evangelization.

1. ȆĮȞȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ĮʌȠįȠȤȒ. ǹʌȠȣıȓĮ ʌȡȦIJȠȕȠȣȜȚȫȞ ȈIJȠ ǻȚȠȡșȩįȠȟȠ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȈȣȞȑįȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ȇȩįȠȣ IJȠ ȑIJȠȢ 1988,1 ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒ IJȠȣ ȠʌȠȓȠȣ țȚȞİȓIJĮȚ țĮȚ Ș ʌĮȡȠȪıĮ ʌȡȦIJȠȕȠȣȜȓĮ, Ș ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ țĮIJĮȖȡȐijȘțİ ıIJĮ ʌȠȡȓıȝĮIJĮ ȦȢ ȝȓĮ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ, IJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ ĮʌȠįȑȤIJȘțĮȞ țĮȚ İȞșȐȡȡȣȞĮȞ ȤȦȡȓȢ ĮȞIJȚȡȡȒıİȚȢ ȠȚ ʌĮȡȚıIJȐȝİȞȠȚ İțʌȡȩıȦʌȠȚ IJȦȞ ȠȡșȠįȩȟȦȞ İțțȜȘıȚȫȞ. Ǿ ʌȡȦIJȠʌȠȡȚĮțȒ ȑȡİȣȞĮ2 IJȠȣ IJȚȝȫȝİȞȠȣ ʌȠȜȚȠȪ țĮșȘȖȘIJȒ ǼȣȐȖȖİȜȠȣ ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, ȕĮıȚıȝȑȞȘ ıIJȚȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ IJȦȞ ʌȘȖȫȞ, ĮʌȠįİȚțȞȪİȚ ȩIJȚ țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ 4Ƞ ĮȚ. țĮȚ İȟȒȢ ȠȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȫȞ ȤȡȩȞȦȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȪȞIJĮȚ ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ ȠȚ įȚȐțȠȞȠȚ. ȂȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝİ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞİȢ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑıİȚȢ ȘȜȚțȓĮȢ țĮȚ İȞȐȡİIJȠȣ ȕȓȠȣ ʌȡȠȤİȚȡȚȗȩIJĮȞ ıIJȠȞ ȕĮșȝȩ IJȠȣ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ ȝİ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ IJȣʌȚțȩ ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ Ƞ įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ İȞIJȩȢ IJȠȣ ȚİȡȠȪ. ȈIJȚȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȑȢ țĮȚ țĮȞȠȞȚțȑȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ Ș ȑȞIJĮȟȒ IJȘȢ ıIJȘ ȤȠȡİȓĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ 1

‫ ݠ‬șȑıȚȢ IJ߱Ȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțާȢ ȑȞ IJ߲ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟȦ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȓ IJȐ ʌİȡȓ IJ߱Ȣ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ (ȇȩįȠȢ, 30 ȅțIJȦȕȡȓȠȣ – 7 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1988), ǼʌȚȝȑȜİȚĮ İțįȩıİȦȢ, ǹȡȤȚȝ. īİȞȞĮįȓȠȣ ȁȣȝȠȪȡȘ, ȉȑȡIJȚȠȢ, ȀĮIJİȡȓȞȘ 1994. 2 ǼȣĮȖȖȑȜȠȣ ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ, ǾȡȦȓįİȢ IJȘȢ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ ǹȖȐʌȘȢ: ǹȚ ǻȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȚ įȚĮ IJȦȞ ĮȚȫȞȦȞ, ǹșȒȞĮ,1949, țĮȚ Ǿ ȋİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ǻȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ įȚįĮțIJȠȡȚțȒ įȚĮIJȡȚȕȒ, 1954, ȆİȡȚııȩIJİȡĮ ıIJȠ: www.amen.gr/article20588#sthash.0YfdtSIa.dpuf (ʌȡȠıʌȑȜĮıȘ ǿĮȞ 2015).

422

Chapter Twenty Nine

IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȠȞȠȝȐȗİIJĮȚ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ Ȓ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ. Ǿ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ İȓȤİ İʌȚțȠȣȡȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ ıIJȘȞ IJȑȜİıȘ IJȠȣ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJȠȣ ȕĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ ȝİ IJȘ ȤȡȓıȘ IJȠȣ İȜĮȓȠȣ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȤȡȓıȝĮIJȠȢ ıIJȠ ıȫȝĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȝİIJȑįȚįİ țĮIJ’ ȠȓțȠȞ IJȘ șİȓĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ıIJȚȢ ĮıșİȞİȓȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ țĮȚ ıIJȠ IJȑȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȗȦȒȢ IJȠȣȢ IJȚȢ ıĮȕȐȞȦȞİ. ǼʌȓıȘȢ ȝİ İȞIJȠȜȒ IJȠȣ İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ ĮȞİȜȐȝȕĮȞİ țĮIJȘȤȘIJȚțȩ, įȚįĮțIJȚțȩ țĮȚ ijȚȜĮȞșȡȦʌȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ ȝİ ĮʌȠįȑțIJİȢ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ. ȈIJȘȞ IJȑȜİıȘ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ İȣȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮȢ ȠȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ʌĮȡȑȝİȞĮȞ İȞIJȩȢ IJȠȣ ȚİȡȠȪ, ʌȜȘıȓȠȞ IJȠȣ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ. ȍıIJȩıȠ, Įʌȩ IJȠ ȑIJȠȢ 1988 ʌȠȣ ȑȖȚȞİ ʌĮȞȠȡșȠįȩȟȦȢ ĮʌȠįİțIJȒ ĮȣIJȒ Ș įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ, ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȘȢ ȝȑȖȚıIJȘȢ ĮȟȚȠʌȠȓȘıȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȦȞ ȤĮȡȚıȝȐIJȦȞ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȝȑȤȡȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ įİȞ İțįȘȜȫșȘțĮȞ ĮȞȐȜȠȖİȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȑȢ ʌȡȦIJȠȕȠȣȜȓİȢ. ȉȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ĮȣIJȩ ȠįȘȖİȓ ıIJȘȞ İȪȜȠȖȘ ĮʌȠȡȓĮ: ǼȓȞĮȚ ȩȞIJȦȢ İʌȚIJĮțIJȚțȒ Ș ĮȞȐȖțȘ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘ ĮȣIJȠȪ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ ȝİ IJȘ ȝȠȡijȒ ʌȠȣ ȐțȝĮıİ ıIJȠ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞ; ǻȚȩIJȚ ȩ,IJȚ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȞĮȖțĮȓȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ İȓIJİ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİȓIJĮȚ İȓIJİ ĮȞĮȕȚȫȞİȚ ĮȣIJȠȪıȚȠ, İȐȞ ȑȤİȚ ȣʌȠʌȑıİȚ ıİ ĮįȡȐȞİȚĮ İȓIJİ ĮȞĮʌȡȠıĮȡȝȩȗİIJĮȚ țĮIJȐ IJȚȢ ĮʌĮȚIJȒıİȚȢ IJȘȢ țȐșİ İʌȠȤȒȢ.3

2. Ǿ IJȐȟȘ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȡȩȜȠȚ IJȠȣȢ ȉȠȞ 4Ƞ ĮȚȫȞĮ, ȩIJĮȞ ȠȚ ıȣıIJȘȝĮIJȚțȑȢ įȚȫȟİȚȢ țĮIJȐ IJȦȞ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȫȞ țĮIJȑʌĮȣıĮȞ țĮȚ Ș İțțȜȘıȓĮ İʌȚįȩșȘțİ İȜİȪșİȡĮ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ İȣĮȖȖİȜȚıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ İșȞȫȞ, Įʌȩ IJȚȢ IJȐȟİȚȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȤȘȡȫȞ, ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȞ țĮȚ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ, ʌȠȣ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ ȒįȘ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȠȪȢ ȤȡȩȞȠȣȢ, įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȠʌȠȚȒșȘțİ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ Ș IJȐȟȘ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ. ȅȚ ȡȩȜȠȚ IJȠȣȢ ıȤİIJȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ țĮIJȒȤȘıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, IJȘȞ İȓıȠįȩ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ įȚĮ IJȠȣ ȕĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ, IJȘ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ IJȠȣȢ ȠȚțȠįȠȝȒ. ǹȣIJȐ IJĮ įȚĮțȠȞȒȝĮIJĮ İʌȚIJİȜȠȪȞIJĮȚ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ, İȞȫ ȠȚ ȓįȚİȢ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ʌȠȜȚIJİȓĮ IJȠȣȢ țĮȚ ʌȚșĮȞȫȢ IJȘȞ İȟȦIJİȡȚțȒ İȝijȐȞȚıȒ IJȠȣȢ įİȞ įȚĮijȑȡȠȣȞ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ȝȠȞĮȤȑȢ. īȚ ĮȣIJȩȞ IJȠȞ ȜȩȖȠ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ijȠȡȑȢ ȝȓĮ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ IJĮȣIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝİ ȝȓĮ ȝȠȞĮȤȒ Ȓ țĮȚ ĮȞIJȚıIJȡȩijȦȢ. ȈIJȠȣȢ ȞİȫIJİȡȠȣȢ ȤȡȩȞȠȣȢ ıʌȐȞȚĮ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ. ǼȟĮȓȡİıȘ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪȞ İțİȓȞİȢ ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȒșȘțĮȞ ıIJȚȢ ĮȡȤȑȢ IJȠȣ 20Ƞȣ ĮȚ. ıIJȘ ȞȒıȠ ǹȓȖȚȞĮ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ DZȖȚȠ ȃİțIJȐȡȚȠ țĮȚ ȝȓĮ ȘȜȚțȚȦȝȑȞȘ ȝȠȞĮȤȒ ıIJȠ IJȑȜȠȢ IJȠȣ ȚįȓȠȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ ıIJȘ ȂȘIJȡȩʌȠȜȘ ǻȘȝȘIJȡȚȐįȠȢ.4 3

Alkiviadis C. Calivas, Church, Clergy, Laity, and the Spiritual Life (Holy Cross Orthodox Press: Brookline, MA 2013), 29, 30. 4 ȆȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ ȝȓĮ ȘȜȚțȚȦȝȑȞȘ ȝȠȞĮȤȒ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ȝİIJȑįȚįİ IJĮ ʌȡȠȘȖȚĮıȝȑȞĮ ȐȖȚĮ ıIJȚȢ ȐȜȜİȢ ȝȠȞĮȤȑȢ IJȘȢ ĮįİȜijȩIJȘIJȐȢ IJȘȢ ǻİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ıĮijȑȢ ĮȞ ȩȞIJȦȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȒșȘțİ țĮIJȐ IJȠ IJȣʌȚțȩ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ Ȓ ĮʌȜȫȢ ȑȜĮȕİ İȚįȚțȒ İȣȤȒ ȖȚĮ

Problems in the Rejuvenation of the Ministry of Deaconesses

423

3. īȚĮIJȓ ĮIJȩȞȘıİ Ƞ șİıȝȩȢ; ȅȚ įȚĮʌȚıIJȫıİȚȢ ĮȣIJȑȢ ȖİȞȞȠȪȞ IJȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ: Ƞ șİıȝȩȢ ĮIJȩȞȘıİ, ȖȚĮIJȓ įİȞ IJȠȞ ȤȡİȚĮȗȩIJĮȞ ʌȜȑȠȞ Ș İțțȜȘıȓĮ Ȓ ȖȚĮIJȓ ȠȚ ȡȩȜȠȚ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ĮʌȠȡȡȠijȒșȘțĮȞ Įʌȩ țȐʌȠȚȠȞ ȐȜȜȠȞ șİıȝȩ; ȂȓĮ ʌȡȫIJȘ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ ıIJȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȕĮșȝȚĮȓĮ İȟĮıșȑȞȘıȒ IJȠȣ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ Ș țĮșȚȑȡȦıȘ IJȠȣ ȞȘʌȚȠȕĮʌIJȚıȝȠȪ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ĮȣIJȠȝȐIJȦȢ ĮțȪȡȦıİ IJȘȞ ĮȞȐȖțȘ ȞĮ İʌȚțȠȣȡȠȪȞ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıIJȘȞ IJȑȜİıȘ IJȠȣ ȕĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ IJȦȞ İȞȘȜȓțȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȖȚĮ ĮȣIJȠȞȩȘIJȠȣȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ, țĮșȫȢ ıȤȠȜȚȐȗİȚ Ƞ ȂĮIJșĮȓȠȢ ǺȜȐıIJĮȡȚȢ: «Įੂ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȚ IJĮ૙Ȣ ȕĮʌIJȚȗȠȝȑȞĮȚȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ਫ਼ʌȘȡȑIJȠȣȞ, ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ ੑijșĮȜȝ૵Ȟ Ƞ੝ șİȝȚIJȩȞ ੖Ȟ, ȖȣȝȞȠȣȝȑȞĮȢ IJĮȪIJĮȢ ੒ȡ઼ıșĮȚ, ਫ਼ʌİȡȐțȝȠȣȢ ਵįȘ ȕĮʌIJȚȗȠȝȑȞĮȢ».5 ǺİȕĮȓȦȢ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ İʌȠȤȒ, țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ 5Ƞ ĮȚȫȞĮ țĮȚ İȟȒȢ, İȟĮțȠȜȠȣșİȓ ȞĮ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ Ș ĮȞȐȖțȘ IJȘȢ ȝİIJĮijȠȡȐȢ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ĮıșİȞİȓȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȠȣȢ ȐȕĮIJȠȣȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȦȞȓIJİȢ. ȅȚ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȑȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȡȫIJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ ȤȚȜȚİIJȓĮ ʌȡȠıijȑȡȠȣȞ ıʌȠȡĮįȚțȑȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıİ įȚȐijȠȡİȢ IJȠʌȚțȑȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ țĮȚ ıİ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȑȢ İʌȠȤȑȢ.6 ĭĮȓȞİIJĮȚ, ȦıIJȩıȠ, ȩIJȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȐȡȠįȠ IJȦȞ ĮȚȫȞȦȞ IJĮ įȚĮțȠȞȒȝĮIJĮ ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ IJȐȟİȦȞ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, IJȦȞ ȤȘȡȫȞ, IJȦȞ ʌĮȡșȑȞȦȞ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȘȝȑȞȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ, ĮʌȠȡȡȠijȒșȘțĮȞ İʌȓ IJȠ ʌȜİȓıIJȠȞ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȦȞ ȝȠȞĮȗȠȣıȫȞ.

4. ȅ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȠȣ ȜĮȧțȠȪ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȠȣ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮȚ Ș șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȈIJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ ȝĮȢ IJȠ įȚįĮțIJȚțȩ, țĮIJȘȤȘIJȚțȩ țĮȚ ijȚȜĮȞșȡȦʌȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ IJȠȣ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞIJȠȢ ıȣȤȞȐ İʌȚIJİȜİȓIJĮȚ Įʌȩ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȦȢ ȝȑȜȘ IJȠȣ ȜĮȧțȠȪ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȠȣ IJȦȞ İȞȠȡȚȫȞ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ȚİȡȫȞ ȝȘIJȡȠʌȩȜİȦȞ ıȣȞİʌȚțȠȣȡȠȪȞ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȦȞ țȜȘȡȚțȫȞ. ȈIJĮ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȐ IJȘȢ ȇȩįȠȣ ĮȣIJȩȢ Ƞ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮIJĮȖȡȐijİIJĮȚ ȦȢ ĮįȚĮȝijȚıȕȒIJȘIJȠȢ, İʌĮȚȞİIJȩȢ, ĮȣȟĮȞȩȝİȞȠȢ țĮȚ įȚİȣȡȣȞȩȝİȞȠȢ, ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ ıİ İȣșȑȦȢ ĮȞȐȜȠȖȘ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJȠȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ ʌİȡȓȖȣȡȠ, ȝȑıĮ ıIJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ IJȘ ȝİIJȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ. ȈIJĮ ĮȡȤİȓĮ IJȘȢ ȠȚțİȓĮȢ ȂȘIJȡȠʌȩȜİȦȢ įİȞ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ įȚĮțȠȞȓııȘȢ. 5 ȂĮIJșĮȓȠȣ ǺȜĮıIJȐȡİȦȢ, ȈȪȞIJĮȖȝĮ țĮIJ‫ ޟ‬ıIJȠȚȤİ߿ȠȞ IJࠛȞ ‫݋‬ȝʌİȡȚİȚȜȘȝȝȑȞȦȞ ܼʌĮıࠛȞ ‫ބ‬ʌȠșȑıİȦȞ IJȠ߿Ȣ ‫ݨ‬İȡȠ߿Ȣ țĮ‫ ޥ‬șİȓȠȚȢ țĮȞȩıȚȞ, ī’ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙ȠȞ, țȑij. ੅Į’, Migne Ǽ.ǿǿ. 144, 1173 țĮȚ İȟȒȢ. 6 ǺȜȑʌİ ıȣȞȠʌIJȚțȒ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȚȫȞ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıIJȘ ǻȪıȘ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒ țĮȚ IJȚȢ įȚĮIJȐȟİȚȢ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ıIJȠ ȐȡșȡȠ IJȠȣ ǼȣĮȖȖȑȜȠȣ ĬİȠįȫȡȠȣ «੘ șİıȝઁȢ IJ૵Ȟ ǻȚĮțȠȞȚıı૵Ȟ ਥȞ IJ੽ ੗ȡșȠįȩȟȦ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ» http://www.imaik.gr/?p=6665

424

Chapter Twenty Nine

įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȠʌȠȚİȓIJĮȚ Ș țȐșİ IJȠʌȚțȒ İțțȜȘıȓĮ. ȈIJĮ ʌȠȡȓıȝĮIJĮ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ȜİʌIJȠȝİȡȒȢ țĮIJȐȜȠȖȠȢ ʌĮȜĮȚȩIJİȡȦȞ țĮȚ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȘȝȐIJȦȞ, ȩʌȠȣ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȒįȘ ȑȤȠȣȞ ĮįȚĮȝijȚıȕȒIJȘIJİȢ İʌȚįȩıİȚȢ, IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȞ țĮȚ ȞĮ İʌĮȣȟȘșȠȪȞ. ǵȝȦȢ İȓȞĮȚ ijĮȞİȡȩ ȩIJȚ ĮȣIJȩ įİȞ İijĮȡȝȩȗİIJĮȚ ĮȣIJȠȝȐIJȦȢ ıİ ȩȜİȢ IJȚȢ IJȠʌȚțȑȢ ȠȡșȩįȠȟİȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ, įȚȩIJȚ ʌĮȖȚȦȝȑȞİȢ ĮȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȠțĮIJĮȜȒȥİȚȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘ șȑıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠȞ įȘȝȩıȚȠ ȤȫȡȠ įİȞ ȣʌȠȤȦȡȠȪȞ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ ȝİ İȣțȠȜȓĮ. ǼțIJȩȢ İȐȞ İȟȦIJİȡȚțȑȢ ıȣȞșȒțİȢ İʌȚIJĮȤȪȞȠȣȞ İȟ ĮȞȐȖțȘȢ ĮȜȜĮȖȑȢ ıİ ȝİIJĮȕȜȘIJȐ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıIJȚțȐ ıIJȠȚȤİȓĮ IJȠȣ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞIJȠȢ, IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ ȩȤȚ ıʌȐȞȚĮ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȚıȤȪ ĮȞĮȜȜȠȓȦIJȘȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ.7 īȚĮ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ, ıIJȚȢ ıȣȗȘIJȒıİȚȢ IJȘȢ ȇȩįȠȣ ıIJĮ IJȑȜȘ IJȠȣ 1988, ȒIJĮȞ ȑȞIJȠȞȠ IJȠ ĮȓIJȘȝĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȇȠȣȝĮȞȓĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ʌȡȩıȕĮıȒ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮȞȫIJĮIJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ İțʌĮȓįİȣıȘ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ IJȩIJİ İʌȠʌIJİȣȩIJĮȞ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ įİȤȩIJĮȞ ȝȩȞȠȞ ȐȞįȡİȢ, İʌȓ IJȠ ʌȜİȓıIJȠȞ ȣʌȠȥȒijȚȠȣȢ țȜȘȡȚțȠȪȢ. ȂİIJȐ IJȘȞ țĮIJȐȡȡİȣıȘ IJȠȣ ȠȜȠțȜȘȡȦIJȚțȠȪ țĮșİıIJȫIJȠȢ IJȠ ȑIJȠȢ 1989 țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȑȞIJĮȟȘ ȝİ ȠȜȩșȣȝȘ ȕȠȪȜȘıȘ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȦȞ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ ıȤȠȜȫȞ ıIJȘ įȘȝȩıȚĮ İțʌĮȓįİȣıȘ, ĮȣIJȠȝȐIJȦȢ ȑȖȚȞĮȞ įİțIJȑȢ țĮȚ ijȠȚIJȒIJȡȚİȢ. Ǿ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȡȠȒȜșİ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȚıȤȪȠȞIJĮ ȞȩȝȠ ȖȚĮ IJĮ ǹǼǿ, ĮȜȜ’ «Ƞȣț İț șİȜȒȝĮIJȠȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ».8 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ ıȣȞȑįȡȚȠ, ȩʌȠȣ ĮȞĮțȚȞȒșȘțİ țĮȚ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ, IJȠ țȪȡȚȠ ȗȘIJȠȪȝİȞȠ, ȩʌȦȢ įİȓȤȞİȚ Ƞ IJȓIJȜȠȢ IJȠȣ, İȓȞĮȚ Ș ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡȘ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ıȣȝʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕĮȞȠȝȑȞȘȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ, ȝİ ıIJȩȤȠ ȞĮ įȠșȠȪȞ ĮʌĮȞIJȒıİȚȢ ıİ İȡȦIJȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ ȣʌȠȕȜȒșȘțĮȞ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ıȣȞȠȝȚȜȘIJȑȢ IJȦȞ ȠȡșȠįȩȟȦȞ, ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȠȣ įȚĮȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȠȪ įȚĮȜȩȖȠȣ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȚȢ įİțĮİIJȓİȢ IJȠȣ ’70 țĮȚ IJȠȣ ǯ80 IJȠȣ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞIJȠȢ ĮȚȫȞȠȢ ıIJȘȞ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȒ țȓȞȘıȘ įȑıʌȠȗİ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ9 țĮȚ Ș ĮȞĮȕȐșȝȚıȘ IJȦȞ ʌȠȚțȓȜȦȞ ȡȩȜȦȞ IJȠȣȢ, ȖȚĮ IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȠȚ țĮȜȠȪȞIJĮȞ ȞĮ įȫıȠȣȞ IJȚȢ ĮʌĮȞIJȒıİȚȢ 7

ǺȜȑʌİ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ǻȒȝȘIJȡĮȢ ǹ. ȀȠȪțȠȣȡĮ, Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ ȐȜȜĮ ȝİȜİIJȒȝĮIJĮ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȠȪ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚıȝȠȪ, ǼțįȩıİȚȢ ȀȠȡȞȘȜȓĮ ȈijĮțȚĮȞȐțȘ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2005. 8 ǹȟȚȠıȘȝİȓȦIJȠ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ ıIJȠȞ țĮIJĮıIJĮIJȚțȩ ȤȐȡIJȘ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ǹȣIJȠțİijȐȜȠȣ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǹȜȕĮȞȓĮȢ ʌȡȠȕȜȑʌȠȞIJĮȚ İȟ ȣʌĮȡȤȒȢ ȚıȩȡȡȠʌİȢ ʌȠıȠıIJȫıİȚȢ țȜȒȡȠȣ țĮȚ ȜĮȠȪ ıİ ȩȜĮ IJĮ ȝİȚțIJȐ ıȣȝȕȠȪȜȚĮ țĮȚ İȚįȚțȩIJİȡĮ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ȜĮȧțȩ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȠ ȚıȩȡȡȠʌȘ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ ĮȞįȡȫȞ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ǺȜ. ǹȞĮıIJĮıȓȠȣ ǹȡȤȚİʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ ȉȚȡȐȞȦȞ, ǻȣȡȡĮȤȓȠȣ țĮȚ ʌȐıȘȢ ǹȜȕĮȞȓĮȢ, Ǿ ĮȞĮıȪıIJĮıȘ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ǹȣIJȠțİijȐȜȠȣ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǹȜȕĮȞȓĮȢ, 1991-2012. (ȈȣȞȠʌIJȚțȒ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ). Ǻ’ ǼʌĮȣȟȘȝȑȞȘ DzțįȠıȘ, ȅȡșȩįȠȟȠȢ ǹȣIJȠțȑijĮȜȠȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȘȢ ǹȜȕĮȞȓĮȢ, ȉȓȡĮȞĮ 2013. 9 ǺȜ. ıȤİIJȚțȐ Metr. Prof. Dr. Gennadios Limouris, “Woman in Dialogue within the Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement in the 20th Century. A Historical Survey,” KANON XVI (2001) ıİȜ. 1-24.

Problems in the Rejuvenation of the Ministry of Deaconesses

425

IJȠȣȢ. ȀĮȚ ȩȤȚ ıʌȐȞȚĮ Ș ĮȞĮȕȐșȝȚıȘ ıȒȝĮȚȞİ ȚıȩȡȡȠʌȘ ĮȞĮțĮIJĮȞȠȝȒ IJȘȢ İȟȠȣıȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ ıIJȘ ȜȒȥȘ ĮʌȠijȐıİȦȞ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ İȞȠȡȓĮȢ țĮȚ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ. ǼȟȣʌĮțȠȪİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ ıİ ĮȣIJȒ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ Ș İȣșİȓĮ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ İȓȞĮȚ Ș țİȞȦIJȚțȒ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ ĮȞįȡȫȞ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İʌȓ IJĮ ȓȤȞȘ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, Ș ʌȠȚțȚȜȓĮ IJȦȞ ȤĮȡȚıȝȐIJȦȞ, Ș ȚıȠIJȚȝȓĮ ıIJȘ ıȦIJȘȡȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ. ǹʌİȡȚijȡȐıIJȦȢ, Ș İȟȠȣıȓĮ IJȘȢ ĮȖȐʌȘȢ țĮȚ ȠȣįĮȝȫȢ Ș ĮȖȐʌȘ IJȘȢ İȟȠȣıȓĮȢ. ȆĮȡȩȜĮ ĮȣIJȐ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮȢ țĮȚ ȅȡșȠʌȡĮȟȓĮȢ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ IJȓșİIJĮȚ țĮȚ «ıȘȝĮȓȞİIJĮȚ» ĮțȩȝȘ țĮȚ ıIJȚȢ ȜİʌIJȠȝȑȡİȚİȢ. īȚĮ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ ıȣȤȞȐ ĮȞIJȚțȡȓȗİȚ țĮȞİȓȢ ȝȑıĮ ı’ ȑȞĮȞ Țİȡȩ ȞĮȩ įİȟȚȐ țĮȚ ĮȡȚıIJİȡȐ IJĮ ĮȞĮȜȩȖȚĮ, ȩʌȠȣ İʌȓ IJȠ ʌȜİȓıIJȠȞ ȥȐȜȜȠȣȞ ȝȩȞȠȞ ȐȞįȡİȢ, ȝʌȡȠıIJȐ Įʌȩ IJȠȚȤȠȖȡĮijȓİȢ ȝİ ȝȠȡijȑȢ ĮȖȓȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ǵıȠȚ ĮıȤȠȜȠȪȞIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȠ șȑȝĮ ʌȠȣ İȟİIJȐȗȠȣȝİ ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ IJȠ İȟȒȢ ȝȒȞȣȝĮ: ȝȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮIJĮIJȐııİIJĮȚ ıIJȠȣȢ ȤȠȡȠȪȢ IJȦȞ ĮȖȓȦȞ ĮȜȜȐ ȩȤȚ ıIJȠȣȢ ȤȠȡȠȪȢ IJȦȞ ȚİȡȠȥĮȜIJȫȞ. ȉȠ ʌȡȫIJȠ ȠijİȓȜİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ İȟĮȖȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȤȐȡȘ IJȠȣ ǹȖȓȠȣ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ ʌȠȣ ĮįȚĮțȡȓIJȦȢ İʌȚįĮȥȚȜİȪİIJĮȚ ıİ ȐȞįȡİȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ. ȉȠ įİȪIJİȡȠ ıİ ʌĮȡȦȤȘȝȑȞİȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ ıȣȞșȒțİȢ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȣȢ ȡȩȜȠȣȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠıȑȜĮȕĮȞ țȪȡȠȢ ĮȞĮȜȜȠȓȦIJȘȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ. ȅʌȦıįȒʌȠIJİ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ ȝİȚțIJȑȢ ȤȠȡȦįȓİȢ, ȤȠȡȦįȓİȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝȠȞĮȤȫȞ Ȓ ȜĮȧțȫȞ. ǹțȩȝȘ ȝȚĮ țĮȜȜȓijȦȞȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İȟ ĮȞȐȖțȘȢ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ȞĮ ıIJȑțİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ĮȞĮȜȩȖȚȠ, ȖȚĮ ȞĮ IJİȜİıșİȓ Ș șİȓĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮ, ȩIJĮȞ įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȑıIJȦ țĮȚ ȑȞĮȢ țĮțȩijȦȞȠȢ ȥȐȜIJȘȢ. Ǽʌȓ IJȠ ʌȜİȓıIJȠȞ ȩȝȦȢ ıİ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ IJȠʌȚțȑȢ ʌĮȡĮįȩıİȚȢ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮțȩȝȘ ĮʌȠțȜİȓȠȞIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ȤȠȡȠȪȢ IJȦȞ ȚİȡȠȥĮȜIJȫȞ Ȓ ıİ ȐȜȜİȢ įİȚȜȐ-įİȚȜȐ ȖȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ įİțIJȑȢ ȝİ ȚıȤȞȑȢ ĮȞĮȜȠȖȓİȢ. ȅȚ İȚıȘȖȒıİȚȢ ʌȠȣ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐıIJȘțĮȞ ȖȚĮ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ ȑįȦıĮȞ IJȘȞ ĮijȠȡȝȒ ȖȚĮ ȝİIJĮȖİȞȑıIJİȡȘ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȑȡİȣȞĮ. ȀĮIJȐ IJȠȞ ȝĮțĮȡȚıIJȩ țĮșȘȖȘIJȒ ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮ, «Ș șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ įȚĮȜȑȖİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJĮ ʌȡȠȕȜȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠțȪʌIJȠȣȞ ıİ țȐșİ İʌȠȤȒ țĮȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıijȑȡİȚ IJĮ ıȣȝʌİȡȐıȝĮIJȐ IJȘȢ ıIJȘȞ ȣʌȘȡİıȓĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȖȚĮ ȞĮ IJĮ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚȒıİȚ, ȩʌȠIJİ IJĮ ȤȡİȚĮıIJİȓ. Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȖȞȦȡȓȗİȚ IJȠ ʌȩIJİ. ȂʌȠȡİȓ țĮȚ ʌȠIJȑ».10 ȅȚ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ʌĮȡĮȖțȦȞȚıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ʌȠȣ ĮȞĮijȑȡșȘțĮȞ ȝĮȗȓ ȝİ IJĮ țĮIJȐȜȠȚʌĮ IJȠȣ ȁİȣȚIJȚțȠȪ ıIJȚȢ İȣȤȑȢ IJȦȞ ȜİȤȫȞȦȞ țĮȚ ıIJȘ șİȫȡȘıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȦȞ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚȫȞ ȠįȒȖȘıĮȞ ȩȜȠȣȢ IJȠȣȢ ıȣȞȑįȡȠȣȢ ıIJȘ ȇȩįȠ ıİ ȝȓĮ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ ȠȝȩijȦȞȘ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȓĮ: «DzȞİțĮ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȓȞȘȢ ĮįȣȞĮȝȓĮȢ țĮȚ ĮȝĮȡIJȓĮȢ ĮȚ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțĮȓ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJİȢ įİȞ ȘįȣȞȒșȘıĮȞ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ țĮȚ ʌĮȞIJĮȤȠȪ ȞĮ İȟȠȣįİIJİȡȫıȠȣȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜİıȝĮIJȚțȫȢ ĮȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ, ȒșȘ țĮȚ ȑșȚȝĮ, ȚıIJȠȡȚțȐȢ İȟİȜȓȟİȚȢ țĮȚ 10

ȀȠȪțȠȣȡĮ, Ǿ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ…ıİȜ 118, ȣʌȠı. 23-24.

426

Chapter Twenty Nine

țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȐȢ ıȣȞșȒțĮȢ, IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ ĮʌȑȕȘıĮȞ İȞ IJȘ ʌȡȐȟİȚ įȚȐțȡȚıȚȢ İȚȢ ȕȐȡȠȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. Ǿ ĮȞșȡȦʌȓȞȘ ĮȝĮȡIJȓĮ ȦįȒȖȘıİȞ ȦıIJȩıȠ İȚȢ İȞİȡȖİȓĮȢ, ĮȚ ȠʌȠȓĮȚ ȠȣįȩȜȦȢ ĮȞIJȚțĮIJȠʌIJȡȓȗȠȣȞ IJȘȞ ĮȜȘșȒ ijȪıȚȞ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ».11

5. Ǿ İʌĮȞĮijȠȡȐ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮįȡȐȞİȚĮ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ǼțIJȩȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ʌȠȚțȓȜȠȣȢ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȣıȤȚįİȓȢ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȣȢ ȡȩȜȠȣȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȦȞ İȞȠȡȚȫȞ țĮȚ İȣȡȪIJİȡĮ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, İȟȓıȠȣ ȣʌȠȖȡĮȝȝȓıșȘțİ Ƞ İȟİȚįȚțİȣȝȑȞȠȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ıȣȗȪȖȦȞ IJȦȞ ȚİȡȑȦȞ țĮȚ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ ıIJȠ ijȚȜĮȞșȡȦʌȚțȩ țĮȚ țĮIJȘȤȘIJȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ IJȘȢ İȞȠȡȓĮȢ, țĮșȫȢ İʌȓıȘȢ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ȝİȜȫȞ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȦȞ ȝȠȞĮıIJȚțȫȞ ĮįİȜijȠIJȒIJȦȞ țȣȡȓȦȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ țĮȜȜȚȑȡȖİȚĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ǵȜȦȢ ȚįȚĮȚIJȑȡȦȢ, ȩʌȦȢ ȒįȘ ȑȤİȚ ĮȞĮijİȡșİȓ, IJȠȞȓıșȘțİ Ƞ șİıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȑȞșİȡȝȘ ʌȡȠIJȡȠʌȒ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȒ IJȠȣ. ȆȡȠijĮȞȫȢ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ İʌĮȞĮijȠȡȐ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮįȡȐȞİȚĮ. Ǽįȫ IJȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ İȓȞĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȠȜȚțȒ Ȓ IJȘ ȝİȡȚțȒ ĮįȡȐȞİȚĮ; ǻȚȩIJȚ, ĮȞ ĮʌĮȡȚșȝȒıİȚ țĮȞİȓȢ IJȚȢ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJİȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ IJȠȣ 4Ƞȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ, șĮ įȚĮʌȚıIJȫıİȚ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡİȢ IJȦ ȩȞIJȚ İʌȚIJİȜȠȪȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ IJȘȡȠȣȝȑȞȦȞ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ IJȦȞ ĮȞĮȜȠȖȚȫȞ. ȆȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȘȢ țĮIJȒȤȘıȘȢ, IJȘȢ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ, IJȘȢ ijȚȜĮȞșȡȦʌȓĮȢ, IJȘȢ İȣȡȪIJİȡȘȢ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒȢ ıIJȚȢ İțįȘȜȫıİȚȢ IJȘȢ IJȠʌȚțȒȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮIJȐ IJȚȢ ĮȞȐȖțİȢ, IJȚȢ ȝİșȩįȠȣȢ țĮȚ IJĮ įȚĮșȑıȚȝĮ ȝȑıĮ IJȘȢ İʌȠȤȒȢ. Ǿ ʌȡȐȟȘ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȝȑȤȡȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ ȑįİȚȟİ ȩIJȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȠȣ ĮȞĮIJȓșİIJĮȚ ıİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, ȜĮȧțȐ ȝȑȜȘ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, įȓįİIJĮȚ ʌȡȠijȠȡȚțȒ İȣȜȠȖȓĮ Ȓ ȖȡĮʌIJȩȢ įȚȠȡȚıȝȩȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȠȚțİȓȠ ǼʌȓıțȠʌȠ. ǻİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ. ǹȣIJȩ ȓıȦȢ İȟȘȖİȓ țĮȚ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ʌȠȣ Ș İțțȜȘıȓĮ ıIJȠȣȢ ȞİȫIJİȡȠȣȢ ȤȡȩȞȠȣȢ İȟȑȜĮȕİ IJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ. ȉȘȞ ıȣȞȑįİıİ, įȘȜĮįȒ, ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȠ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȠ Țİȡȩ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ IJȑȜİıȘ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ, ȝİ IJȘ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘȞ IJȑȜİıȘ IJȦȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȦȞ IJȠȣ ȕĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȚ IJȘ ȝİIJȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ. Ǿ įȚĮʌȓıIJȦıȘ ĮȣIJȒ ȠįȘȖİȓ ıIJȠ ıȣȝʌȑȡĮıȝĮ ʌȦȢ ȝȓĮ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ șĮ ıȒȝĮȚȞİ IJȘȞ ĮȞȐȖțȘ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠ įİȪIJİȡȠ ıțȑȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ʌĮȜĮȚȫȞ țĮșȘțȩȞIJȦȞ IJȠȣȢ, IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ ȩȝȦȢ ıIJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ ȝĮȢ ȑȤȠȣȞ İțʌȑıİȚ, ȜȩȖȦ IJȠȣ ȞȘʌȚȠȕĮʌIJȚıȝȠȪ12 țĮȚ IJȘȢ İȟȩįȠȣ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȠȓțȠ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘ įȘȝȩıȚĮ ıijĮȓȡĮ ȗȦȒȢ. ǹʌȠȝȑȞİȚ ȓıȦȢ Ș 11

ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ıİȜ. 35. ǼțIJȩȢ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ IJȦȞ İȞȘȜȓțȦȞ ʌȡȠıȘȜȪIJȦȞ ȩʌȠȣ IJȠȞ ȡȩȜȠ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȢ ĮȞĮȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ʌȚșĮȞȩȞ Ș ĮȞȐįȠȤȠȢ.

12

Problems in the Rejuvenation of the Ministry of Deaconesses

427

ȝİIJȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ ıIJȚȢ ʌȠȜȣʌȜȘșİȓȢ İȣȤĮȡȚıIJȚĮțȑȢ ıȣȞȐȟİȚȢ Įʌȩ ȑȞĮȞ ȝȩȞȠȞ ȚİȡȑĮ, ȤȦȡȓȢ IJȘ ıȣȝʌĮȡȐıIJĮıȘ İȞȩȢ įȣıİȪȡİIJȠȣ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ijȠȡȑȢ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ.13 Ȃİ ĮȣIJȩȞ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ Ș ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ ȝİIJĮIJȓșİIJĮȚ ıİ ȝȓĮ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȝİ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ țĮȚ țĮșȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠȣȢ ȡȩȜȠȣȢ, ĮȞĮȖțĮȓȠȣȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮȚ ĮʌȠįİțIJȠȪȢ Įʌȩ IJĮ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȐ ʌȜȘȡȫȝĮIJĮ, ıIJȚȢ İȞȠȡȓİȢ ʌȠȣ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȠʌȠȚȠȪȞIJĮȚ ıIJȚȢ įȣIJȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓİȢ. ȍıIJȩıȠ ıIJȠ ıȘȝİȓȠ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȡȠȕȐȜȜİȚ Ș ĮȞȐȖțȘ ȞĮ İʌĮȞĮʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȚıIJȠȪȞ IJĮ įȚĮțȠȞȒȝĮIJĮ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ıȣȖȤȡȩȞȦȞ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ, ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓȠȚ ĮȞĮįİȚțȞȪȠȞIJĮȚ ȝİ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ. ǼțİȓȞȠ ʌȠȣ įȚĮʌȚıIJȫȞİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ ȑȡİȣȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȓĮ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡȘ țĮșȓȗȘıȘ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ. ȉȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ĮįȡĮȞȠʌȠȚȒșȘțİ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ ȣʌȠȕĮșȝȓıIJȘțİ.14 Ǽʌȓ IJȠ ʌȜİȓıIJȠȞ İțȜĮȝȕȐȞİIJĮȚ ȦȢ ȑȞĮ İijĮȜIJȒȡȚȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ İʌȩȝİȞȘ ȕĮșȝȓįĮ IJȠȣ ʌȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȠȣ țĮȚ İȞįİȤȠȝȑȞȦȢ IJȠȣ İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ, ȤȦȡȓȢ ȞĮ ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ĮʌĮȡĮȚIJȒIJȦȢ IJȘȞ ȚįȡȣȝĮIJȚțȒ IJȠȣ İȞĮıȤȩȜȘıȘ15 ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȒ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ IJȘȢ İȞȠȡȓĮȢ. ȅ įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȩȢ ıIJȠ Țİȡȩ șȣıȚĮıIJȒȡȚȠ. ȅijİȓȜİȚ ȩȝȦȢ İȟ ȠȡȚıȝȠȪ ȞĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖİȓ ıIJȠ șȣıȚĮıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȦȞ ĮȞĮȖțȫȞ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ,16 ȩʌȠȣ ıȣȜȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȠȓ İȓȞĮȚ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȝȘ ȑȤȠȞIJİȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ȜĮȧțȠȓ ȐȞįȡİȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ. Ȃİ ĮȣIJȒȞ IJȘȞ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ, ĮȞ İʌĮȞĮțĮșȠȡȚıIJȠȪȞ ȠȚ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȠȓ ȡȩȜȠȚ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ ȝȚĮȢ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘȢ İȞȠȡȓĮȢ ȝİ ʌȠȜȜĮʌȜȑȢ ĮȞȐȖțİȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȠțȜȒıİȚȢ, ȓıȦȢ įȠșİȓ Ș İȣțĮȚȡȓĮ ȖȚĮ ȝȓĮ ıȠȕĮȡȒ İȟȑIJĮıȘ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘȢ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȝİ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ, ȫıIJİ ȞĮ ĮʌȠțIJȐ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ șİıȝȚțȩ țȪȡȠȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȠıIJĮıȓĮ Ș ʌȡȠıijȠȡȐ IJȠȣȢ.

6. ȆȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚıȝȠȓ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘ17 ǵıȠ țĮȚ ĮȞ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ İʌȚIJĮțIJȚțȒ ȝȓĮ ʌĮȡȩȝȠȚĮ ʌȡȦIJȠȕȠȣȜȓĮ, ȖȚĮ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȒȢ ĮțȡȚȕİȓĮȢ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıȣȖȤȡȩȞȦȞ ĮȞĮȖțȫȞ, IJȩıȠ įȪıțȠȜȘ 13

ȅ ıȣȜȜȠȖȚıȝȩȢ ȚıȤȪİȚ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ȅȡșȩįȠȟİȢ İȞȠȡȓİȢ ıIJȚȢ įȣIJȚțȠȪ IJȪʌȠȣ țȠȚȞȦȞȓİȢ. ȈIJȚȢ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȑȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ, ȠȚ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡİȢ ıȣȞșȒțİȢ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȠȝȠȚȐȗȠȣȞ ȝİ İțİȓȞİȢ ʌȠȣ ıIJȠ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞ ȠįȒȖȘıĮȞ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ ıIJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ. 14 ǺȜ. Calivas ȩʌ. ĮȞ. 15 Ȇȡ 6,1-7. 16 Archbishop Anastasios, Mission in Christ Way, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, WCC Publications, 2010. “Liturgy after Liturgy” ıİȜ. 94-99. 17 ȅȚ ıțȑȥİȚȢ ʌȠȣ ĮțȠȜȠȣșȠȪȞ įİȞ ĮijȠȡȠȪȞ IJȚȢ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȑȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ, ȩʌȠȣ ȝȓĮ ʌĮȡȩȝȠȚĮ ʌȡȦIJȠȕȠȣȜȓĮ ȝʌȠȡİȓ İȣțȠȜȩIJİȡĮ ȞĮ İijĮȡȝȠıșİȓ, İijȩıȠȞ ȠȚ İȟȦIJİȡȚțȑȢ ıȣȞșȒțİȢ țĮȚ Ș ȞȠȠIJȡȠʌȓĮ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗȠȣȞ ȠȝȠȚȩIJȘIJİȢ ȝİ IJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ ʌȠȣ Ș İțțȜȘıȓĮ İȞİȡȖȠʌȠȓȘıİ IJȠȞ șİıȝȩ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ.

428

Chapter Twenty Nine

ȝȠȚȐȗİȚ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȐȟȘ, ȤȦȡȓȢ IJȘȞ țĮIJȐȜȜȘȜȘ ʌȡȠİȡȖĮıȓĮ, İȞȘȝȑȡȦıȘ, IJİțȝȘȡȓȦıȘ țĮȚ ʌȚȜȠIJȚțȒ İȞįİȤȠȝȑȞȦȢ İijĮȡȝȠȖȒ. ȅȚ ȜȩȖȠȚ ıȣȞȠȥȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘ ȜȑȟȘ țȜİȚįȓ «ĮʌȠįȠȤȒ» (reception), įȘȜĮįȒ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮȖȞȫȡȚıȘ ȝȓĮȢ ʌĮȡȩȝȠȚĮȢ IJȐȟȘȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ țȜȒȡȠ țĮȚ IJȠȞ ȜĮȩ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȣʌİȪșȣȞȘ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ IJȠȣȢ İȞIJȩȢ țĮȚ İțIJȩȢ IJȠȣ ȚİȡȠȪ ȞĮȠȪ. Ǿ ĮʌȠįȠȤȒ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑIJİȚ ȖȞȫıȘ IJȦȞ ȡȩȜȦȞ țĮȚ Ș ȖȞȫıȘ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑIJİȚ IJȠȞ țĮșȠȡȚıȝȩ IJȠȣȢ, IJȚȢ ʌȡȠįȚĮȖȡĮijȑȢ IJȦȞ ȣʌȠȥȘijȓȦȞ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ȘȜȚțȓĮ, IJȘ ȝȩȡijȦıȘ, IJȘȞ İȞįȣȝĮıȓĮ, IJȘȞ ȠȚțȠȖİȞİȚĮțȒ țĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ ț.Ƞ.ț. ǹțȩȝȘ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ ĮʌȠįȠȤȒ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȠȣȢ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȠ Țİȡȩ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ IJȑȜİıȘ IJȦȞ ȚİȡȫȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȦȞ țĮȚ İȚįȚțȩIJİȡĮ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ İȣȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮȢ ʌȓıȦ Įʌȩ ĮȞȣȥȦȝȑȞĮ ıIJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ ȝĮȢ IJȑȝʌȜĮ țĮȚ ȝİ ȣijȑȡʌȠȞIJĮ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȦȞ ijȣıȚțȫȞ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚȫȞ ʌȠȣ İȜȐȤȚıIJĮ ʌȡȠıİȖȖȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȠ ʌȡȓıȝĮ IJȘȢ ȂȠȡȚĮțȒȢ ǺȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ. Ǿ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȑȡİȣȞĮ ĮʌȠįİȚțȞȪİȚ IJȠ «ıȪȞȞȠȝȠ» ȝȚĮȢ ʌĮȡȩȝȠȚĮȢ ʌȡȦIJȠȕȠȣȜȓĮȢ ȝİ IJȠȣȢ țĮȞȩȞİȢ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ȤȡȩȞȠȣȢ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ. Ǿ ȓįȚĮ ȩȝȦȢ įȚįȐıțİȚ țĮȚ IJȠȞ Ȥȡȣıȩ țĮȞȩȞĮ IJȘȢ įȚȐțȡȚıȘȢ ıİ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ʌȠȜȣıȘȝİȓĮȢ18 țĮȚ ıȪȖȤȣıȘȢ. ȅ țȩıȝȠȢ ȝĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȩȞIJȦȢ ȝȚĮ ȖİȚIJȠȞȚȐ ʌȠȣ ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ȩȜȠȞ IJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ, İȞȫ IJĮ ʌĮȞIJȠİȚįȒ ȝȑıĮ İʌȚțȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ ȝİIJĮįȓįȠȣȞ ıȘȝĮȓȞȠȞIJĮ ıİ ĮʌȡȠıįȚȩȡȚıIJȠȣȢ ĮʌȠįȑțIJİȢ ȝİ ĮıȪȜȜȘʌIJİȢ IJĮȤȪIJȘIJİȢ. ǹȣIJȩ IJȚȢ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡİȢ ijȠȡȑȢ ʌȡȠțĮȜİȓ ĮįȣȞĮȝȓĮ ȖȚĮ ĮțȡȚȕȒ ĮʌȠțȦįȚțȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȦȞ ıȘȝĮȚȞȠȝȑȞȦȞ ȝİ ȖȞȫıȘ, ıȠȕĮȡȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ ȞȘijĮȜȚȩIJȘIJĮ. īȚĮ ʌȠȜȜȠȪȢ ĮʌȠįȑțIJİȢ Ș İȚțȩȞĮ ȝȚĮȢ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȘȝȑȞȘȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȢ ȝİ țȐʌȠȚĮ įȚĮțȡȚIJȚțȐ ıIJȘȞ ʌİȡȚȕȠȜȒ IJȘȢ, İȞįİȤȠȝȑȞȦȢ ȞĮ İțȜȘijșİȓ ȦȢ ʌĮıIJȩȡȚııĮ İȣijȡȠıȪȞȦȢ, İijȩıȠȞ ȪıIJİȡĮ Įʌȩ IJȩıİȢ ĮȞIJȚįȡȐıİȚȢ ȠȚ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȠȚ İʌȚIJȑȜȠȣȢ, țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ʌȡȩıȜȘȥȒ IJȠȣȢ, ʌȡȠȤȫȡȘıĮȞ ıIJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ȅȚ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȠȚ ĮȞĮȕȚȫȞȠȣȝİ ȝİ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȘ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ. ȅȚ ıȣȞȠȝȚȜȘIJȑȢ ıIJȠȞ įȚĮȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȩ įȚȐȜȠȖȠ İȣȤİȡȫȢ ĮʌȠțȦįȚțȠʌȠȚȠȪȞ ʌĮıIJȩȡȚııĮ, İijȩıȠȞ, ȐȜȜȦıIJİ, İȞ ʌȠȜȜȠȓȢ IJĮ țĮșȒțȠȞIJĮ ĮȝijȠIJȑȡȦȞ ıȣȝʌȓʌIJȠȣȞ.

ǼȣșĮȡıȫȢ İț ȝȑȡȠȣȢ ȝĮȢ Ș ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ ıİ ĮȣIJȒȞ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ Ƞ țĮșȑȞĮȢ ʌȡȠȤȦȡİȓ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ țĮȚ ȝİȡȚȝȞȐ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ĮȞȐȖțİȢ IJȠȣ ȠȓțȠȣ IJȠȣ, ȤȦȡȓȢ ȞĮ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȓȗİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ ȜĮȞșĮıȝȑȞİȢ ĮȜȜȩIJȡȚİȢ İȡȝȘȞİȓİȢ. ǼȐȞ ȩȝȦȢ ĮȣIJȩȢ Ƞ ȠȓțȠȢ İȞȞȠİȓIJĮȚ Ș ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮ țĮȚ Ș ʌȠȜȣIJȓȝȘIJȘ İȞȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ ȅȡșȠįȩȟȦȞ İțțȜȘıȚȫȞ, ȝȓĮ IJȑIJȠȚĮ ʌȡȦIJȠȕȠȣȜȓĮ, ȤȦȡȓȢ ıȣȞİIJȐ ȕȒȝĮIJĮ, ʌȡȠıİțIJȚțȒ İȞȘȝȑȡȦıȘ țĮȚ ȕȠȪȜȘıȘ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘ ıIJĮ ȞȑĮ įİįȠȝȑȞĮ, șĮ ȒIJĮȞ İȟȓıȠȣ Įʌȩ ȩȜȠȣȢ ĮʌȠįİțIJȒ; Ǿ įȚĮijȠȡȐ ʌȠȣ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡİȓIJĮȚ ıİ țȪțȜȠȣȢ įȚĮijȩȡȦȞ İțțȜȘıȚȫȞ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȚțȩ 18 DzȞĮ ıȘȝİȓȠ İȡȝȘȞİȪİIJĮȚ ʌȠȚțȚȜȩIJȡȠʌĮ. ǹțȡȚȕȑıIJİȡĮ ȝȓĮ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ ȞĮ İțȜĮȝȕȐȞİIJĮȚ ȦȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȩȢ IJȠȣ șȣıȚĮıIJȘȡȓȠȣ ĮțȩȝȘ țĮȚ ĮȞ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ.

Problems in the Rejuvenation of the Ministry of Deaconesses

429

įȚȐȜȠȖȠ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮȢ ȝİ IJĮ İȡİșȓıȝĮIJĮ IJȘȢ İʌȠȤȒȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȠ ʌȐȞIJȦȞ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘ įȣȞĮȝȚțȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ IJȘȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȒȢ ȝĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ İȝijĮȞȒȢ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ijȠȡȑȢ İʌȚțȓȞįȣȞȘ. ȀĮȚ Ƞ ijȩȕȠȢ İįȫ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ijȠȚIJȒIJȡȚİȢ IJȦȞ ĬİȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ ȈȤȠȜȫȞ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȚȞ Įʌȩ ȑȞĮ IJȑIJĮȡIJȠ IJȠȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ ȒIJĮȞ ĮȞȪʌĮȡțIJİȢ țĮȚ IJȫȡĮ įİȚȜȐįİȚȜȐ ȓıȦȢ ĮȡȤȓȗȠȣȞ țĮȚ ȞĮ įȚįȐıțȠȣȞ, ĮȜȜȐ ȖȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ȝİ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ, ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓİȢ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȠȣȢ įȚıIJĮțIJȚțȠȪȢ, ȓıȦȢ ĮȡȖȩIJİȡĮ, ʌȠȚȠȢ ȟȑȡİȚ, șĮ ȗȘIJȒıȠȣȞ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ. ȅ ijȩȕȠȢ ĮȣIJȩȢ ȝȠȚȐȗİȚ țĮIJĮȞȠȘIJȩȢ, įȚȩIJȚ Ƞ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȠȢ įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ, ȩʌȦȢ ȑȤİȚ ȒįȘ IJȠȞȚıșİȓ, įİȞ įȚĮțȠȞİȓ ȩʌȦȢ ȠȡȓȗȠȣȞ ȠȚ ȆȡȐȟİȚȢ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, ĮȜȜȐ ıȣȞȘșȑıIJİȡĮ ʌȡȠıțĮȡIJİȡİȓ ȣʌȠȝȠȞİIJȚțȐ IJȘȞ İʌȩȝİȞȘ Ȓ IJȚȢ İʌȩȝİȞİȢ ȕĮșȝȓįİȢ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ.

7. ǺĮıȓȜİȚȠȞ ȚİȡȐIJİȣȝĮ țĮȚ İʌĮȞİȣĮȖȖİȜȚıȝȩȢ ȉȠ șȑȝĮ ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ ȠʌȦıįȒʌȠIJİ ĮȞȠȚțIJȩ țĮȚ ȠȚ ĮȞȐȖțİȢ țȐșİ IJȠʌȚțȒȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ʌȡȠ ʌȐȞIJȦȞ IJȦȞ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȫȞ İțțȜȘıȚȫȞ, șĮ ȠįȘȖȒıȠȣȞ ıİ ʌȜȘȡȑıIJİȡȘ ȝİȜȑIJȘ țĮȚ ȣʌİȪșȣȞȘ İijĮȡȝȠȖȒ IJȠȣ, ĮijȠȪ ȕİȕĮȓȦȢ ȜȣșȠȪȞ ȩȜĮ IJĮ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȐ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȐ ʌȡȠȕȜȒȝĮIJĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘ ȝȚĮȢ IJȑIJȠȚĮȢ İȚįȚțȒȢ IJȐȟȘȢ. DzȦȢ ȩIJȠȣ ȩȜĮ ĮȣIJȐ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȠʌȠȚȘșȠȪȞ, ĮțȩȝȘ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ĮȞȐȖțȘ Ƞ țȜȒȡȠȢ țĮȚ Ƞ ȜĮȩȢ, ȑȤȠȞIJİȢ țĮȚ ȝȘ ȑȤȠȞIJİȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ, ȩȜȠ ĮȞİȟĮȚȡȑIJȦȢ IJȠ ȕĮıȓȜİȚȠȞ ȚİȡȐIJİȣȝĮ, ȞĮ ıȣȞİȚįȘIJȠʌȠȚİȓ IJȠ ȤȡȑȠȢ IJȠȣ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ ıIJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ȤȡİȚȐȗİIJĮȚ İʌĮȞİȣĮȖȖİȜȚıȝȩ Ȓ ĮțȡȚȕȑıIJİȡĮ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȩ İȣĮȖȖİȜȚıȝȩ.19 ȅȚ ȂȣȡȠijȩȡİȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȑȝİȚȞĮȞ ĮȞİʌĮȞȐȜȘʌIJİȢ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȖȚ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ įȚĮțȩȞȘȝĮ. ȅȚ ȓįȚİȢ ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠȞ įȑȤIJȘțĮȞ IJȘ șİȓĮ ȤȐȡȘ, ĮȜȜȐ ĮȞIJȓțȡȚıĮȞ ıIJȠȞ ȐįİȚȠ IJȐijȠ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ IJȠ ijȦȢ IJȘȢ ĮȞĮıIJȘȝȑȞȘȢ IJȠȣ įȩȟĮȢ țĮȚ İȟİșĮȝȕȒșȘıĮȞ. ȀĮȚ ĮȢ ȝȘȞ İȓȤĮȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ!

19

ǻȒȝȘIJȡĮȢ ǹ. ȀȠȪțȠȣȡĮ, ǼʌĮȞİȣĮȖȖİȜȚıȝȩȢ ıIJȚȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓİȢ. ȂȓĮ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ. http://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/synthesis/article/view/4302/4380

CHAPTER THIRTY HUMAN SEXUALITY IN THE LATIN TRADITION FOTIOS IOANNIDIS

Abstract: The teachings of the Fathers of the West persist in addressing ascetical and pastoral issues from a soteriological perspective. They attempted to eliminate human passions and ensure an absence of prostitution, disorder, and agitation of the soul caused by desire. They knew that passions destroy virtues and can lead to cunning, selfishness, insensitivity, a neglect of prayer and a despairing attitude to the world, as well as mental sedation. This affects the soul and places real tyranny on humans because of the power of passions and the amazing speed of demonic action, especially in cases of lust, which can incite prostitution. In the post-rift period, a phobic attitude to love and sexuality prevailed in the West, arising exclusively within ecclesiastical contexts which, it should be noted, are responsible for religionized Christianity. The absolutism of strict trends in the ecclesiastical tradition incited guilt, condemnation of the flesh, and the devaluation of the female sex by placing the responsibility for these tendencies upon them. This affected the development of Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

1. Early period (3rd century - 1000) From the beginning, many Christian intellectuals and ecclesiastical writers held onto Greek philosophical ideas more than biblical views of sexuality. According to Philo of Alexandria1, Platonism was introduced in the School of Alexandria and influenced Origen, who had an impact on a large part of Christendom. How ascetic rigor can become dramatic was shown in the case of Origen, who self-castrated, although Paul’s advice was: “those who cannot remain abstinent, let's get married. It is better to get married with someone than to be burnt from desire.”2 1

Ambrose of Milan, De Paradiso 2, 11: “namque ante nos fuit qui (means Philo of Alexandria, De opificio mundi 59, 165-166) per uoluptatem et sensum praeuaricationem ab homine memorauerit esse commissam, in specie serpentis figuram accipiens delectationis, in figura mulieris sensum.” 2 1 Cor 7, 9.

432

Chapter Thirty

The excessive ascetic rigor moved towards Montanism, which affected Origen’s contemporary, Tertullian, who also had a tremendous impact on Western Christianity. During this period in the Church there was a struggle between two fronts. On one hand, an ascetic spirit rejected sexuality while, on the other, a liberality was supported by the Gnostics,3 who taught that the spiritual man is above common laws and can never sin, whatever he does. Faced with this vision, some felt the need for a stricter moral discipline. From the 3rd century, Christian ethics were dominated by a strong devaluation of sexuality, emphasized later by the views of Augustine (354-430), who argued that, in itself, sexual desire was a sin.4 Sexual activity was seen as welcome only if it aimed to reproduce. Virginity was superior to marriage. Therefore, it can be claimed that, from the beginning and throughout the Middle Ages, for many Christians, sex was seen as something dirty and inferior,5 while Christian ethics concerning marriage and sexuality were mainly met with a defensive attitude.6 This devaluation of sexuality inevitably took place alongside the devaluation of women, the roots of which in the Western Church tradition lie with Tertullian. His views on the female sex have not only caused 3

See S. Agouridis, ȅ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ 'AȖȚȠȞ ǼȚȡȘȞĮȓȠȞ İȞ ĮȞIJȚșȑıİȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ İȚțȩȞĮ IJȦȞ īȞȦıIJȚțȫȞ, Thessaloniki 1970; P. Christou, “ǼȞȠijȣȜȓĮ IJȠ ȚįİȫįİȢ IJȦȞ īȞȦıIJȚțȫȞ”, ȀȜȘȡȠȞȠȝȓĮ 5:1 (1973), 1-16; D. Brakke, The Gnostics: Myth, Ritual, and Diversity in Early Christianity, Harvard College 2010. 4 A brief list of references are the following studies: J. - L. Flandrin, Un temps pour embrasser: aux origines de la morale sexuelle occidentale (VIe-XIe siècle), éd. Du Seuil, Paris 1983; J. C. Owyer, Human sexuality. A Christian view, Sheed & Ward, Cansas 1987; D. C. Ford, “ǻȚĮijȠȡȑȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ıʌȠȣįĮȚȠIJȑȡȦȞ ȆĮIJȑȡȦȞ IJȘȢ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȚțȒȢ țĮȚ ǻȣIJȚțȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮȚ IJȘ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮ”, ȈȪȞĮȟȘ 77 (ǿĮȞ. - ȂȐȡIJ. 2001), 32-48; I. Fucer, La sessualità al servizio dell’amore. Antropologia e criteri teologici, ed. Dehoniane Roma, Roma 1996; PH. Bequart - G. Bedoulle- J. - L. Bruques, Amore e sessualità nel cristianesimo, Per una storia d'Occidente. Chiesa e società, Jaca Book 2007; G. Duby (a cura di), L'amore e la sessualità, ed. Dedalo, Bari 1994; P. Brown, The Body and Society. Men, Woman and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity, Twentieth Anniversary Edition with a New Introduction (Columbia Classics in Religion), 2008; P. Vassiliadis – M. Konstantinou, “Agostino - Paolo - La Legge. Il problema della sessualità umana”, L. Bianci (a cura di), Sant’ Agostino nella tradizione cristiana occidentale e orientale, ed. San Leopoldo 2011, 167-201. 5 N. Martella, Sesso e Affini. Sessualità e contesti, vol. 1, Punto a Croce, Roma 1998, 162-163. 6 E. Fuchs, Desiderio e tenerezza. Una teologia della sessualità, Claudiana, Torino 1988, 101.

Human Sexuality in the Latin Tradition

433

women's organizations, even today, to be angered (because in this view, women are identified with the notion of guilt and disgrace), but also blame women for the destruction of human creation according to God’s image. Women are characterized as being situated at the devil’s door, causing the wrath of God.7 Therefore, he recommends virginity and repentance to women, as well as the adoption of the veil. Further, women should not wear the crown because it is a sign of vanity, an abandonment of modesty, and a challenge to temptation.8 He advises men not to touch virgins, because a woman's virginity is sacred and the only thing that is free from any relationship with prostitution.9 Such are the prompts of Jerome, who argues that marriage is something less than prostitution and that even the blood of martyrdom cannot erase the stigma of a sexual relationship.10 Ambrose of Milan insists on Paul’s exhortation for marriage to avoid submitting to dangerous passions of the flesh. He recognizes human libido but also advises not to keep the flame of it alive in the mind or the heart and to avoid voracious desire which has the capacity to consume the outer clothing of our soul. Encountering the fires of love may maintain false desires in human chains of thought. The young may not excessively gaze at the physical beauty of the prostitute and a girl may not cast her eyes on a young man’s face because, if she persists, she may be captivated and fall in love. Even in casual encounters, she should be covered with a veil in order not to expose herself to wounds caused either by her or to which she may become victim. It is certain that, in both cases, she will be the one who will be harmed. Surely, says the Holy Father, the simple fact of her seeing does not constitute a sin, but we should be careful not to become the cause of sin. The carnal eye sees but the modesty of the mind may hold the eyes of the heart. The Lord said: “Anyone who looks a woman aiming to desire, commits adultery already with her in his heart.” He did not say that whoever looks, commits adultery, but that anyone who looks with the aim of satisfying desire. He did not limit the vision but did consider the intention. We see more with the soul than with the body. So, the principal of blame is in the soul. The flesh is innocent but is more often the servant of sin. Therefore, the desire for beauty should not defeat us or lead us to penetrate the fire of adolescence and satisfy the erotic flame of youth.11 7

Tertullian, De cultu feminarum I, 1. Tertullian, De corona 14. 9 Tertullian, De exhortatione castitatis 9. 10 Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum I.5, PL 23, 228. 11 Ambrose of Milan, De Paenitentia 1, 14, 68-76, F. Ioannidis, ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠȓ ȁĮIJȓȞȠȚ, ǹǯ, Thessaloniki 2011, 303-309. 8

434

Chapter Thirty

In all these exhortations, one can discern that Ambrose tries to protect young people from sexual desire and promiscuity, especially young girls from sexual frustrations that cause pain. Nevertheless, he believes that if Eve, the first women, had lit her candles, then she would not have engaged us in the effects of her indiscretion by deviating from virtue12 and being the first woman to deceive (and then lure) her husband (1 Tim 2, 14). Although man was created outside of Paradise, in a lower place, he is considered better than she who was created in Paradise and proved to be inferior.13 Ambrose connects sexuality, sin and salvation to sexual purity, arguing that Jesus avoided the common transmission of human sin through sexual intercourse because of his virginal conception, just as the Virgin shunned sin through the preservation of virginity.14 The superiority of man over woman, not according to nature but to the cause and reason for existence, also supports the Ambrosiaster (pseudoAmbrose). This leads to an anthropological and soteriological extreme because he directly supports the idea that woman is not created in the image of God.15 12

Ambrose of Milan, De paradiso, 2, 11: “nam si Eua, hoc est sensus primae mulieris accensas habuisset faces, numquam praeuaricationis suae nos criniculis inplicasset neque ex illa uirtutis inmortalitate cecidisset”. 13 Ambrose of Milan, De paradiso, 4, 24-25: “quo loci illud aduerte quia extra paradisum uir factus est et mulier intra paradisum, ut aduertas quod non loci, non generis nobilitate, sed uirtute unusquisque gratiam sibi conparat. denique extra paradisum factus, hoc est in inferiore loco uir melior inuenitur et illa quae in meliore loco hoc est in paradiso facta est inferior repperitur; mulier enim prior decepta est et uirum ipsa decepit. unde apostolus Petrus subiectas fortiori uaso mulieres sanctas uiris suis uelut dominis oboedire memorauit. et Paulus ait quia Adam non est seductus, mulier autem seducta in praeuaricatione fuit. deinde contuendum quia nemo debet sibi facile praesumere. nam ecce illa quae in adiumentum facta est uiro praesidio uirili indiget, quia uir caput est mulieris, ille autem qui adiumentum uxoris habiturum se esse credebat lapsus est per uxorem... ergo positus est in paradiso uir, facta est in paradiso mulier. sed etiam tunc priusquam a serpente mulier deciperetur, habuit uiri gratiam, quoniam de uiro sumpta est, licet hoc sacramentum magnum sit, sicut apostolus dixit, et ideo causam uitae ex eo traxit. ideo que de uiro tantum scriptura dixit quia posuit eum in paradiso operari et custodire”. 14 D.G. Hunter, Marriage, Celibacy, and Heresy in Ancient Christianity: The Jovinianist Controversy, Oxford University Press 2007, 202. 15 Ambrosiaster, Ad Corinthios I, 11, 10, H. J. VOGELS, CSEL 81/2, Vindobonae 1968, 122: “mulier ergo idcirco debet velare caput, quia non est imago dei, sed ut ostendatur subiecta.” Ambrosiaster, Ad Corinthios I, 14, 34, op.cit., 163: “si enim imago dei vir est, non femina, et viro subiecta est lege naturae”. See also in F.

Human Sexuality in the Latin Tradition

435

For Augustine, the desires of the flesh (concupiscentia carnis) are a consequence of the Fall, which cannot be controlled by the human mind. In addition, sexual desire is not a good foundation for marriage, since it was given as punishment for the disobedience of Adam and Eve. Indeed, original sin resulted in all human beings being under the power of the devil because all were born as a consequence of sexual desire. In fact, the union of the sexes is blameless only when it takes places purely for the purposes of procreation.16 Although Augustine defends the institution of marriage, the carnal union of spouses for reasons other than procreation (for pleasure, for example) belongs to excused sins. He considered it a necessary evil that is sinful and shameful even when intended to produce children. Married couples practice sexual fidelity and the priority should always be to have children together and prevent each other from the weaknesses of the flesh, in order to avoid illegal intercourse. Satan guides anyone who marries to satisfy carnal desires rather than to procreate.17 Augustine cites one example, comparing the need for food with sexual contact. Just as food sustains humans, he says, sexual intercourse “preserves” the human race. Just as food is the enjoyment of the abdomen, sexual intercourse is a pleasure of the flesh. But no man should resort to excesses due to an increased appetite if he does not need food or is not intending to create a family. It is better for anyone to stay hungry than to eat forbidden foods; it is better to remain landless than seek a family through unlawful sexual intercourse. In the first book of De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia, Augustine refers to sexual desire as a sin. He claims that the devil is the one who pushes people to lust, and carnal relations within marriage should exist only for reproduction and the creation of children. But if children who are not wanted are the result of this contact, and the couple’s behavior towards the children implies hatred and a denial of their upbringing, rather than love, then this clearly reveals in daylight the sin that they committed in the dark. Hidden sin is unequivocally deplored; sometimes the cruelty of lust leads people to resort to extreme measures such as using drugs to avoid pregnancy or even killing a life in the womb before it is born. In such Ioannidis, “ȉĮ ȊʌȠȝȞȒȝĮIJĮ IJȠȣ ǹȝȕȡȠıȚĮıIJȒ ıIJȚȢ įȪȠ ʌȡȠȢ ȀȠȡȚȞșȓȠȣȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȑȢ IJȠȣ ǹʌ. ȆĮȪȜȠȣ”, ȆIJȣȤȑȢ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ įȣIJȚțȒȢ İȝʌİȚȡȓĮȢ. ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ – īȡĮȝȝĮIJİȓĮ - ȆȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ, Thessaloniki 2010, 93-104. 16 Augustine of Hippo, Sermo 351, 3.5, F. Ioannidis, ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠȓ ȁĮIJȓȞȠȚ, ǹǯ, 475. Augistine of Hippo, De bono coniugali, 6. See also the study D. G. Hunter, “Augustine and the making of Marriage in Roman North Africa”, JECS 11:1 (2003), 63–85. 17 Augustine of Hippo, De Bono Coniugali, 6.

436

Chapter Thirty

cases, if the couple are characterized by debauchery then the woman is considered a prostitute and the male an adulterer.18 Augustine even thought the death of Adeodatus to be punishment for the mortal fruit of an illicit relationship. Temperance, then, is better than marriage, but marriage is better than prostitution. However, carnal lust should not be submitted to in marriage, only tolerated within it, not as a good derived from the essence of marriage, but as an evil resulting from original sin.19 Only Mary conceived without concupiscence. That is why, in the incarnation, the Lord was born without sin.20 There is no marriage without physical and sexual contact, but there is also no sexual relationship without shame. If sin had not been committed in Paradise, then of course there would be no reproduction of the generations, because it requires union between the sexes. However, sexual union in those instances should take place as a quiet merging of two people, rather than lust of the flesh that causes shame.21 Similar to Augustine's opinions are those of Gregory the Great, who argues that in itself (and thus, as an end) the pleasure experienced by the man in the sexual act is a sin, but that this is tempered within marriage, where it should always be for the purposes of procreation. An ascetic spirit prevails in his thinking which concentrates on the mind of Christ and, in Christ, the pleasure of man, free from anything that removes him from that point of view.22

2. Middle and Late Age (1000-1500) Our knowledge about the sexual life of couples, especially after the year 1000, is derived mainly from theological writings, Exomologitaria, circulars, and conciliar exhortations. For example, little-used 7th century provisions concerning purity and the constraints of priesthood were restored by a decree of Pope Leo IX during the 11th century. A welcome exception in this era of the persecution of pure love and sexual intercourse are the fascinating love letters between 15-year-old 18

Augustine of Hippo, De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia 1, 1-15. Augustine of Hippo, De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia 1, 1-17. 20 Augustine of Hippo, De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia 1, 1-24. 21 Augustine of Hippo, De Nuptiis et Concupiscentia 2, 2-22. 22 Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Evangelia 1.8.3; 2.30.1-2, PL 76, 1105; 12201221. IDEM, Moralia in Iob 9.36.58; 9.53.80, CCL 143, 498-499; 512 and 15.15.19, CCL 143A, 760. For more inf. see C. Straw, Gregory the Great: Perfection in Imperfection, University of California Press 1988, 118 passim. 19

Human Sexuality in the Latin Tradition

437

Eloise and her teacher, Peter Abelard (1079 to 1142). The spiritual contact between teacher and pupil did not take long to become carnal and a great love secretly thrived in the house of her curate uncle, Fulbert. As the philosopher himself writes: “we were joined under one roof [...] On the pretext that we are studying, we spent hours and hours in the sweetness of love [...] Our kisses were more than our words [...] My hands were asking for more armfuls than books [...] The love filled our eyes.” But the romantic story takes a dangerous turn when the fruit of their love begins to grow inside the young pupil. Eloise brings Astrolabe into the world. Abelard wants to legalize his relationship with her but she blocks this. Eventually, the couple get married but hatred and revenge capture the heart of Fulbert. Eloise ends up in a monastery and Abelard is castrated by henchmen who have been paid by her uncle. He becomes vilified and crippled before the world and is forced to retire to a monastery.23 In his “Ethics or Know thyself” (Ethica seu scito te ipsum),24 Abelard regarded the term “sin” psychoanalytically and helped to change attitudes towards the punishment of sin, placing more importance on the man’s intention to repent. As he writes: “the repentance of the heart eliminates the sin, that is the contempt to God or the assent to evil. Because the mercy of God, who inspires this remorse, is not compatible with the sin.” His teaching alarmed the Roman Catholic Church and, with the assistance of his rival, Bernard of Clairvaux, he was condemned as a dangerous heretic. As a mental wreck, Abelard took refuge in the monastery of Cluny, where he exhaled his last breath. Eloise, before closing her eyes, asked to be buried next to the husband she so loved. In the 12th century, Peter Lombard and the founder of canon law, Gratian, warned Christians that the Holy Spirit leaves the conjugal roof when a couple get together, even if this is for the purposes of procreation. Sexual abstinence was recommended to the believers of the Church during holy days, as well as on these days: Thursday to honor the conception of Christ; Friday to commemorate the crucifixion; Saturday in honor of the Virgin; Sunday to commemorate the resurrection of Christ; and Monday to

23

É. Gilson, ǼȜȠǸȗĮ țĮȚ ǹȕİȜȐȡįȠȢ, translation – commentary G. M. Kalioris, ed. Armos, Athens 1998; É. GILSON, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages, New York 1955, 153-163. K. Pent, The Passion of Peter Abelard, http://www.academia.edu/869964/The_Passion_of_Peter_Abelard (retrieved on 19-1-2015). 24 PL 178, 633-678.

438

Chapter Thirty

honor the souls of the departed. Therefore, only Tuesday and Wednesday remained free for mating couples.25 During the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas unleashed his arrows to fight the Church’s condemnation. In this period, such a wide variety of concepts existed concerning sexual desire and pleasure, particularly in terms of whether or not pleasure was permitted, that certain aspects (such as the debate over whether women had sperm) can seem unrealistic today. However, there was a positive contribution by Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141) and Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), who conceived the meaning of the wedding in terms of love and tenderness, also associated with sexuality and friendship. Unfortunately, these efforts did not continue. This meant a radical questioning of the entire social and ecclesiastical structure, based on a rigid hierarchy, according to which the male was superior to the female and to the Church’s servant, as well as to an unmarried virgin. Furthermore, the male was superior to the married and uncontrollable man living in the world.26 A feature of this period was the immoral sexual life among the upper classes. Nudity and prostitution were not subject to prohibition. Furthermore, the feudal society (the jus primae noctis) was in power, which included a noble man’s right to deflower the wives of those who were inferior to him,27 a fact that is well-documented in literary texts of the 13th and 14th century, as well as in legal texts.28 During the same period, many women were accused of coming into contact with the devil, because the devil was considered the direct inspiration for any kind of erotic dream. Whoever experienced these kinds of thoughts during sleep had to repent, because it was likened to having committed a sin. In conclusion, we can see that, apart from excesses in matters of legality, the teaching of the Western Fathers insisted on an ascetical and pastoral approach to this issue, from a soteriological perspective. They attempted to eliminate human passions and ensure an absence of 25

N. Martella, Sesso e Affini, op.cit., 162-163. E. Fuchs, Desiderio e tenerezza, op.cit., 128, 132. 27 The “ʌĮȡșİȞȠijșȠȡȓĮ (parthenofthoria)” was the tax paid by the vassal daughters for the right to marriage. We do not know whether the Byzantine rulers used “the right of the first night.” In his publication, N. A. Veis, “ȊʌȒȡȤİ jus primae noctis ʌĮȡȐ ǺȣȗĮȞIJȓȞȠȚȢ”, Byzantinische Zeitschrift 21:1 (1912), 169-186, denies the use of the rights of the Byzantines, but without supporting data. 28 This law was imposed by the Ottoman rulers and was widely applied in countries under Ottoman rule until the late 19th century. 26

Human Sexuality in the Latin Tradition

439

prostitution, disorder, and agitation of the soul caused by desire. They knew that passions destroy virtues and can lead to cunning, selfishness, lack of sensitivity, a neglect of prayer and an adherence to a despairing attitude to the world, as well as mental sedation. This affects the soul and places real tyranny on humans because of the power of passions and the amazing speed of demonic action, especially in cases of lust, which can incite prostitution. In the post-rift period, a phobic attitude to love and sexuality prevailed in the West, arising exclusively within ecclesiastical contexts which, it should be noted, are responsible for religionized Christianity. The absolutism of strict trends in the ecclesiastical tradition incited guilt, condemnation of the flesh, and the devaluation of the female sex by placing responsibility for these tendencies upon them. This affected the development of the Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

CHAPTER THIRTY ONE MULIER INFIRMIOR VIRO: SOME THOUGHTS ON THOMAS AQUINAS’S TEACHING ON WOMAN AS GOD’S CREATURE ELPIDOFOROS LAMPRINIADIS

Abstract: This paper presents a detailed analysis of the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, which was heavily indebted to the philosophical views of Aristotle and Plato (and of course his previous Latin patristic tradition). It also explains how the world view in the Middle Ages was formed and consolidated, and how it was theologically legitimized by this great scholastic thinker. The paper concludes with the remark: “To the question, how can we nowadays overcome the contradictions and prejudices (against women) which, as human constructions and cultural products, violate and change the Gospel message, the answer is simple: by returning to the Gospel itself, which guarantees the life in Christ” “ȩıȠȚ ȖĮȡ İȚȢ ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ İȕĮʌIJȓıșȘIJİ, ȋȡȚıIJȩȞ İȞİįȪıĮıșİ. Ƞȣț ȑȞȚ ǿȠȣįĮ߿ȠȢ Ƞȣįȑ DzȜȜȘȞ, Ƞȣț ȑȞȚ įȠȪȜȠȢ Ƞȣį‫ ޡ‬İȜİȪșİȡȠȢ, Ƞȣț ȑȞȚ ȐȡıİȞ țĮȚ șȒȜȣ. ʌȐȞIJİȢ ȖĮȡ ȣȝİȓȢ İȓȢ İıIJİ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ ǿȘıȠȪ» (Gal 3:28).

ǼੁıĮȖȦȖȒ ਝȡȤ੽ țĮ੿ ʌȘȖ੽ IJોȢ ıțȑȥİȦȢ IJȠ૨ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıIJȚțȒ, ijȚȜȠıȠijȚț੽ țĮ੿ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚț੽ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ, IJ੽Ȟ ੒ʌȠȓĮ ʌĮȡĮȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ, ਥʌİȟİȡȖȐȗİIJĮȚ țĮ੿ IJોȢ ੒ʌȠȓĮȢ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ਫ਼ʌȑȡȝĮȤȠȢ țĮ੿ ȡȦȝĮȜȑȠȢ ਫ਼ʌȠıIJȘȡȚțIJȒȢ. Ȉ੻ ੖ȜĮ IJ੹ țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȠ૨ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘ İੇȞĮȚ ਥȝijĮȞ੽Ȣ ਲ ਥʌȚȡȡȠ੽ IJȠ૨ ਝȡȚıIJȠIJȑȜȘ ਕȜȜ੹ țĮ੿ IJોȢ ਞȖȓĮȢ īȡĮijોȢ țĮ੿ IJ૵Ȟ ਩ȡȖȦȞ IJ૵Ȟ ȆĮIJȑȡȦȞ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ੁįȚĮȚIJȑȡȦȢ IJȠ૨ ੊İȡȠ૨ ǹ੝ȖȠȣıIJȓȞȠȣ. ੘ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ įȡ઼ țĮ੿ șİȠȜȠȖİ૙ ȝȑıĮ ı੻ Į੝IJઁ IJઁ ʌİȡȚȕ઼ȜȜȠȞ țĮ੿ į੻Ȟ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ Ȟ੹ ਫ਼ʌİȡȕİ૙ IJ੽Ȟ Regula Fidei ਕȜȜ੹ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ Traditio. īȚ' Į੝IJઁ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ șȑıİȚȢ IJȠȣ į੻Ȟ İੇȞĮȚ įȚȩȜȠȣ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚț੻Ȣ ਕʌઁ IJ੿Ȣ ʌĮȜĮȚ੻Ȣ ਕȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ ʌİȡ੿ IJોȢ ijȪıİȦȢ țĮ੿ IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌȠıIJȐıİȦȢ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ. ȂİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚț੹ ș੹ ȟİțȚȞȒıİȚ ਕʌઁ IJઁȞ ਝȡȚıIJȠIJȑȜȘ, ȝ੻ ȝȓĮ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮ ʌȠઃ ਩ȤİȚ ȟİțȐșĮȡİȢ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚț੻Ȣ ʌȡȠșȑıİȚȢ:

442

Chapter Thirty One

ਯʌİȚIJĮ įȚĮțȡȓȞȠȣȝİ țĮ੿ ਥȞIJȠʌȓȗȠȣȝİ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ, ijȣıȚțȑȢ, ijȣıȚȠȜȠȖȚț੻Ȣ ਪȦȢ ਱șȚț੻Ȣ țĮ੿ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚț੻Ȣ ʌȡȠİțIJȐıİȚȢ – ijȚȜȠıȠijȚț੻Ȣ țĮ੿ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ – ਕijȠȡ૵ıİȢ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌȩıIJĮıȘȢ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ਕȜȜ੹ țĮ੿ ıIJ੿Ȣ ıȤȑıİȚȢ IJȘȢ ȝ੻ ਥțİȓȞȘȢ IJȠ૨ ਕȞįȡȩȢ.

ਝȡȤȚț੽ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮ: ȝİIJĮȟઃ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ țĮ੿ ȝȪșȠȣ ੘ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ ıȤȠȜȚȐȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJઁȞ ਝȡȚıIJȠIJȑȜȘ ȝ઼Ȣ ʌȜȘȡȠijȠȡİ૙ ੖IJȚ ਲ ȕĮıȚț੽ ijȪıȘ IJ૵Ȟ țIJȚıIJ૵Ȟ ੕ȞIJȦȞ ʌȠઃ ʌȡȠȨijȓıIJĮIJĮȚ, įȘȜĮį੽ ਲ ʌȡȫIJȘ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ,1 ੒ȝȠȚȐȗİȚ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ȝȘIJȑȡĮ țĮ੿, ȝĮȗ੿ ȝ੻ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ, -IJઁȞ ʌĮIJȑȡĮ, IJઁ ਕȞįȡȚțȩ- ਕʌȠIJİȜȠ૨Ȟ IJ੽Ȟ ĮੁIJȓĮ IJ૵Ȟ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ ʌȠઃ ʌĮȡȐȖȠȞIJĮȚ ȝ੻ ijȣıȚțઁ IJȡȩʌȠ: ੖ʌȦȢ ਲ ȝȒIJȘȡ ȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ȝȑȡȠȢ ıIJ੽Ȟ ijȣıȚț੽ ʌĮȡĮȖȦȖȒ «ȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣıĮ», «įİȤȩȝİȞȘ» IJ੽Ȟ ȖİȞȞȘIJȚț੽ ਥȞİȡȖઁ įȪȞĮȝȘ IJȠ૨ ܿȡȡİȞȠȢ ȝ੻ ʌĮșȘIJȚțઁ IJȡȩʌȠ, IJઁ ੅įȚȠ ıȣȝȕĮȓȞİȚ țĮ੿ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ.2 ੜʌȦȢ İੇȞĮȚ İ੡ȜȠȖȠ, İ੝șઃȢ ਥȟ ਕȡȤોȢ ıȣȞĮȞIJȠ૨ȝİ IJઁȞ ਝȡȚıIJȠIJȑȜȘ ੪Ȣ ʌȘȖ੽ IJોȢ ıțȑȥȘȢ IJȠ૨ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘ. ȈIJઁ țİȓȝİȞȠ IJોȢ ĭȣıȚțોȢ IJȠȣ3 ıȣȖțȡȓȞİȚ 1

ȈijİȞįȩȞȘ-ȂȑIJıȠȣ, ǻ., ȅ ǹȡȚıIJȠIJȑȜȘȢ ȈȒȝİȡĮ. ȆIJȣȤȑȢ IJȘȢ ĮȡȚıIJȠIJİȜȚțȒȢ ijȣıȚțȒȢ ijȚȜȠıȠijȓĮȢ ȣʌȩ IJȠ ʌȡȓıȝĮ IJȘȢ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘȢ İʌȚıIJȒȝȘȢ. ǼțįȩıİȚȢ ǽȒIJȘ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ, 2010, ıİȜ. 62: «ȅ IJȡȩʌȠȢ, ȕȑȕĮȚĮ, ȝİ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ Ƞ ǹȡȚıIJȠIJȑȜȘȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȫIJȘ ȪȜȘ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȐȝȠȚȡȠȢ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝȐIJȦȞ, ĮȜȜȐ ĮȞIJȓșİIJĮ, ȑȤİȚ ʌȡȠțĮȜȑıİȚ ĮIJȑȡȝȠȞİȢ ıȣȗȘIJȒıİȚȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ȝİȜİIJȘIJȫȞ IJȠȣ ĮȡȚıIJȠIJİȜȚțȠȪ ȑȡȖȠȣ ıİ ȩȜȘ IJȘȞ ȝĮțȡĮȓȦȞȘ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ȑȦȢ țĮȚ ıIJȚȢ ȝȑȡİȢ ȝĮȢ. ȅ ȜȩȖȠȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ Ș țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘ IJȠȣ ʌİȡȚİȤȠȝȑȞȠȣ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȑįȚįİ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȫIJȘ ȪȜȘ Ƞ ȈIJĮȖİȚȡȓIJȘȢ ĮʌȠįİȚțȞȪİIJĮȚ İȟĮȚȡİIJȚțȐ įȣıȤİȡȒȢ İȓȞĮȚ, ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠȞ Ș ʌȠȚțȚȜȓĮ IJȦȞ ȠȡȚıȝȫȞ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ Ƞ ʌĮȡȐįȠȟȠȢ IJȡȩʌȠȢ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ ʌȡȠıʌȐșȘıİ Ƞ ijȚȜȩıȠijȠȢ ȞĮ IJȘȞ ȠȡȓıİȚ.» 2 Thomae Aquinatis, In Physicorum Librorum Commentarium, liber I, lectio. 15, nº 7: Dicit ergo primo quod ista natura quae subicitur, scilicet materia, simul cum forma est causa eorum quae fiunt secundum naturam, ad modum matris: sicut enim mater est causa generationis in recipiendo, ita et materia. 3 ĭȣı. 192a, 4-31: «(...) ਲȝİ૙Ȣ ȝ੻Ȟ Ȗ੹ȡ ੢ȜȘȞ țĮ੿ ıIJȑȡȘıȚȞ ਪIJİȡȩȞ ijĮȝİȞ İੇȞĮȚ, țĮ੿ IJȠȪIJȦȞ IJઁ ȝ੻Ȟ Ƞ੝ț ੓Ȟ İੇȞĮȚ țĮIJ੹ ıȣȝȕİȕȘțȩȢ, IJ੽Ȟ ੢ȜȘȞ, IJ੽Ȟ į੻ ıIJȑȡȘıȚȞ țĮș' Įਫ਼IJȒȞ, țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥȖȖઃȢ țĮ੿ Ƞ੝ıȓĮȞ ʌȦȢ, IJ੽Ȟ ੢ȜȘȞ, IJ੽Ȟ į੻ Ƞ੝įĮȝ૵Ȣ Ƞੂ į੻ IJઁ ȝ੽

Mulier infirmior viro: Some Thoughts on Aquinas’s Teaching

443

IJ੽Ȟ ʌȡȫIJȘ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ4 ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ȝȘIJȑȡĮ, ȜȩȖ૳ IJȠ૨ įİțIJȚțȠ૨ țĮ੿ ʌĮșȘIJȚțȠ૨ ȡȩȜȠȣ ʌȠઃ įȚĮįȡĮȝĮIJȓȗİȚ ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌĮȡĮȖȦȖ੽ ਫ਼ȜȚț૵Ȟ ੕ȞIJȦȞ ȝĮȗ੿ ȝ੻ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ. ȈȘȝİȚȦIJȑȠȞ, ੖IJȚ ਲ ੒ȝȠȚȩIJȘIJĮ țĮ੿ ਲ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮ Į੝IJ੽ ȝİIJĮȟઃ IJ૵Ȟ ਥȞȞȠȚ૵Ȟ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ țĮ੿ ȝȒIJȘȡ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡİ૙IJĮȚ ਵįȘ ıIJ੿Ȣ ਕʌĮȡȤ੻Ȣ IJȠ૨ ਦȜȜȘȞȠȡȦȝĮȧțȠ૨ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȠ૨. īȚ' Į੝IJȩ, į੻Ȟ İੇȞĮȚ įȚȩȜȠȣ ʌĮȡȐȟİȞȠ Ȟ੹ țȡȪȕİIJĮȚ ıIJ੽Ȟ ȜȑȟȘ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ (materia) ਲ ȜȑȟȘ ȝȒIJȘȡ (mater). ȂȒIJȘȡ țĮ੿ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ, ਕʌઁ ਕȡȤĮȚȠIJȐIJȠȣȢ ȤȡȩȞȠȣȢ, ıȣȞįȑȠȞIJĮȚ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ʌĮȡĮȖȦȖ੽ IJ૵Ȟ ijȣıȚț૵Ȟ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ țĮȓ, țĮIJ੹ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ, ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ਩ȞȞȠȚĮ ijȪıȘ -natura. ȆȡઁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ਩ȞȞȠȚĮ natura (nascor, natus, natura, -ȖİȞȞࠛ, ȖȑȞȞȘȝĮ, ʌȠȚȩIJȘȢ ʌߢȞ IJȠࠎ ȖİȞȞȠȝȑȞȠȣ), ıȤİIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ੖,IJȚ ȖİȞȞ઼IJĮȚ țĮ੿ ʌĮȡȐȖİIJĮȚ țĮIJ੹ ijȣıȚțઁ IJȡȩʌȠ. ǹ੝IJ੽ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȡȤĮȓĮ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ıȣıIJȘȝĮIJȠʌȠȚİ૙ ੒ ਝȡȚıIJȠIJȑȜȘȢ, ੖IJĮȞ ੁıȤȣȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ੖IJȚ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ʌĮȡĮȖȦȖ੽ IJ૵Ȟ ijȣıȚț૵Ȟ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ ਲ਼ ੕ȞIJȦȞ, ਲ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ İੇȞĮȚ țĮ੿ ȝȒIJȘȡ. Ȉ੻ Į੝IJ੽ IJ੽ ȖȡĮȝȝ੽ ੒ ĬȦȝ઼Ȣ ੒ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ ʌȡઁȢ ਕʌȠijȣȖ੽Ȟ ʌȐıȘȢ ਕȝijȚȕȠȜȓĮȢ țĮșȚıIJ઼ ıĮij੻Ȣ ੖IJȚ ʌȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚ੹ Į‫ݧ‬IJȓĮ ʌĮȡĮȖȦȖ߱Ȣ ‫ސ‬Ȣ įȠȤİ߿ȠȞ: est causa generationis in recipiendo.5 īȚ੹ Ȟ੹ įȚİȣțȡȚȞȚıIJİ૙ ੑȡș੹ ਲ ʌȡȠIJİȚȞȠȝȑȞȘ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮ, ș੹ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ IJȠȞȚıIJİ૙ ੖IJȚ ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȡȚıIJȠIJİȜȚț੽ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ, ਲ ʌȡȫIJȘ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ ȝĮȗ੿ ȝ੻ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ʌȡȫIJȘ ਲ਼ ijȣıȚț੽ Ƞ੝ıȓĮ IJ૵Ȟ țIJȚıIJ૵Ȟ ੕ȞIJȦȞ. ȅ੝ıȚĮıIJȚțȐ, ਲ ʌȡȫIJȘ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ Ȟ੹ ਦȡȝȘȞİȣIJİ૙ ੪Ȣ ਪȞĮ ȝ‫ޣ‬-‫ݹ‬Ȟ ʌȠઃ «įȪȞĮIJĮȚ» Ȟ੹ İੇȞĮȚ, ਥijȩıȠȞ ȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ਲ਼ įȑȤİIJĮȚ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ (ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ įȠȤİ߿ȠȞ). ਺ ʌȡȫIJȘ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ İੇȞĮȚ ਪȞĮ IJȩıȠ ਕIJİȜ੻Ȣ ੓Ȟ – ੪Ȣ įȣȞȐȝİȚ țĮ੿ ੕ȤȚ ੪Ȣ ‫݋‬ȞİȡȖİȓߠ ੕Ȟ - ȝ੻ ȝȓĮ IJȩıȠ ਕȞİʌĮȡțો ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚț੽ ıȪıIJĮıȘ, ʌȠઃ į੻Ȟ ȝʌȠȡİ૙ Ȟ੹ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȟİȚ ਕȞİȟȐȡIJȘIJȘ ੓Ȟ IJઁ ȝȑȖĮ țĮ੿ IJઁ ȝȚțȡઁȞ ੒ȝȠȓȦȢ, ਲ਼ IJઁ ıȣȞĮȝijȩIJİȡȠȞ ਲ਼ IJઁ ȤȦȡ੿Ȣ ਦțȐIJİȡȠȞ. ੮ıIJİ ʌĮȞIJİȜ૵Ȣ ਪIJİȡȠȢ ੒ IJȡȩʌȠȢ Ƞ੤IJȠȢ IJોȢ IJȡȚȐįȠȢ țਕțİ૙ȞȠȢ. ȝȑȤȡȚ ȝ੻Ȟ Ȗ੹ȡ įİ૨ȡȠ ʌȡȠોȜșȠȞ, ੖IJȚ įİ૙ IJȚȞ੹ ਫ਼ʌȠțİ૙ıșĮȚ ijȪıȚȞ, IJĮȪIJȘȞ ȝȑȞIJȠȚ ȝȓĮȞ ʌȠȚȠ૨ıȚȞ țĮ੿ Ȗ੹ȡ İ੅ IJȚȢ įȣȐįĮ ʌȠȚİ૙, ȜȑȖȦȞ ȝȑȖĮ țĮ੿ ȝȚțȡઁȞ Į੝IJȒȞ, Ƞ੝ș੻Ȟ ਸIJIJȠȞ IJĮ੝IJઁ ʌȠȚİ૙ IJ੽Ȟ Ȗ੹ȡ ਦIJȑȡĮȞ ʌĮȡİ૙įİȞ ਲ ȝ੻Ȟ Ȗ੹ȡ ਫ਼ʌȠȝȑȞȠȣıĮ ıȣȞĮȚIJȓĮ IJૌ ȝȠȡijૌ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȚȖȞȠȝȑȞȦȞ ਥıIJȓȞ, ੮ıʌİȡ ȝȒIJȘȡ ਲ į' ਦIJȑȡĮ ȝȠ૙ȡĮ IJોȢ ਥȞĮȞIJȚȫıİȦȢ ʌȠȜȜȐțȚȢ ਗȞ ijĮȞIJĮıșİȓȘ IJ૶ ʌȡઁȢ IJઁ țĮțȠʌȠȚઁȞ Į੝IJોȢ ਕIJİȞȓȗȠȞIJȚ IJ੽Ȟ įȚȐȞȠȚĮȞ Ƞ੝į' İੇȞĮȚ IJઁ ʌĮȡȐʌĮȞ. ੕ȞIJȠȢ ȖȐȡ IJȚȞȠȢ șİȓȠȣ țĮ੿ ਕȖĮșȠ૨ țĮ੿ ਥijİIJȠ૨, IJઁ ȝ੻Ȟ ਥȞĮȞIJȓȠȞ Į੝IJ૶ ijĮȝİȞ İੇȞĮȚ, IJઁ į੻ ੔ ʌȑijȣțİȞ ਥijȓİıșĮȚ țĮ੿ ੑȡȑȖİıșĮȚ Į੝IJȠ૨ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ Įਫ਼IJȠ૨ ijȪıȚȞ. ȉોȢ Įਫ਼IJȠ૨ ijșȠȡ઼Ȣ. țĮȓIJȠȚ Ƞ੡IJİ Į੝IJઁ Įਫ਼IJȠ૨ ȠੈȩȞ IJİ ਥijȓİıșĮȚ IJઁ İੇįȠȢ įȚ੹ IJઁ ȝ੽ İੇȞĮȚ ਥȞįİȑȢ, Ƞ੡IJİ IJઁ ਥȞĮȞIJȓȠȞ (ijșĮȡIJȚț੹ Ȗ੹ȡ ਕȜȜȒȜȦȞ IJ੹ ਥȞĮȞIJȓĮ), ਕȜȜ੹ IJȠ૨IJ' ਩ıIJȚȞ ਲ ੢ȜȘ, ੮ıʌİȡ ਗȞ İੁ șોȜȣ ਙȡȡİȞȠȢ țĮ੿ ĮੁıȤȡઁȞ țĮȜȠ૨ ʌȜ੽Ȟ Ƞ੝ țĮș' Įਫ਼IJઁ ĮੁıȤȡȩȞ, ਕȜȜ੹ țĮIJ੹ ıȣȝȕİȕȘțȩȢ, Ƞ੝į੻ șોȜȣ, ਕȜȜ੹ țĮIJ੹ IJઁ ıȣȝȕİȕȘțȩȢ. ijșİȓȡİIJĮȚ į੻ țĮ੿ ȖȓȖȞİIJĮȚ ਩ıIJȚ ȝ੻Ȟ ੮Ȣ, ਩ıIJȚ į'੪Ȣ Ƞ੡. ੪Ȣ ȝ੻Ȟ Ȗ੹ȡ IJઁ ਥȞ મ, țĮș' Įਫ਼IJઁ ijșİȓȡİIJĮȚ (IJઁ Ȗ੹ȡ ijșİȚȡȩȝİȞȠȞ ਥȞ IJȠȪIJ૳ ਥıIJȓȞ, ਲ ıIJȑȡȘıȚȢ) ੪Ȣ į੻ țĮIJ੹ įȪȞĮȝȚȞ, Ƞ੝ țĮș' Įਫ਼IJȩ, ਕȜȜ' ਙijșĮȡIJȠȞ țĮ੿ ਕȖȑȞȘIJȠȞ ਕȞȐȖțȘ Į੝IJ੽Ȟ İੇȞĮȚ.» 4 ĭȣı. 192a. 32- 33: « (...) IJઁ ʌȡ૵IJȠȞ ਫ਼ʌȠțİȓȝİȞȠȞ ਦțȐıIJ૳, ਥȟǯ Ƞ੤ ȖȓȖȞİIJĮȚ IJȚ ਥȞȣʌȐȡȤȠȞIJȠȢ ȝ੽ țĮIJ੹ ıȣȝȕİȕȚțȩȢ.» 5 Thomae Aquinatis, In Physicorum Librorum Commentarium, liber I, lectio. 15, nº 7.

444

Chapter Thirty One

ਕʌઁ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ.6 ȉઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ, ੪ıIJȩıȠ, İੇȞĮȚ ਥțİ૙ȞȠ IJઁ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Ƞ įȚ੹ IJȠ૨ ੒ʌȠȓȠȣ Į੝IJ੽ ਲ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ țĮșȓıIJĮIJĮȚ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ ੓Ȟ ਥț IJȠ૨ įȣȞȐȝİȚ İੁȢ IJઁ ‫݋‬ȞİȡȖİȓߠ: įȓįİȚ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, ıIJ੽ ijȣıȚț੽ ੢ȜȘ – IJ੽ įİȣIJȑȡĮ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ - IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬ȞĮȚ țĮ੿ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬ȞĮȓ IJȚ. Ĭ੹ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ʌȡȠıșȑıȠȣȝİ ੖IJȚ ਲ ʌȡȫIJȘ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ - materia prima- ਥijȩıȠȞ įȑȤİIJĮȚ IJ੽ ȝȠȡij੽ ਲ਼ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ, ਦȡȝȘȞİȪİIJĮȚ ੪Ȣ ਲ ਥȟĮIJȠȝȚțİȪȠȣıĮ ਕȡȤ੽ IJોȢ įİȣIJȑȡĮȢ ‫ވ‬ȜȘȢ. ǻȚ੹ IJȠ૨ İ‫ݫ‬įȠȣȢ ਲ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ İ‫ݭ‬ȞĮȚ țĮ੿ İੇȞĮȚ Į‫ރ‬IJާ ʌȠઃ İੇȞĮȚ. ǻȚ੹ IJોȢ ‫ވ‬ȜȘȢ, ੖ȝȦȢ, İੇȞĮȚ Į੝IJઁ IJઁ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ ‫ݹ‬Ȟ ਲ਼ Ƞ‫ރ‬ıȓĮ. ਫijȩıȠȞ, ੖ʌȦȢ ਵįȘ ਥȜȑȤșȘ, ਲ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ įȓȤȦȢ IJȠ૨ İ‫ݫ‬įȠȣȢ șİȦȡİ૙IJĮȚ ਖʌȜ૵Ȣ ਪȞĮ ȝ‫ݹ ޣ‬Ȟ ʌȠઃ ș੹ ȝʌȠȡȠ૨ıİ Ȟ੹ İ‫ݭ‬ȞĮȚ, ੒ ĬȦȝ઼Ȣ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ ıȣȝʌİȡĮȓȞİȚ ੖IJȚ: ਕijȠ૨ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ İੇȞĮȚ țĮȜઁ țĮ੿ ਥʌȚșȣȝȘIJȩ, ਲ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ, ʌȠઃ İੇȞĮȚ țȐIJȚ įȚȐijȠȡȠȞ IJોȢ ıIJİȡȒıİȦȢ țĮ੿ IJȠ૨ İ੅įȠȣȢ, ȖİȞȞȒșȘțİ ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ੑȡȑȖİIJĮȚ țĮ੿ Ȟ੹ ਥʌȚșȣȝİ૙ ijȣıȚț੹ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ.7

Aǯ ਫʌȑțIJĮıȘ IJોȢ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮȢ: ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ਕIJȑȜİȚĮ (IJȠ૨ șȒȜİȠȢ ı੻ ıȤȑıȘ ȝ੻ IJઁ ਙȡıİȞ). ǺȚȕȜȚț੽ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚțȒ ȉઁ șોȜȣ, țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ਙʌȠȥȘ IJȠ૨ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘ, İੇȞĮȓ IJȚ IJઁ ਕȞİʌĮȡț੻Ȣ țĮ੿ IJȣȤĮ૙Ƞ.8 ȉઁ ȗȦIJȚțઁ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Ƞ (įȘȜ. țȐșİ IJȚ IJઁ ȗ૵Ȟ) ı੻ ੖ȜİȢ IJ੿Ȣ ਥțijȐȞıİȚȢ IJȠȣ İੇȞĮȚ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ ʌĮȡઁȞ ıIJઁȞ ਙȞįȡĮ, ıIJઁ ਙȡıİȞ. ȉઁ ܿȡıİȞ, ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ਥȞİȡȖઁ ੁıȤȪ IJȠȣ, ʌȡȠıʌĮșİ૙ ijȣıȚȠȜȠȖȚț੹ Ȟ੹ ȖİȞȞȒıİȚ ਪȞĮ ਙȜȜȠ ܿȡıİȞ, ʌĮȡȩȝȠȚȠ țĮIJ੹ ʌȐȞIJĮ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੽Ȟ Į੝IJȠIJȑȜİȚȐ IJȠȣ. ਺ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ੖ȜȦȢ ਕȞIJȚșȑIJȦȢ, İੇȞĮȚ ੓Ȟ ਕIJİȜȑȢ, į੻Ȟ İੇȞĮȚ ਥʌȚșȣȝȘIJȩ, țĮ੿ ȖİȞȞȚȑIJĮȚ ੪Ȣ șોȜȣ, ȜȩȖ૳ IJોȢ ਕįȣȞĮȝȓĮȢ IJોȢ ਥȞİȡȖȠ૨ įȣȞȐȝİȦȢ IJȠ૨ ਕȞįȡȩȢ, ਲ਼ țȐʌȠȚĮȢ ਕįȚĮșİıȓĮȢ IJોȢ ੢ȜȘȢ ਲ਼ țȐʌȠȚĮȢ ਥȟȦIJİȡȚțોȢ ȝİIJĮȕȠȜોȢ, "੖ʌȦȢ Ƞੂ ȞȩIJȚȠȚ ਙȞİȝȠȚ ʌȠઃ İੇȞĮȚ ਫ਼ȖȡȠȓ", įȚİȣțȡȚȞȓȗİȚ ੒ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ.9 6

ȈijİȞįȩȞȘ-ȂȑIJıȠȣ, ǻ., ȅ ǹȡȚıIJȠIJȑȜȘȢ ȈȒȝİȡĮ. ȆIJȣȤȑȢ IJȘȢ ĮȡȚıIJȠIJİȜȚțȒȢ ijȣıȚțȒȢ ijȚȜȠıȠijȓĮȢ ȣʌȩ IJȠ ʌȡȓıȝĮ IJȘȢ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘȢ İʌȚıIJȒȝȘȢ. ੖ʌ. ʌĮȡ., ıİȜ. 63-64. 7 Thomae Aquinatis, In Physicorum Librorum Commentarium, lib. I, lectio 15, nº 8: Cum forma sit quoddam bonum et appetibile, materia, quae est aliud a privatione et a forma, est apta nata appetere et desiderare ipsam secundum suam naturam. 8 Thomae Aquinatis, Summa Theologiae, I, q.92, a.1, ad. 1um: Ad primum ergo dicendum quod per respectum ad naturam particularem, femina est aliquid deficiens et occasionatum. 9 Thomae Aquinatis, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 92, a.1, ad 1um: dicendum quod per respectum ad naturam particularem femina est aliquid deficiens et occasionatum. Quia virtus activa quae est in semine maris, intendit producere sibi simile perfectum, secundum masculinum sexum; sed quod femina generetur hoc est propter virtutis activae debilitatem, vel propter aliquam materiae indispositionem, vel etiam propter aliquam transmutationem ab extrinseco, puta a ventis australibus qui sunt humidi.

Mulier infirmior viro: Some Thoughts on Aquinas’s Teaching

445

ǺȚȕȜȚț੹ -țĮ੿ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ-, ਲ ਕIJȑȜİȚĮ țĮ੿ ਲ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚț੽ ਥȟȐȡIJȘıȘ IJȠ૨ șȒȜİȠȢ ı੻ ıȤȑıȘ ȝ੻ IJઁ ਙȡıİȞ țĮ੿ IJȠ૨ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠȣ ijȪȜȠȣ ਩ȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠ૨ ਕȞįȡȚțȠ૨, țĮIJȠȤȣȡȫȞİIJĮȚ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ, ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ țĮIJ੹ IJઁȞ ĬȦȝ઼ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘ, ਥȞȞȠİ૙IJĮȚ. ȁóȖ૳ IJોȢ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțોȢ IJȘȢ ਕIJȑȜİȚĮȢ, ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ਩ʌȡİʌİ Ȟ੹ ȖİȞȞȘșİ૙ ਕʌઁ IJઁ ʌȜİȣȡઁ IJȠ૨ ਕȞįȡȩȢ, ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ijĮȞİ૙ ȟİțȐșĮȡĮ ਲ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ IJȘȢ ਥȟȐȡIJȘıȘ ਕʌઁ ਥțİ૙ȞȠȞ țĮ੿ ਲ ਥȟȑȤȠȣıĮ ਫ਼ʌİȡȠȤȒ IJȠȣ ਩ȞĮȞIJȚ Į੝IJોȢ. ȀĮȓ, ʌȡȠıșȑIJİȚ ੒ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ, ੖ʌȦȢ ੒ ĬİઁȢ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ਕȡȤ੽ IJȠ૨ ıȪȝʌĮȞIJȠȢ, Ƞ੢IJȦ IJઁ ܿȡıİȞ-ܻȞ‫ޣ‬ȡ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ਕȡȤ੽ IJȠ૨ ਕȞșȡȦʌȓȞȠȣ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ.10

Bǯ ਫʌȑțIJĮıȘ IJોȢ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮȢ: ਲ ਕȞĮʌĮȡĮȖȦȖȒ (IJȠ૨ șȒȜİȠȢ țĮ੿ IJȠ૨ ਙȡȡİȞȠȢ) ȈȣȝijȫȞȦȢ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚț੽ įȚİȣțȡȓȞȚıȘ țĮ੿ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮ, ਲ ȖȣȞȒ- ȝȒIJȘȡ, țĮIJ੹ IJઁȞ ȝİȖȐȜȠ ȈȤȠȜĮıIJȚțȩ, ਦȞȫȞİIJĮȚ ȝ੻ IJઁ ਕȡıİȞȚțઁ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Ƞ ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ਕȞĮʌĮȡȐȖİIJĮȚ țĮ੿ Ȟ੹ ʌĮȡȐȖȠȣȞ ȝĮȗ੿ ȝȓĮ ȞȑĮ Ƞ੝ıȓĮ ਪȞĮ ȞȑȠ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ ੕Ȟ. ਺ ȝȒIJȘȡ, IJȩIJİ, įȚĮįȡĮȝĮIJȓȗİȚ IJઁ ȡȩȜȠ IJોȢ ‫ވ‬ȜȘȢ. ȆĮȡȑȤİȚ, įȘȜĮįȒ, ਫ਼ȜȚțȩ ਲ਼ įȣȞĮȝȚțઁ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Ƞ, ਥȞ૶ IJઁ ܿȡȡİȞ, ੪Ȣ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ, ʌĮȡȑȤİȚ IJઁ İੁįȠʌȠȚȠ૨Ȟ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Ƞ. īİȞȞ઼, įȘȜĮįȒ, IJઁȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠ țĮȓ, ȝĮȗ੿ ȝ੻ IJઁ ਫ਼ȜȚțઁ șȘȜȣțઁ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Ƞ ʌĮȡȐȖİȚ ȝȓĮ ȞȑĮ Ƞ੝ıȓĮ ਲ਼ ਪȞĮ ȞȑȠ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ ੕Ȟ.11 ਺ ȖȣȞȒ-ȝȒIJȘȡ, ੖ʌȦȢ țĮ੿ ਲ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ, ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚț੹ İੇȞĮȓ IJȚ IJઁ ਕIJİȜȑȢ, țȐIJȚ ʌȠઃ ȖİȞȞȒșȘțİ Ȟ੹ ਥʌȚșȣȝİ૙ ijȣıȚț੹ IJઁ ܿȡȡİȞ, IJઁ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ ıȣȞȚıIJ઼ ȖȚૃ Į੝IJ੽Ȟ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ țĮ੿ ʌȡȠıįȓįİȚ ıIJ੽Ȟ ੢ʌĮȡȟȒ IJȘȢ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȜȘȡȩIJȘIJĮ.

īǯ ਫʌȑțIJĮıȘ IJોȢ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮȢ: ਲ ȡȠʌȒ (IJȠ૨ șȒȜİȠȢ ʌȡઁȢ IJઁ ਙȡȡİȞ) ੘ ȈIJĮȖİȚȡȓIJȘȢ ੒ȜȠțȜȘȡȫȞİȚ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ-ȝȒIJȘȡ, ੁıȤȣȡȚȗȩȝİȞȠȢ ੖IJȚ ਲ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ ਥʌȚșȣȝİ૙ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ ੖ʌȦȢ IJઁ ș߱Ȝȣ ਪȜțİIJĮȚ12 ਕʌઁ IJઁ ܿȡȡİȞ țĮ੿ ੖ʌȦȢ IJઁ ਙȝȠȡijȠ ਲ਼ IJઁ ਙıȤȘȝȠ ਪȜțİIJĮȚ ਕʌઁ IJઁ ੕ȝȠȡijȠ țĮ੿ IJઁ İ੡ıȤȘȝȠ. ੘ ĬȦȝ઼Ȣ ੒ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ ș੹ IJȡȠʌȠʌȠȚȒıİȚ IJઁ țİȓȝİȞȠ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ıțȑȥȘ IJȠ૨ 10

Thomae Aquinatis, Summa Theologiae, Ia., q.92, a.2, Sol: conveniens fuit mulierem in prima rerum institutione, ex viro formari, magis quam in aliis animalibus. Primo quidem, ut in hoc quaedam dignitas primo homini servaretur, ut, secundum Dei similitudinem, esset ipse principium totius suae speciei, sicut Deus est principium totius universi. 11 Thomae Aquinatis, Summa Theologiae, I, q.41, a.5, Sol: homo genitus est simile generanti in natura humana, cuius virtute pater potest generare hominem. 12 ȀĮ੿ IJİȓȞİȚ ʌȡȩȢ.

446

Chapter Thirty One

ĭȚȜȠıȩijȠȣ, ʌȡȠıșȑIJȠȞIJĮȢ ੖IJȚ ਥ੹Ȟ IJઁ ș߱Ȝȣ ਥʌȚșȣȝİ૙ IJઁ ܿȡȡİȞ țĮ੿ ਥ੹Ȟ IJઁ ਙıİȝȞȠ ਥʌȚșȣȝİ૙ IJઁ țĮȜઁ țĮ੿ ਕȖĮșȩ, Į੝IJઁ į੻Ȟ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ੖IJȚ IJઁ țĮțઁ țĮIJ੹ țĮȞȩȞĮ IJİȓȞİȚ ʌȡઁȢ IJઁ țĮȜઁ ੪Ȣ IJઁ ਕȞIJȓșİIJȩ IJȠȣ, ਕȜȜ੹ ȝȩȞȠ ੪Ȣ ਕIJȪȤȘȝĮ secundum accidens: ਩IJıȚ, ਥțİ૙ȞȠ IJઁ ੓Ȟ ʌȠઃ ‫ݏ‬IJȣȤİ Ȟ੹ İੇȞĮȚ țĮțȩ, IJİȓȞİȚ ʌȡઁȢ IJઁ țĮȜȩ. ੘ȝȠȓȦȢ, IJઁ ਕʌȩȜȣIJȠ ș߱Ȝȣ į੻Ȟ ਥʌȚșȣȝİ૙ ਲ਼ ਪȜțİIJĮȚ ijȣıȚț੹ ਕʌઁ IJઁ ਕȞIJȓșİIJȩ IJȠȣ, IJઁ ܿȡȡİȞ, ਕȜȜ੹ IJઁ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ ੓Ȟ ʌȠઃ IJȣȖȤȐȞİȚ Ȟ੹ İੇȞĮȚ ș߱Ȝȣ IJİȓȞİȚ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȞIJȓșİIJȘ țĮIJȐıIJĮıȒ IJȠȣ, įȘȜĮį੽ IJİȓȞİȚ Ȟ੹ ȖȓȞİȚ ܿȡȡİȞ.13 ਫ੹Ȟ IJઁ ș߱Ȝȣ, ੪Ȣ ਲ ʌȡȫIJȘ ੢ȜȘ, ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ IJĮȣIJȚıȝȑȞȠ ȝ੻ IJઁ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚț੹ ਕIJİȜȑȢ, IJઁ ਙȝȠȡijȠ țĮ੿ IJઁ ਕʌȡİʌȑȢ, IJȩIJİ IJઁ ܿȡȡİȞ, ʌȡȠıȦʌȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȠ ੪Ȣ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ, ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ IJĮȣIJȚıȝȑȞȠ ȝ੻ IJઁ ‫݋‬Ȟ ‫݋‬ȞİȡȖİȓߠ İ‫ݭ‬ȞĮȚ, ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȜȘȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJોȢ ੢ʌĮȡȟȘȢ, ȝ੻ IJઁ țĮȜઁ țĮ੿ ਥʌȚșȣȝȘIJȩ. ੘ ȈȤȠȜĮıIJȚțઁȢ ʌȡȠȤȦȡ઼ ਕțȩȝȘ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ, IJȠȞȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ ੖IJȚ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ ਩ȤİȚ șİȧțȩ ȤĮȡĮțIJોȡĮ. Ĭİ૙Ƞ ȤĮȡĮțIJોȡĮ ਥʌİȚįȒ IJઁ Ƞ੝ıȚĮıIJȚțઁ İੇįȠȢ, IJઁ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ȝȠȞĮįȚț੽ ĮੁIJȓĮ ੖ȜȦȞ IJ૵Ȟ ਥȞ ਥȞİȡȖİȓ઺ ੕ȞIJȦȞ, ıȣȝȝİIJȑȤİȚ ıIJ੽Ȟ ੒ȝȠȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠ૨ ĬİȓȠȣ ਜ਼ȞIJȦȢ ਜ਼ȞIJȠȢ , IJઁ ੒ʌȠ૙Ƞ İੇȞĮȚ actus purus. ȉઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ İੇȞĮȚ ਥʌȓıȘȢ șİ૙Ƞ țĮ੿ ȕȑȜIJȚıIJȠ, ਥijȩıȠȞ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ IJİȜİȓȦıȘ IJોȢ įȣȞĮȝȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ ʌȠઃ ਥȞȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌȡȫIJȘ ੢ȜȘ. ੲȢ ਥț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, İੇȞĮȚ ਥʌȓıȘȢ ਥʌȚșȣȝȘIJȩ, ਥʌİȚį੽ IJઁ ʌ઼Ȟ ਥʌȚșȣȝİ૙ IJ੽Ȟ IJİȜİȓȦıȒ IJȠȣ.14 13

Thomae Aquinatis, In Physicorum Librorum Commentarium, liber I, lectio 15, nº 8: si femina appetat masculum et turpe appetat bonum non quod ipsa turpitudo appetat bonum sibi contrarium, sed secundum accidens, quia id cui accidit esse turpe, appetit esse bonum: et similior femineitas non appetit masculinum, sed id cui accidit esse feminam. ȈIJઁ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ Į੝IJોȢ IJોȢ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮȢ, IJઁ ș߱Ȝȣ țĮ੿ IJઁ ਕʌȡİʌ੻Ȣ ਥʌȚșȣȝȠ૨Ȟ țĮ੿ IJİȓȞȠȣȞ ʌȡઁȢ IJઁ ܿȡıİȞ țĮ੿ IJઁ ਕȖĮșȩ. ȉઁ ș߱Ȝȣ, ੪Ȣ ਥț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, ਩ȤİȚ ਙȝİıȘ ıȤȑıȘ ȝ੻ IJઁ ਙıİȝȞȠ țĮ੿ ਙȝȠȡijȠ țĮ੿ IJઁ ܿȡıİȞ ਩ȤİȚ ıȤȑıȘ ȝ੻ IJઁ ਕȖĮșઁ țĮ੿ IJઁ ੕ȝȠȡijȠ. ੜʌȦȢ ਵįȘ ıȘȝİȚȫșȘțİ, Į੝IJ੽ ਲ ȡȠʌ੽ IJોȢ ‫ވ‬ȜȘȢ ʌȡઁȢ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ, IJȠ૨ șȒȜİȠȢ ʌȡઁȢ IJઁ ܿȡıİȞ țĮ੿ IJȠ૨ ਕʌȡİʌȠ૨Ȣ ʌȡઁȢ IJઁ ਕȖĮșȩ, İੇȞĮȚ IJȣȤĮȓĮ, ȖȚĮIJ੿ ੖ʌȠȚȠȢ IJİȓȞİȚ ਲ਼ ਪȜțİIJĮȚ ਲ਼ ਥʌȚșȣȝİ૙ İੇȞĮȚ ȝȓĮ ਕIJȠȝȚț੽ țĮ੿ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȘ ੑȞIJȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȠȪ, ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ, İੇȞĮȚ IJઁ ȝȩȞȠ ʌȠઃ ਫ਼ʌȐȡȤİȚ țĮșİĮȣIJȩ. ǻȘȜĮį੽ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ੑȞIJȩIJȘIJĮ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ «IJȣȖȤȐȞİȚ» șȘȜȣțȒ – ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ – Į੝IJ੽ ʌȠઃ IJİȓȞİȚ ʌȡઁȢ IJઁ ܿȡıİȞ, țĮ੿ ਲ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ Ƞ੝ıȓĮ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ «IJȣȖȤȐȞİȚ» ਙıİȝȞȘ, Į੝IJ੽ ʌȠઃ ਥʌȚșȣȝİ૙ IJઁ țĮȜȩ. ਫ੹Ȟ IJઁ ܿȡıİȞ țĮ੿ IJઁ ਕȞįȡȚțઁ ਕȞIJȚʌȡȠıȦʌİȪȠȣȞ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȜȘȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJોȢ ੢ʌĮȡȟȘȢ țĮ੿ IJઁ ș߱Ȝȣ IJ੽Ȟ ਕIJȑȜİȚȐ IJȘȢ, IJȩIJİ IJઁ ܿȡıİȞ İੇȞĮȚ țĮȜઁ țĮ੿ IJઁ ș߱Ȝȣ İੇȞĮȚ ਕIJİȜ੻Ȣ ਲ਼ ਙıİȝȞȠ, ਕȜȜ੹ į੻Ȟ İੇȞĮȚ țĮșİĮȣIJઁ țĮțȩ, ਥijૃ ੖ıȠȞ IJઁ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțઁ țĮțȩ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝ੻ Į੝IJ੽ IJ੽ ıțȑȥȘ, șİȦȡİ૙IJĮȚ ıIJȑȡȘıȘ -privatio- įȘȜĮį੽ IJઁ ਕȞIJȓșİIJȠ ʌȡઁȢ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ ʌȠઃ ȝȑȜȜİȚ Ȟ੹ ȜȐȕİȚ ਲ ʌȡȫIJȘ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ. 14 Thomae Aquinatis, In Physicorum Librorum Commentarium, liber I, lectio 15, nº 7: et quod privatio pertineat ad malum, ostendit per hoc, quod forma est quoddam divinum et optimum et appetibile. Divinum quidem est, quia omnis forma est quaedam participatio similitudinis divini esse, quod est actus purus; unumquodque enim in tantum est actu in quantum habet formam. Optimum autem est, quia actus est perfectio potentiae et bonum eius: et per consequens sequitur

Mulier infirmior viro: Some Thoughts on Aquinas’s Teaching

447

ǻǯ ਫʌȑțIJĮıȘ IJોȢ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮȢ: ਲ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖȒ (IJȠ૨ șȒȜİȠȢ ıIJઁ ਙȡȡİȞ) ਺ ȖȣȞȒ-ȝȒIJȘȡ ĮੁıșȐȞİIJĮȚ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȞȐȖțȘ țĮ੿ ਥʌȚșȣȝȓĮ Ȟ੹ ਦȞȦșİ૙ ȝ੻ IJઁ ܿȡȡİȞ, ਕȞĮȗȘIJ૵ȞIJĮȢ Ȟ੹ țĮȜȣijșİ૙ ਲ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ IJȘȢ ਩ȜȜİȚȥȘ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȜȘȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠ૨ İੇȞĮȚ IJȠ૨ ܿȡȡİȞȠȢ-ܻȞįȡȩȢ. ȋȦȡ੿Ȣ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ IJȘȢ, įȘȜĮį੽ ȤȦȡ੿Ȣ IJઁȞ ਙȞįȡĮ, ਲ ȖȣȞȒ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȡȫIJȘ ੢ȜȘ, ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ ܻȞȪʌĮȞįȡȠȢ, ıIJ੹ ੖ȡȚĮ IJોȢ ਕȞİʌĮȡțİȓĮȢ țĮ੿ ਕIJİȜİȓĮȢ IJોȢ ੑȞIJȚțોȢ IJȘȢ țĮIJĮıIJȐıİȦȢ. īȚૃ Į੝IJઁ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ਦȞȦșİ૙ ȝ੻ IJઁȞ ਙȞįȡĮ ıIJ੽Ȟ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ IJȠ૨ ȖȐȝȠȣ. Ȉ੻ Į੝IJ੽ IJ੽Ȟ țȠȚȞȦȞȚț੽ ਪȞȦıȘ, ੪ıIJȩıȠ, įİįȠȝȑȞȘȢ IJોȢ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘȢ ਕȟȓĮȢ IJȠ૨ ਕȞįȡȩȢ, ਲ ȖȣȞ੽ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ਫ਼ʌȠIJȐııİIJĮȚ ıIJઁȞ ਙȞįȡĮ, įİįȠȝȑȞȠȣ ੖IJȚ Į੝IJ੽ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȒșȘțİ ਕʌઁ IJઁ ʌȜİȣȡઁ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ, ȜİʌIJȠȝȑȡİȚĮ, ਲ ੒ʌȠȓĮ, ȖȚ੹ IJઁȞ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘ, İੇȞĮȚ ਫ਼ȥȓıIJȘȢ ıȘȝĮıȓĮȢ ਕʌઁ șİȠȜȠȖȚțોȢ ਕʌȩȥİȦȢ: ‘'੖IJȚ ਥț IJȠ૨ ਕȞįȡઁȢ Į੝IJોȢ ਥȜȒijșȘ Į੢IJȘ’. ȈȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ਦȡȝȘȞİȓĮ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚıȝઁ ʌȠઃ ੒ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ įȓįİȚ ıIJ੽ ȕȚȕȜȚț੽ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ, ਲ ȖȣȞ੽ į੻Ȟ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ʌȡȠıʌĮșİ૙ Ȟ੹ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȒıİȚ ਥʌ੿ IJȠ૨ ਕȞįȡȩȢ, įİįȠȝȑȞȠȣ ੖IJȚ į੻Ȟ ਥʌȜȐıșȘ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ țİijĮȜȒ, ਕȜȜૃ ਥț IJોȢ ʌȜİȣȡ઼Ȣ IJȠȣ. ȅ੡IJİ ੒ ਙȞįȡĮȢ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ਫ਼ʌȠIJȚȝȒıİȚ ਲ਼ Ȟ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȞIJȚȝİIJȦʌȓȗİȚ ੪Ȣ įȠȪȜȘ, ı੹Ȟ Ȟ੹ İੇȤİ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘșİ૙ ȝȠȞȐȤĮ ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ IJઁȞ ਫ਼ʌȘȡİIJİ૙, įȚȩIJȚ ı੻ Į੝IJ੽ IJ੽Ȟ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ, ȜȑİȚ ੒ ȈȤȠȜĮıIJȚțȩȢ, ș੹ İੇȤİ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘșİ૙ ਕʌઁ IJ੹ ʌȩįȚĮ IJȠȣ.15 ੘ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ įȚĮțȡȓȞİȚ ı੻ Į੝IJ੽ IJ੽ ıȤȑıȘ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖોȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ȝȓĮ ੑȡș੽ țĮ੿ ȝȓĮ ਥıijĮȜȝȑȞȘ. ȈIJ੽Ȟ ਥıijĮȜȝȑȞȘ ਩țįȠıȘ, ʌȠઃ ੁıȤȪİȚ ȝİIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ʌIJȫıȘ, ੒ ੁıȤȣȡȩIJİȡȠȢ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚİ૙ IJઁȞ ਕıșİȞȑıIJİȡȠ, įȘȜ. IJ੽Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ȖȚ੹ IJઁ ıȣȝijȑȡȠȞ IJȠȣ. ǹ੝IJઁ șİȦȡİ૙IJĮȚ ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮ. ੲıIJȩıȠ, ıIJ੽Ȟ ਙȜȜȘ ਩țįȠıȘ IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖોȢ, IJ੽Ȟ ੑȡșȒ, ʌȠઃ ਩ȤİȚ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțઁ ਫ਼ʌȩȕĮșȡȠ, ੒ ʌȡȠİıIJȫȢ – ੒ ਕȞȒȡ – ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚİ૙ IJȠઃȢ ‫ބ‬ijȚıIJĮȝȑȞȠȣȢ IJȠȣ – IJ੿Ȣ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ – ȝ੻ ਕʌȫIJİȡȠ ıțȠʌઁ IJઁ țĮȜઁ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ İ੝ȘȝİȡȓĮ IJȠȣȢ. ǹ੝IJઁ IJઁ İੇįȠȢ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖોȢ ੒ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ IJઁ ੑȞȠȝȐȗİȚ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțާ ਲ਼ ܻıIJȚțȩ. ǼੇȞĮȚ ȝȓĮ ijȣıȚț‫ޣ‬ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖ੽ țĮ੿ ਕʌĮȚIJİ૙ Ȟ੹ țȣȕİȡȞȠ૨Ȟ Ƞੂ ıȠijȫIJİȡȠȚ. ȀĮIJ੹ IJઁȞ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘ, Į੝IJ੽ ਲ ijȣıȚț‫ ޣ‬ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖ੽ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ʌȐȞIJĮ țĮ੿ ʌĮȞIJȠ૨, ਕțȩȝȘ țĮ੿ ıIJઁȞ ʌĮȡȐįİȚıȠ, ʌȡ੿Ȟ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ ʌIJȫıȘ, įȚȩIJȚ ਗȞ į੻Ȟ ਫ਼ijȓıIJĮIJȠ, ș੹ ਩ȜİȚʌİ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ਲ İ੝IJĮȟȓĮ. ਺ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ quod sit appetibile, quia unumquodque appetit suam perfectionem. 15 Thomae Aquinatis, Summa ȉheologiae, I, q. 92, a. 3, Sol: Respondeo dicendum quod conveniens fuit mulierem formari de costa viri. Primo quidem, ad significandum quod inter virum et mulierem debet esse socialis coniunctio. Neque enim mulier debet dominari in virum, et ideo non est formata de capite. Neque debet a viro despici, tanquam serviliter subiecta, et ideo non est formata de pedibus. Secundo, propter sacramentum, quia de latere Christi dormientis in cruce fluxerunt sacramenta, idest sanguis et aqua, quibus est Ecclesia instituta.

448

Chapter Thirty One

ܻıIJȚț‫ ޣ‬ਲ਼ Ƞ‫ݧ‬țȠȞȠȝȚț‫ބ ޣ‬ʌȠIJĮȖȒ, ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ਥȟĮȡIJ઼IJĮȚ țĮ੿ Ȟ੹ țȣȕİȡȞ઼IJĮȚ ਕʌઁ IJઁȞ ਙȞįȡĮ, ਥʌİȚį੽ ਕʌઁ IJ੽ ijȪıȘ IJȠȣ ੒ ਙȞįȡĮȢ ਩ȤİȚ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȘ ıȪȞİıȘ țĮ੿ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ıIJ੽ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮ IJોȢ ȜȠȖȚțોȢ.16 ǹ੝IJ੽ ਲ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȠઃ ਕʌȠIJİȜİ૙IJĮȚ ਕʌઁ IJઁȞ ਙȞįȡĮ țĮ੿ IJ੽ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ਩ȤİȚ įȚȐijȠȡȠȣȢ ıIJȩȤȠȣȢ ʌȠઃ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ʌȜȘȡȠ૨ȞIJĮȚ ਫ਼ʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ ਲȖİıȓĮ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ țȣȕȑȡȞȘıȘ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ, ੪Ȣ țİijĮȜોȢ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ. Ȉ੻ Į੝IJઁ IJઁ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ, į੻Ȟ ਕʌĮȡȚșȝİ૙IJĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ ਲ ਕȞȐȖțȘ ਕȞĮʌĮȡĮȖȦȖોȢ ȖȚ੹ IJ੽ įȚĮIJȒȡȘıȘ IJȠ૨ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ, ਕȜȜ੹ țĮ੿ ਲ ੑȡȖȐȞȦıȘ IJોȢ ȠੁțȠȖİȞİȚĮțોȢ ȗȦોȢ, ੖ʌȠȣ ੒ ਕȞįȡȚțઁȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ İੇȞĮȚ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțઁȢ ਕʌઁ ਥțİ૙ȞȠȞ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, țĮ੿ ਲ ਕȖȐʌȘ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ ı੻ ȝȓĮ ıIJĮșİȡ੽ ıȤȑıȘ ȖȐȝȠȣ.17 ਺ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ ȖİȞȞȒșȘțİ ਕțȡȚȕ૵Ȣ ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ȕȠȘșȒıİȚ IJઁȞ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠ ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌĮȡĮȖȦȖ੽ ʌĮȚįȚ૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ਕțȩȝĮ țĮ੿ ı੻ Į੝IJ੽ IJ੽ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮ, ȜȩȖ૳ IJોȢ ijȪıȘȢ IJȘȢ, IJઁ ș߱Ȝȣ į੻Ȟ įȪȞĮIJĮȚ Ȟ੹ įȚĮįȡĮȝĮIJȓıİȚ ਥȞİȡȖઁ ȡȩȜȠ, ਕȜȜ੹ ȝȩȞȠ ʌĮșȘIJȚțȩ.18 ਺ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ, țĮIJૃ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȡȫIJȘ ੢ȜȘ ʌȠઃ İੇȞĮȚ ਕȡȤ੽ 16 Thomae Aquinatis, Summa ȉheologiae, I, q. 92, a. 1, ad 2um: Duplex est subjectio: una servilis, secundum quam praesidens utitur subjecto ad sui ipsius utilitatem: et talis subjectio introducta est post peccatum. Est autem alia subjectio oeconomica vel civilis, secundum quam praesidens utitur subjectis ad eorum utilitatem et bonum. Et ista subjectio fuisset ante peccatum: defuisset bonum ordinis in humana multitudine, si quidam per alios sapientiores gubernati naturaliter non fuissent. Et sic ex tali subjectione naturaliter femina subjecta est viro: quia naturaliter in homine magis abundant discretio rationis. Nec inaequalitas hominum excluditur per innocentiae statum. 17 Thoame Aquinatis, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 92, a.2, Sol: Respondeo dicendum quod conveniens fuit mulierem, in prima rerum institutione, ex viro formari, magis quam in aliis animalibus. Primo quidem, ut in hoc quaedam dignitas primo homini servaretur, ut, secundum Dei similitudinem, esset ipse principium totius suae speciei, sicut Deus est principium totius universi. Unde et Paulus dicit, Act. XVII, quod Deus fecit ex uno omne genus hominum. Secundo, ut vir magis diligeret mulierem, et ei inseparabilius inhaereret, dum cognosceret eam ex se esse productam. Unde dicitur Gen. II, de viro sumpta est, quamobrem relinquet homo patrem et matrem, et adhaerebit uxori suae. Et hoc maxime necessarium fuit in specie humana, in qua mas et femina commanent per totam vitam, quod non contingit in aliis animalibus. Tertio quia, ut philosophus dicit in VIII Ethic, mas et femina coniunguntur in hominibus non solum propter necessitatem generationis, ut in aliis animalibus; sed etiam propter domesticam vitam, in qua sunt alia opera viri et feminae, et in qua vir est caput mulieris. Unde convenienter ex viro formata est femina, sicut ex suo principio. Quarto est ratio sacramentalis; figuratur enim per hoc quod Ecclesia a Christo sumit principium. Unde apostolus dicit, ad Ephes. V, sacramentum hoc magnum est, ego autem dico in Christo et in Ecclesia. 18 Thomae Aquinatis, Summa Theologiae, I, q. 92, a.1, Sol: Respondeo dicendum quod necessarium fuit feminam fieri, sicut Scriptura dicit, in adiutorium viri, non quidem in adiutorium alicuius alterius operis, ut quidam dixerunt, cum ad

Mulier infirmior viro: Some Thoughts on Aquinas’s Teaching

449

ਥȟĮIJȠȝȓțİȣıȘȢ, ș੹ ʌĮȡĮȝİȓȞİȚ ıIJઁȞ Ƞੁțİ૙Ƞ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠ țĮ੿ ੁįȚĮȓIJİȡȠ IJȠȝȑĮ. ੲıIJȩıȠ, ਕțȩȝȘ țĮ੿ ıIJ੽ ıĮȡțȚț੽ ਕȞĮʌĮȡĮȖȦȖȒ, IJȩıȠ Ƞੂ ਙȞįȡİȢ ੖ıȠ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ਥȞİȡȖȒıȠȣȞ ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝ੻ IJ੽ įȚțȒ IJȠȣȢ ȖİȞȞȘIJȚț੽ ੂțĮȞȩIJȘIJĮ: ਩IJıȚ, ਲ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ ਦIJȠȚȝȐȗİȚ IJ੽Ȟ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ – ʌĮșȘIJȚțȐ –, ਥȞ૶ ਲ ਥȞİȡȖઁȢ įȪȞĮȝȘ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ ʌȜȘȡȠ૙ IJ੽Ȟ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ ȝ੻ ਪȞĮ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ İ‫ݭ‬ȞĮȚ, įȘȜĮį੽ ȝ੻ IJઁ Ȟ੹ İੇȞĮȚ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠȢ.19 ਺ ਫ਼ȜȚțȒ ĮੁIJȓĮ Į੝IJોȢ IJોȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ İੇȞĮȚ IJઁ ĮੈȝĮ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ ʌİȡȚȩįȠȣ ʌȠȪ, ıIJ੽ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ, ȝİIJĮıȤȘȝĮIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝ੻ ȝȓĮ įȚĮįȚțĮıȓĮ ıȣȞİȤȠ૨Ȣ IJİȜİȚȩIJȘIJĮȢ ȝ੻ IJ੽ įȡȐıȘ įȚĮįȠȤȚț૵Ȟ ȗȦIJȚț૵Ȟ țĮ੿ ijȣıȚț૵Ȟ ȝȠȡij૵Ȟ ʌȠઃ įȑȤİIJĮȚ ਕʌઁ IJ੽Ȟ ਥȞİȡȖઁ įȪȞĮȝȘ IJȠ૨ ਕȞįȡȚțȠ૨ ıʌȑȡȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȓ, ȝȑȤȡȚ ʌȠȪ, ȝ੻ IJ੽ ȕȠȒșİȚĮ ਦȞઁȢ Ƞ੝ȡĮȞȓȠȣ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ, İੇȞĮȚ ਪIJȠȚȝȠ Ȟ੹ įİȤIJİ૙ IJ੽Ȟ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓĮ țĮ੿ ਫ਼ȥȘȜȩIJİȡȘ İੁįȚț੽ ȝȠȡijȒ, įȘȜĮįȒ, IJ੽Ȟ ȞȠȘIJȚțȒ, ʌȠઃ IJ੽Ȟ țĮșȚıIJ઼ ਙȞșȡȦʌȠ.20 Ȉ੻ Į੝IJઁ IJઁ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ, İੇȞĮȚ ʌȜȑȠȞ quodlibet aliud opus convenientius iuvari possit vir per alium virum quam per mulierem; sed in adiutorium generationis. Quod manifestius videri potest, si in viventibus modus generationis consideretur. Sunt enim quaedam viventia, quae in seipsis non habent virtutem activam generationis, sed ab agente alterius speciei generantur; sicut plantae et animalia quae generantur sine semine ex materia convenienti per virtutem activam caelestium corporum. Quaedam vero habent virtutem generationis activam et passivam coniunctam; sicut accidit in plantis quae generantur ex semine. Non enim est in plantis aliquod nobilius opus vitae quam generatio, unde convenienter omni tempore in eis virtuti passivae coniungitur virtus activa generationis. Animalibus vero perfectis competit virtus activa generationis secundum sexum masculinum, virtus vero passiva secundum sexum femininum. Et quia est aliquod opus vitae nobilius in animalibus quam generatio, ad quod eorum vita principaliter ordinatur; ideo non omni tempore sexus masculinus feminino coniungitur in animalibus perfectis, sed solum tempore coitus; ut imaginemur per coitum sic fieri unum ex mare et femina, sicut in planta omni tempore coniunguntur vis masculina et feminina, etsi in quibusdam plus abundet una harum, in quibusdam plus altera. Homo autem adhuc ordinatur ad nobilius opus vitae, quod est intelligere. 19 Thomae Aquinatis, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 32, a.4, ad 2um: Potentia generativa in femina est imperfecta respectu potentiae generativae quae est in mare. Et ideo, sicut in artibus ars inferior disponit materiam, ars autem superior inducit formam, ut dicitur in II Physicae, ita etiam virtus generativa feminae praeparat materiam, virtus vero activa maris format materiam praeparatam. 20 ਝȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ਥį૵ ੒ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ ıIJ੽ șİȦȡȓĮ IJોȢ ıIJĮįȚĮțોȢ ਥȝȥȪȤȦıȘȢ, ੖ʌȦȢ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡİ૙IJĮȚ țĮ੿ ıIJઁ Contra Gentes 2, 84; De Potentia q.3, a.9. Thomae Aquinatis, Summa theologiae, Ia., q. 119, a. 2, Sol: Respondeo dicendum quod ista quaestio aliqualiter dependet ex praemissis. Si enim in natura humana est virtus ad communicandum suam formam materiae alienae non solum in alio, sed etiam in ipso; manifestum est quod alimentum, quod est in principio dissimile, in fine fit simile per formam communicatam. Est autem naturalis ordo ut aliquid gradatim de potentia reducatur in actum, et ideo in his quae generantur, invenimus quod primo

450

Chapter Thirty One

ʌȡȠijĮȞ੻Ȣ IJઁ ȖİȖȠȞઁȢ ੖IJȚ ȝȩȞȠ ੒ ਙȞįȡĮȢ ȖİȞȞ઼ ਪȞĮ ȞȑȠ ʌȜȐıȝĮ. ȈȣȞİʌ૵Ȣ, ੒ ਙȞįȡĮȢ, țĮIJ੹ IJઁȞ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘ, IJȣȖȤȐȞİȚ ĮੁIJȓĮ ȝȠȡijȚț੽ țĮ੿ IJİȜȚțȒ. ਺ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ ȕȠȘș઼ ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌĮȡĮȖȦȖȒ, ਕȜȜ੹ ȝȩȞȠ ੪Ȣ ʌĮșȘIJȚț੽ įȪȞĮȝȘ ਲ਼ ĮੁIJȓĮ ਫ਼ȜȚțȒ.21

Ǽǯ ਫʌȑțIJĮıȘ IJોȢ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮȢ: ਲ ਫ਼ʌİȡȠȤȒ (IJોȢ ਕȞįȡȚțોȢ ਥȞİȡȖİȓĮȢ țĮ੿ ਕʌȠıIJȠȜોȢ ਩ȞĮȞIJȚ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ) ੘ ਙȞįȡĮȢ, ਥțIJઁȢ IJȠ૨ ੖IJȚ įȡઽ ੪Ȣ ਥȞİȡȖઁȢ įȪȞĮȝȘ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽ įȚĮįȚțĮıȓĮ IJોȢ ʌĮȡĮȖȦȖોȢ, ਩ȤİȚ ਙȜȜȠ ıțȠʌઁ ıIJ੽ ȗȦȒ, ʌȚઁ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩ, ȝȓĮ ਕȞȫIJİȡȘ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮ: Ȟ੹ țĮIJĮȞȠİ߿, įȘȜĮįȒ, țĮ੿ Ȟ੹ ȖȞȦȡȓȗİȚ IJઁ ıȪȝʌĮȞ – IJઁ țĮșȠȜȚțȩ – țĮ੿ Ȟ੹ ʌĮȡȐȖİȚ ਥʌȚıIJȒȝȘ.22 ੜʌȦȢ ਵįȘ ıȘȝİȚȫșȘțİ, ੒ ਙȞįȡĮȢ, IJĮȣIJȚıȝȑȞȠȢ ਕʌઁ IJઁȞ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘ ȝ੻ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ, įȓȞİȚ ıIJ੽Ȟ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ IJઁ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ İ‫ݭ‬ȞĮȚ. ȉઁ ܿȡıİȞ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, İੇȞĮȚ IJઁ ıIJȠȚȤİ૙Ƞ ʌȠઃ «ਥȖțȠıȝȚȠʌȠȚİ૙» IJ੽Ȟ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ țĮșȠȡȓȗİȚ» Ȟ੹ ਕȞȒțİȚ ı੻ ਪȞĮ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ ਥijȩıȠȞ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ਲ ȝİIJȐȕĮıȘ ਖʌઁ IJઁ įȣȞȐȝİȚ ıIJઁ ‫݋‬ȞİȡȖİȓߠ. ȅ੢IJȦȢ, ਥ੹Ȟ IJઁ ʌİȡȚȕ઼ȜȜȠȞ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ੒ȡȚȠșİIJİ૙IJĮȚ ıIJઁȞ IJȠȝȑĮ IJȠ૨ ਕIJȠȝȚțȠ૨, IJȠ૨ ੁįȚȦIJȚțȠ૨, IJȠ૨ ȠੁțȚĮțȠ૨, ਥțİ૙ȞȠ IJȠ૨ ਕȞįȡȩȢ – ੖ʌȦȢ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ – ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ IJઁ țĮșȠȜȚțȩ. ȉઁ ܻȡıİȞȚțȩ-ܻȞįȡȚțȩ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, ș੹ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ਕıȤȠȜİ૙IJĮȚ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ʌĮȡĮȖȦȖ੽ IJોȢ ȖȞȫıȘȢ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȠȜȚIJȚț੽ įȡȐıȘ ıIJઁ ʌİȡȚȕ઼ȜȜȠȞ IJોȢ ʌȩȜȘȢ. ȉȠȚȠȣIJȠIJȡȩʌȦȢ, ੒ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ įȑȤİIJĮȚ țĮ੿ țȜȘȡȠȞȠȝİ૙ IJઁ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ IJોȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠ-ʌȠȜȚIJȚțોȢ įȚȐıIJĮıȘȢ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ʌȠઃ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȠ૨ıİ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਦȜȜȘȞȠȡȦȝĮȧț੽ ਕȡȤĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ. ȉઁ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ Į੝IJઁ ਫ਼ȜȠʌȠȚİ૙IJĮȚ ȖȚ੹ IJ੽Ȟ unumquodque est imperfectum, et postea perficitur. Manifestum est autem quod commune se habet ad proprium et determinatum, ut imperfectum ad perfectum, et ideo videmus quod in generatione animalis prius generatur animal, quam homo vel equus. 21 ਫį૵ ਥȟȘȖİ૙ ੒ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ IJઁ ʌ૵Ȣ IJોȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ıȣȜȜȒȥİȦȢ ıIJઁ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJોȢ ਦȡȝȘȞİȓĮȢ IJોȢ ਫ਼ʌઁ IJȠ૨ ਞȖȓȠȣ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ ਫ਼ʌİȡijȣıȚțોȢ ıȪȜȜȘȥȘȢ IJȠ૨ ȁȩȖȠȣ ıIJઁȞ IJȩțȠ IJોȢ ȆĮȡșȑȞȠȣ ȂĮȡȓĮȢ. T homae Aquinatis, Summa Theologiae, III, q. 32, a. 4, Sol: Quia, cum quaelibet res sit propter suam operationem, ut dicitur II de caelo; natura non distingueret ad opus generationis sexum maris et feminae, nisi esset distincta operatio maris ab operatione feminae. In generatione autem distinguitur operatio agentis et patientis. Unde relinquitur quod tota virtus activa sit ex parte maris, passio autem ex parte feminae. Propter quod in plantis, in quibus utraque vis commiscetur, non est distinctio maris et feminae. 22 Thomae Aquinatis, Summa Theologiae, Ia., q. 92, a. 1, c: homo autem adhuc ordinatur ad nobilius opus vitae, quod est intelligere. Et ideo adhuc in homine debuit esse maiori ratione distinctio utriusque virtutis, ut seorsum produceretur femina a mare, et tamen carnaliter conjungerentur in unum ad generationis opus. Et ideo statim post formationem mulieris, dicitur Genesi 2, 24: erunt duo in carne una.

Mulier infirmior viro: Some Thoughts on Aquinas’s Teaching

451

ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ʌȡ૵IJĮ ȝȑı૳ IJȠ૨ ʌĮIJȑȡĮ țĮȓ, ਕȡȖȩIJİȡĮ, ȝȑı૳ IJȠ૨ ıȣȗȪȖȠȣ țĮ੿ IJ૵Ȟ ȣੂ૵Ȟ (ਕȡıİȞȚț૵Ȟ).

ȈIJǯ ਫʌȑțIJĮıȘ IJોȢ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȓĮȢ: ਕįȣȞĮȝȓĮ ਵșȠȣȢ (IJȠ૨ șȒȜİȠȢ-ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ) ȀĮIJ੹ IJઁȞ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘ, ਲ ੑȜȚȖȩIJİȡȘ ijȣıȚȠȜȠȖȚț੽ țĮ੿ ȜȠȖȚț੽ ੂțĮȞȩIJȘIJĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ıȣȞįȑİIJĮȚ ਙȝİıĮ țĮ੿ ਕȞĮȜȠȖȚț੹ ȝ੻ ȝȓĮ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘ ਱șȚț੽ ਕįȣȞĮȝȓĮ țĮIJ੹ IJ੽Ȟ ਥțʌȜȒȡȦıȘ IJ૵Ȟ ਥȞIJȠȜ૵Ȟ IJȠ૨ ĬİȠ૨. īȚ ૃĮ੝IJȩ, ੖IJĮȞ ੒ ǻȚȐȕȠȜȠȢ, ıIJઁȞ ȆĮȡȐįİȚıȠ IJોȢ IJȡȣijોȢ, ਫ਼ʌȑȕĮȜİ ı੻ ʌİȚȡĮıȝઁ IJઁȞ ਝįȐȝ, IJઁ ਩țĮȞİ ȝȑı૳ IJોȢ Ǽ੡ĮȢ. ਺ ਱șȚțȒ IJȘȢ ਕįȣȞĮȝȓĮ IJ੽Ȟ țĮIJȑıIJȘıİ İ੝țȠȜȩIJİȡȠ ș૨ȝĮ IJોȢ įȚĮȕȠȜȚțોȢ ਕʌȠʌȜȐȞȘıȘȢ. ǻȚ੹ IJોȢ ıIJİȞોȢ ıȤȑıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȝ੻ IJઁȞ ਙȞįȡĮ țĮ੿ IJોȢ ਙȝİıȘȢ įȚĮȝİıȠȜȐȕȘıȘȢ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, ੒ ǻȚȐȕȠȜȠȢ țĮIJȩȡșȦıİ Ȟ੹ įİȜİȐıİȚ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ਙȞįȡĮ.23 Ȉ੻ Į੝IJઁ IJઁ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ, ਲ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İੇȤİ IJ੹ ijȣıȚț੹ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚț੹ ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚİ૙IJĮȚ ੪Ȣ ȝȑıȠ ਕʌȠʌȜȐȞȘıȘȢ țĮ੿ țĮIJȐțIJȘıȘȢ. ȆȠȚ੹ ਷IJĮȞ Į੝IJ੹ IJ੹ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ; ਞʌȜȩ: į੻Ȟ țĮIJİ૙Ȥİ IJ੽Ȟ ੅įȚĮ ȜȠȖȚț੽ įȪȞĮȝȘ IJȠ૨ įȚĮȕȩȜȠȣ – ਕȜȜૃ Ƞ੡IJİ IJȠ૨ ਙȞįȡĮ –, țĮ੿ įȚ੹ IJȠ૨IJȠ ਷IJĮȞ IJઁ ੁįĮȞȚțઁ ȝȑıȠ ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ਕʌȠʌȜĮȞȒıİȚ IJઁȞ ਝįȐȝ. ਺ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİIJĮȚ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਦȡȝȘȞİȓĮ IJȠ૨ ȕȚȕȜȚțȠ૨ țİȚȝȑȞȠȣ IJોȢ īİȞȑıİȦȢ ʌȠઃ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȠʌȠȚİ૙ ੒ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ, ੪Ȣ įİȜİĮıIJȚțઁ ȝȑıȠ, ੕ȡȖĮȞȠ ਕʌȠʌȜȐȞȘıȘȢ IJȠ૨ ਝįȐȝ. Ȉ੻ ਙȜȜȘ ıȣȞȐijİȚĮ, ੒ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ ȝ઼Ȣ ʌȜȘȡȠijȠȡİ૙ ੖IJȚ ȝİIJĮȟઃ IJ૵Ȟ ਥʌȚȕȜĮȕ૵Ȟ ʌIJȣȤ૵Ȟ ʌȠઃ ਥȞįȑȤİIJĮȚ Ȟ੹ ਩ȤİȚ ਲ ȖȞȫıȘ įȚĮȝȑıȠȣ IJ૵Ȟ ĮੁıșȒıİȦȞ, ȕȡȓıțİIJĮȚ IJઁ ȕȜȑȝȝĮ ਥʌȚșȣȝȓĮȢ (IJȠ૨ ਕȞįȡઁȢ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ) ʌȠઃ ੒įȘȖİ૙ ıIJ੽ ȜĮȖȞİȓĮ.24 ਝțȩȝĮ țĮ੿ IJઁ ı૵ȝĮ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ਩ȤİȚ 23 Thomae Aquinatis, Summa theologiae, IIa- IIae, q. 165, a. 2, ad 1um: Dicendum quod in actu tentationis diabolus erat sicut principale agens, sed mulier assumebatur quasi instrumentum tentationis ad dejiciendum virum. Tum quia mulier erat infirmior viro (‫ބ ݘ‬ʌȠȖȡȐȝȝȚıȘ įȚțȒ ȝĮȢ): unde magis seduci poterat. Tum etiam, propter conjunctionem eius ad virum, maxime per eam diabolus poterat virum seducere. Non autem est eadem ratio principalis agentis et instrumenti. Nam principale agens oportet esse potius: quod non requiritur in agente instrumentali. 24 Thomae Aquinatis, Summa theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.167, a.2, Sol: Respondeo dicendum quod cognitio sensitiva ordinatur ad duo. Uno enim modo, tam in hominibus quam in aliis animalibus, ordinatur ad corporis sustentationem, quia per huiusmodi cognitionem homines et alia animalia vitant nociva, et conquirunt ea quae sunt necessaria ad corporis sustentationem. Alio modo, specialiter in homine ordinatur ad cognitionem intellectivam, vel speculativam vel practicam. Apponere ergo studium circa sensibilia cognoscenda, dupliciter potest esse vitiosum. Uno modo, inquantum cognitio sensitiva non ordinatur in aliquid utile, sed potius avertit hominem ab aliqua utili consideratione. Unde Augustinus dicit, in X

452

Chapter Thirty One

ਪȞĮȞ İੁįȚțઁ įİȜİĮıIJȚțઁ ȤĮȡĮțIJોȡĮ.25 ੲȢ ਥț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, İੇȞĮȚ ਕʌĮȡĮȓIJȘIJȠ ੒ ıȫijȡȦȞ ਙȞįȡĮȢ Ȟ੹ ਕʌȠijȪȖİȚ Ȟ੹ IJઁ țȠȚIJȐȗİȚ ȝ੻ ʌȡȠıȠȤ੽ țĮ੿ ʌȐșȠȢ, ੮ıIJİ Ȟ੹ ȝ੽ ʌȑıİȚ ı੻ ʌİȚȡĮıȝઁ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ıțȑȥȘ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ਥʌȚșȣȝȓĮ. ȉȩıȠ ਲ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ ੖ıȠ țĮ੿ Ƞੂ ȞİĮȡȠȓ, ȝ઼Ȣ ʌȜȘȡȠijȠȡİ૙ ੒ "ਝȖȖİȜȚțઁȢ ǻȚįȐıțĮȜȠȢ" (Doctor Angelicus, ੖ʌȦȢ IJઁȞ ਕʌȠțĮȜİ૙ ਲ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚț੽ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ) ı੻ ਙȜȜȠ țİȓȝİȞȠ,26 ਩ȤȠȣȞ ȝȓĮ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘ IJȐıȘ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ਥʌȚșȣȝȓĮ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ਱įȠȞȒ. ਺ IJȐıȘ Į੝IJ੽ ıIJȠઃȢ ȞİĮȡȠઃȢ ਥȟȘȖİ૙IJĮȚ ȜȩȖ૳ IJોȢ șİȡȝȩIJȘIJȠȢ IJોȢ ਲȜȚțȓĮȢ, ਥȞ૶ ıIJ੽ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ ȜȩȖ૳ IJોȢ ਱șȚțોȢ ਕįȣȞĮȝȓĮȢ Ȟ੹ ਕȞIJȚıIJĮșİ૙ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮ. ਺ ਱șȚț੽ ਕįȣȞĮȝȓĮ ʌȠઃ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİIJĮȚ ıIJ੿Ȣ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ țĮ੿ ıIJ੹ ȞȑĮ ʌĮȚįȚȐ, ਥțijȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਕįȣȞĮȝȓĮ ਕȞIJȚȝİIJȫʌȚıȘȢ țĮ੿ ਕȞIJȓıIJĮıȘȢ IJોȢ ijȣıȚțોȢ IJȐıȘȢ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ਱įȠȞ੽ țĮ੿ ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮ, țĮȓ, ੪Ȣ ਥț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, ș੹ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ੹ ਥȜȑȖȤȠȞIJĮȚ țĮ੿ Ȟ੹ įȚȠȡșȫȞȠȞIJĮȚ įȚ੹ IJોȢ ਕȡİIJોȢ.

Confess., canem currentem post leporem iam non specto cum in circo fit. At vero in agro, si casu transeam, avertit me fortassis ab aliqua magna cogitatione, atque ad se convertit illa venatio, et nisi iam mihi demonstrata infirmitate mea, cito admoneas, vanus hebesco. Alio modo, inquantum cognitio sensitiva ordinatur ad aliquod noxium, sicut inspectio mulieris ordinatur ad concupiscendum; et diligens inquisitio eorum quae ab aliis fiunt, ordinatur ad detrahendum. Si quis autem cognitioni sensibilium intendit ordinate, propter necessitatem sustentandae naturae, vel propter studium intelligendae veritatis, est virtuosa studiositas circa sensibilem cognitionem. 25 ȈIJઁ ʌİȡȚȕ઼ȜȜȠȞ IJોȢ ਥʌȠȤોȢ Į੝IJોȢ IJȠ૨ ȂİıĮȓȦȞĮ, ਲ ਫ਼ʌȩıIJĮıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ਩ȤİȚ IJĮȣIJȚıIJİ૙ ਕʌȠȜȪIJȦȢ ȝ੻ IJઁ ı૵ȝĮ IJȘȢ. ਝʌİȞĮȞIJȓĮȢ, IJઁ ܿȡıİȞ-ܻȞįȡȚțާ įȚĮțȡȓȞİȚ IJઁȞ ਦĮȣIJȩ IJȠȣ ਕʌઁ IJઁ ı૵ȝĮ IJȠȣ, ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ IJĮȣIJȚıIJİ૙ ȝ੻ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ, IJ੽Ȟ țĮșĮȡ੽ ȜȠȖȚțȒ, țĮIJ੹ ʌȐȞIJĮ ਕıȫȝĮIJȘ țĮ੿ ʌĮȖțȩıȝȚĮ. ȉઁ ܿȡıİȞ ȖȚ੹ ʌȠȜȜȠઃȢ Įੁ૵ȞİȢ ਩ȤİȚ șİȦȡȒıİȚ IJઁ ı૵ȝĮ IJȠȣ ı੹Ȟ țȐIJȚ IJઁ ȟȑȞȠ, ı੹Ȟ įİȣIJİȡİ૨ȠȞ ੕ȡȖĮȞȠ ਲ਼ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJોȢ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ ੢ʌĮȡȟȒȢ IJȠȣ. ਺ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ, ੖ȜȦȢ ਕȞIJȚșȑIJȦȢ, ȞȚȫșİȚ IJ੽Ȟ ੢ʌĮȡȟȒ IJȘȢ ʌȚઁ ıȣȞįİįİȝȑȞȘ ȝ੻ IJઁ ı૵ȝĮ IJȘȢ țĮ੿ ȝ੻ IJઁ ਫ਼ȜȚțȩ-ĮੁıșȘIJȩ: ਩IJıȚ, ȝʌȠȡȠ૨ȝİ Ȟ੹ ੁıȤȣȡȚıIJȠ૨ȝİ ੖IJȚ IJ੽Ȟ ਥʌȠȤ੽ Į੝IJ੽ ਲ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ İੇȞĮȚ IJઁ ı૵ȝĮ IJȘȢ: ਥȟ Ƞ੤ țĮ੿ ਲ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘ ਕȞȘıȣȤȓĮ ȖȚ੹ IJ੽ ijȡȠȞIJȓįĮ IJȠ૨ ıȫȝĮIJȩȢ IJȘȢ. ਝʌઁ Į੝IJ੽ IJ੽ ȕĮșȚ੹ IJĮȪIJȚıȘ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ȝ੻ IJઁ ı૵ȝĮ IJȠȣȢ, ʌȘȖȐȗİȚ țĮ੿ ਲ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮț੽ IJĮȪIJȚıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ਱įȠȞ੽ țĮ੿ İੁįȚț੹ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ਥȡȦIJȚț੽ ਕʌȩȜĮȣıȘ. ਝȜȜ੹ ਲ ਫ਼ʌȑȡȝİIJȡȘ ਥʌȚșȣȝȓĮ ȖȚ੹ ਱įȠȞȒ, ʌȠઃ IJĮȣIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ, ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİIJĮȚ ıIJઁ ȝİıĮȚȦȞȚțઁ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝઁ ੪Ȣ ਲ ʌȘȖ੽ ȝȚ઼Ȣ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘȢ ਩ȞIJĮıȘȢ ʌȐșȠȣȢ țĮ੿ ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮȢ. 26 Thomae Aquinatis, Summa Theologiae, IIa-IIae, q.149, a.4, Sol: Sic aliqua virtus magis requiritur in aliquibus duplici ratione: uno modo, quia in eis est major pronitas ad concupiscentias quas oportet per virtutem refrenari, et ad vitia quae per virtutem tolluntur; et secundum hoc sobrietas maxime requiritur in juvenibus et mulieribus: quia in juvenibus viget concupiscentia delectabilis, propter fervorem aetatis; in mulieribus autem non est sufficiens robus mentis ad hoc quod concupiscentiam resistant (‫ބ ݘ‬ʌȠȖȡȐȝȝȚıȘ įȚțȒ ȝĮȢ). Unde, secundum Maximum Valerium, mulieres apud Romanos antiquitus non bibebant vinum.

Mulier infirmior viro: Some Thoughts on Aquinas’s Teaching

453

ȈȣȝʌȑȡĮıȝĮ īȚ੹ IJઁȞ ĬȦȝ઼ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘ IJઁ ܿȡıİȞ țĮ੿ IJઁ ș߱Ȝȣ ਥțįȘȜȫȞȠȣȞ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚț੹ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ijȪıȘ țĮ੿ ȜȠȖȚțȒ. ȉઁ ȗİ૨ȖȠȢ ș߱Ȝȣ-ȝȒIJȘȡ, ਫ਼ȜȚț੽ țĮ੿ ਥȞıȫȝĮIJȘ ĮੁIJȓĮ, IJĮȣIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ੅įȚĮ IJ੽ ijȪıȘ țĮ੿ ੒ȝȠȚȐȗİȚ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ਕȡȚıIJȠIJİȜȚț੽ ʌȡȫIJȘ ‫ވ‬ȜȘ. ȉઁ ȗİ૨ȖȠȢ ܿȡıİȞ-ʌĮIJȒȡ, ੖ȝȦȢ, ıȤİIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ਙȝİıĮ ȝ੻ IJઁ İ‫ݭ‬įȠȢ, ਥijૃ ੖ıȠȞ ʌİȡȚțȜİȓİȚ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȜȘȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠ૨ İੇȞĮȚ, țĮ੿ ȞȠİ૙IJĮȚ ੪Ȣ ȝȓĮ ʌȜȒȡȘȢ țĮ੿ ȝ੽ ਥȞıȫȝĮIJȘ ĮੁIJȓĮ ਕȞİȟȐȡIJȘIJȘ ਕʌઁ IJ੽ ijȪıȘ, țĮIJ੹ ʌȐȞIJĮ ਕȞĮȖțĮ૙Į ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ੒ȜȠțȜȘȡȦșİ૙ IJઁ șોȜȣ. ਝȟȚȠȜȠȖȚț੹ țĮ੿ ı੻ ȝȓĮ ਙțȡȦȢ ਱șȚțȚıIJȚț੽ ਙʌȠȥȘ, ੒ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ șİȦȡİ૙ IJ੽ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ ੮Ȣ IJȚ IJઁ ȝȚĮȡȩ, ਙıİȝȞȠ, ȕȡȫȝȚțȠ, IJઁ ȝȑıȠ ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ ʌȑıİȚ ੒ ਙȞįȡĮȢ ı੻ ੒ʌȠȚĮįȒʌȠIJİ ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮ, ਥȞ૶ IJઁ ਕȡıİȞȚțઁ IJઁ șİȦȡİ૙ țĮȜȩ, ਦȜțȣıIJȚțȩ, İ੝ʌȡİʌȑȢ, ਕijȠ૨ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȒșȘțİ ʌȡ੿Ȟ ਕʌઁ IJ੽ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮ ȖȚ੹ Ȟ੹ įȘȜȫȞİIJĮȚ ਲ ਫ਼ʌİȡȠȤȒ IJȠȣ ıIJ੽Ȟ ਕȟȚȠʌȡȑʌİȚĮ țĮ੿ ıIJ੽ įȚĮțȣȕȑȡȞȘıȘ IJોȢ țIJȓıİȦȢ. ȈIJ੽ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ IJȠ૨ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘ į੻Ȟ ȕȡȓıțȠȣȝİ IJȓʌȠIJİ IJઁ ȞİȫIJİȡȠ ੖ıȠȞ ਕijȠȡઽ ıIJ੽Ȟ ੑȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ, ਕȟȚȠȜȠȖȚț੽ țĮ੿ ਱șȚț੽ țĮIJȦIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ ı੻ ıȤȑıȘ ȝ੻ IJ੽Ȟ ਥȞ ȖȑȞİȚ ijȚȜȠıȠijȚț੽ țĮ੿ șİȠȜȠȖȚț੽ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ʌȠઃ ੒ ੅įȚȠȢ țȜȘȡȠȞȠȝİ૙. Ȉ੻ ȖİȞȚț੻Ȣ ȖȡĮȝȝȑȢ, ੒ ਝțȚȞȐIJȘȢ įȑȤİIJĮȚ țĮ੿ ਥʌİȟİȡȖȐȗİIJĮȚ IJ੽Ȟ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ʌȠઃ ȟİțȓȞȘıİ ਵįȘ ıIJ੿Ȣ ਕʌĮȡȤ੻Ȣ IJȠ૨ ਦȜȜȘȞȠ-ȡȦȝĮȧțȠ૨ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȠ૨, ȝ੻ ਪȞĮ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ ਕȞįȡȠʌȡİʌȠ૨Ȣ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȠ૨, ੖ʌȦȢ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİIJĮȚ ıIJ੹ ਩ȡȖĮ țȣȡȓȦȢ IJȠ૨ ਹıȚȩįȠȣ țĮ੿ ਕȡȖȩIJİȡĮ ıIJ੽Ȟ țȜĮııȚțȒ IJȡĮȖȦįȓĮ țĮ੿ ਩ʌİȚIJĮ ਥʌȚıȘȝȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȠ țĮ੿ ਕʌઁ IJઁȞ ȆȜȐIJȦȞĮ țĮ੿ IJઁȞ ਝȡȚıIJȠIJȑȜȘ. ȉઁ ੅įȚȠ ıȤİįઁȞ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ, ȕİȕĮȓȦȢ ȝ੻ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚț੻Ȣ țĮ੿ Ƞ੝ıȚĮıIJȚț੻Ȣ ʌĮȡĮȜȜĮȖȑȢ, ıȣȞİȤȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJઁȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝઁ ȝ੻ IJઁȞ ਝʌȩıIJȠȜȠ ȆĮ૨ȜȠ, ȝ੻ ʌȜȠȪıȚİȢ ıȣȝȕȠȜ੻Ȣ ıIJȠȤĮıIJ૵Ȟ ੖ʌȦȢ ੒ ȉİȡIJȣȜȜȚĮȞઁȢ țĮ੿ ȁĮIJȓȞȦȞ ȆĮIJȑȡȦȞ IJોȢ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ੖ʌȦȢ ੒ ੊İȡȫȞȣȝȠȢ țĮ੿ ੒ ǹ੝ȖȠȣıIJ૙ȞȠȢ, Ƞੂ ੒ʌȠ૙ȠȚ IJȠȞȓȗȠȣȞ IJ੽ ıȤȑıȘ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮ૙țĮȢ ȝ੻ IJઁ ਱șȚțઁ țĮțઁ țĮ੿ IJ੽Ȟ ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮ. ਺ ੂıIJȠȡȓĮ įİȓȤȞİȚ ੖IJȚ IJઁ ਕȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȚțઁ Į੝IJઁ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ ıIJ੽Ȟ ʌİȡ੿ ȖȣȞĮȚțઁȢ ਕȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ țĮ੿ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ȕĮıȓȗİIJĮȚ țĮșĮȡ੹ ı੻ ਥȟȦʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚț੻Ȣ ਕȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ ਕijȘȡȘȝȑȞȘȢ įȚĮȞȩȘıȘȢ țĮ੿ ș੹ țĮIJĮıIJİ૙ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ ʌȠઃ ș੹ ȝȚȝȘșȠ૨Ȟ ȤȚȜȚȐįİȢ ȝȠȞĮȤȠ੿ țĮ੿ ੂİȡİ૙Ȣ ı੻ ੖ȜİȢ IJ੿Ȣ ਥʌȠȤȑȢ, țȣȡȓȦȢ ıIJ੽ ǻȪıȘ. ਫʌ੿ Įੁ૵ȞİȢ ȝĮțȡȚ੹ ਥȞįȪȝĮIJĮ ș੹ țȡȪȥȠȣȞ IJઁ ਕȞįȡȚțઁ ı૵ȝĮ, ਕȜȜ੹ ੁįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ IJઁ "įİȜİĮıIJȚțઁ" țĮ੿ "ਖȝĮȡIJȦȜઁ" ı૵ȝĮ IJોȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ. ਺ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ, țȣȡȓȦȢ ıIJ੽ ǻȪıȘ, ș੹ įȘȜȫȞİȚ ਥʌȓıȘȝĮ IJ੽Ȟ "țĮIJȦIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮ" IJ૵Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚț૵Ȟ, ਕȡȞȠȪȝİȞȘ IJ੽Ȟ ʌȡȩıȕĮıȒ IJȠȣȢ ıIJઁȞ ੁıȤȣȡઁ įȚĮȞȠȘIJȚțઁ țȩıȝȠ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞįȡ૵Ȟ. ǹ੝IJ੽ ਲ ਫțțȜȘıȓĮ ș੹ țȐȞİȚ ȝȓĮ ıȣȞİȤો ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ Ȟ੹ ਫ਼ʌİȡȕĮȓȞȠȣȞ Ƞੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ IJ੽Ȟ "țĮIJȫIJİȡȘ ȞȠȘȝȠıȪȞȘ" IJȠȣȢ ȕȣșȚıȝȑȞȘ ı੻ ਪȞĮ ਫ਼ȜȚıIJȚțઁ țĮ੿ ijȣıȚțઁ ਫ਼ʌȠȕĮșȝȚıȝȑȞȠ țȩıȝȠ, țĮ੿ Ȟ੹ țȣȡȚĮȡȤȒıȠȣȞ ıIJ੿Ȣ ijȣıȚțȑȢ IJȠȣȢ ੒ȡȝ੻Ȣ ʌȡઁȢ IJ੽Ȟ ਖȝĮȡIJȓĮ. ਯIJıȚ, Ƞੂ ȖȣȞĮ૙țİȢ ș੹ ȖȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ įİțIJ੻Ȣ ıIJ੹ ȝȠȞĮıIJȒȡȚĮ ੪Ȣ ȞȪȝijİȢ IJȠ૨ ȋȡȚıIJȠ૨, ʌĮȡĮȚIJȠȪȝİȞİȢ ਕʌઁ IJઁȞ

454

Chapter Thirty One

ਕȡȤȑȖȠȞȠ țĮ੿ ȕĮıȚțȩ IJȠȣȢ ਫ਼ʌĮȡȟȚĮțઁ ıIJȩȤȠ ʌȠȪ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝ੻ IJઁ ਕȞĮijİȡș੻Ȟ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȠ, İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ʌĮȡĮȖȦȖ੽ IJ૵Ȟ ਕȞșȡȦʌȓȞȦȞ ੕ȞIJȦȞ. ǻ੻Ȟ İੇȞĮȚ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, ਕȞIJȚijĮIJȚțȩ; ਺ ਕʌȐȞIJȘıȘ İੇȞĮȚ ʌȡȠijĮȞȒȢ. Ȇ૵Ȣ, ੖ȝȦȢ, ȝʌȠȡȠ૨ȝİ Ȟ੹ ਫ਼ʌİȡȕȠ૨ȝİ Į੝IJ੻Ȣ IJ੿Ȣ ਕȞIJȚijȐıİȚȢ țĮ੿ ʌȡȠțĮIJĮȜȒȥİȚȢ ʌȠȪ, ੪Ȣ ʌȡȠȧȩȞIJĮ ȝȚ઼Ȣ ਕȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘȢ įȚİȡȖĮıȓĮȢ, ȝȚ઼Ȣ ੂıIJȠȡȚțોȢ ʌȠȡİȓĮȢ, ਥȞįİȤȠȝȑȞȦȢ ਕȜȜȠȚȫȞȠȣȞ ਲ਼ ȝİIJĮȕȐȜȜȠȣȞ IJઁ ȝȒȞȣȝĮ IJȠ૨ Ǽ੝ĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ; ਺ ਕʌȐȞIJȘıȘ İੇȞĮȚ ਖʌȜો: įȚ੹ IJȠ૨ ੁįȓȠȣ IJȠ૨ Ǽ੝ĮȖİȜȜȓȠȣ, ʌȠઃ İੇȞĮȚ ਲ ਥȖȖȪȘıȘ IJોȢ ਥȞ ȋȡȚıIJ૶ ȗȦોȢ: «‫ݼ‬ıȠȚ Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ ȋȡȚıIJާȞ ‫݋‬ȕĮʌIJȓıșȘIJİ, ȋȡȚıIJާȞ ‫݋‬ȞİįȪıĮıșİ· Ƞ‫ރ‬ț ‫ݏ‬ȞȚ ‫ݯ‬ȠȣįĮ߿ȠȢ Ƞ‫ރ‬į‫ݖ ޡ‬ȜȜȘȞ, Ƞ‫ރ‬ț ‫ݏ‬ȞȚ įȠࠎȜȠȢ Ƞ‫ރ‬į‫݋ ޡ‬ȜİȪșİȡȠȢ, Ƞ‫ރ‬ț ‫ݏ‬ȞȚ ܿȡıİȞ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ș߱Ȝȣ· ʌȐȞIJİȢ Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ ‫ބ‬ȝİ߿Ȣ İ‫ݮ‬Ȣ ‫݋‬ıIJİ ‫݋‬Ȟ ȋȡȚıIJࠜ ‫ݯ‬ȘıȠࠎ». 27

ǺȚȕȜȚȠȖȡĮijȓĮ Thomae Aquinatis, Summa theologiae, I, I-II, II-II, III. —. In Physicorum Librorum Commentarium, lib. I, lectio 15. —. Contra Gentes 2. —. De Potentia q.3. ȈijİȞįȩȞȘ-ȂȑIJıȠȣ, ǻ., ȅ ǹȡȚıIJȠIJȑȜȘȢ ȈȒȝİȡĮ. ȆIJȣȤȑȢ IJȘȢ ĮȡȚıIJȠIJİȜȚțȒȢ ijȣıȚțȒȢ ijȚȜȠıȠijȓĮȢ ȣʌȩ IJȠ ʌȡȓıȝĮ IJȘȢ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘȢ İʌȚıIJȒȝȘȢ. ǼțįȩıİȚȢ ǽȒIJȘ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ, 2010.

27

īĮȜ. 3:28.

CHAPTER THIRTY TWO THE PROBLEM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON DEACONESSES AND THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN DIMITRIOS KERAMIDAS

Abstract: The attitude of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to the ordination of women emerged: 1. As a response to the idea that the prohibition of the ordination of women has no biblical or doctrinal foundations; 2. As a reaction to the ordination of women by other Christian confessions; 3. As a clarification of the official position of the Roman Catholic magisterium. In 1975, Pope Paul VI stated that there are three “fundamental reasons” for the non-ordination of women: (a) The example of Christ, who chose the apostles exclusively from men; (b) The uninterrupted practice of the Church; (c). The official Roman Catholic doctrine. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Inter insigniores (1976), states the following: 1. The Roman Catholic Church has never ordained women as presbyters or bishops and remains faithful to the normative example of Christ and to the practice of the apostles; 2. The male priesthood belongs to the unchanging essence of the mystery of priesthood and not to its variable elements; 3. Jesus is the priestly model which the ecclesiastical life follows. The priest is an icon of Christ and therefore must be chosen only from men, otherwise symbolic and representative power is abolished; 4. The priesthood is not a (human) right but a gift from God that is related to faith and not to discussions about women’s rights. Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994) states that: 1. The Western and Eastern tradition of the Church uninterruptedly kept the exclusive “male” priesthood; 2. When Christ chose the apostles, he was not limited by the social and cultural conditions of the time but acted in a free and sovereign manner; 3. The non-ordination of women is to be considered definitive for the Roman Catholic Church as well as for her faithful. Pope Benedict XVI stated that the teaching on male priesthood is a definitive doctrinal truth, has an infallible and irrevocable prestige, and is linked to the revealed truth (scripture and tradition). Pope Francis stated the following: 1. It is necessary to develop a “theology of women”; 2. The Virgin Mary was more important than the apostles and the woman is more important for the Church than bishops and priests; 3. Feminine intelligence is needed in areas where important decisions are taken and the Church’s

456

Chapter Thirty Two

administration is exercised; 4. Whoever speaks about women as cardinals suffers from clericalism; 5. Maternity is a richness for the Church and indicates the special way through which God has entrusted human life to women; 6. The ideology of the “emancipation of women” is a distraction from women’s specific attributes.

ǼȚıĮȖȦȖȚțȐ ȉȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ĮʌĮıȤȩȜȘıİ, ȝİ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȠȪȢ IJȡȩʌȠȣȢ, IJo ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȩ țȩıȝȠ IJȠȞ ʌİȡĮıȝȑȞȠ ĮȚȫȞĮ, ȦȢ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡĮijȑIJȘıȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıİ șİıȝȚțȩ, ȚįİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ, țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ İʌȓʌİįȠ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ĮȞȐįİȚȟȘȢ IJȘȢ ȜİȖȩȝİȞȘȢ “ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ”. Ȃİ IJȠ ĮȓIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒșȘțİ Ȟ’ ĮʌȠțĮIJĮıIJĮșİȓ Ș ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮȞįȡȫȞ-ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ, Ȟ’ ĮȞĮȞİȦșİȓ Ș İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ IJȐȟȘ ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȚȢ ȚįİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ țĮIJĮțIJȒıİȚȢ IJȘȢ ȞİȦIJİȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ, Ȟ’ ĮijİșȠȪȞ ıIJȠ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞ ĮȞįȡȠțİȞIJȡȚțȑȢ ʌȡȠțĮIJĮȜȒȥİȚȢ ʌȠȣ İȓȤĮȞ İȚıȤȦȡȒıİȚ ıİ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȑȢ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȑȢ, ȞĮ țĮșȚİȡȦșİȓ Ș ȚıȩIJȚȝȘ ĮʌȩįȠıȘ IJȦȞ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȫȞ ĮȟȚȦȝȐIJȦȞ țĮȚ ıIJĮ įȪȠ ijȪȜĮ. ǵʌȦȢ ȒIJĮȞ ijȣıȚțȩ, Ș İȣȡȪIJİȡȘ ĮȣIJȒ – țĮȚ İȟȩȤȦȢ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȒ – ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ ĮȞȑįİȚȟİ IJȘ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ ĮȞIJȚȝİIJȫʌȚıȘ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ įȚȐijȠȡİȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȑȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓİȢ țĮȚ ȅȝȠȜȠȖȓİȢ. Ȉİ ȩ,IJȚ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȘȞ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, IJȘȢ ȠʌȠȓĮȢ Ș ıIJȐıȘ ȝĮȢ İȞįȚĮijȑȡİȚ, Ș ıȤİIJȚțȒ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒ ʌȡȠȑțȣȥİ: 1. ȍȢ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ ıIJȘȞ ȐʌȠȥȘ ʌȦȢ Ș ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ Ȓ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒ șİȝİȜȓȦıȘ țĮȚ ʌȦȢ Ș silentio ʌȠȣ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ įİȞ ĮʌȠțȜİȓİȚ IJȘȞ Ƞįȩ ȝȚĮȢ ʌȚșĮȞȒȢ ĮȞĮșİȫȡȘıȘȢ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ. 2. ȍȢ ĮȞIJȓįȡĮıȘ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ʌȠȣ İȓȤĮȞ ĮȡȤȓıİȚ ȞĮ ĮțȠȜȠȣșȠȪȞ ȐȜȜİȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȑȢ ʌĮȡĮįȩıİȚȢ (ȁȠȣșȘȡĮȞȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ǹȖȖȜȚțĮȞȚțȒ ȀȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ) țĮȚ ȦȢ ĮʌȠıĮijȒȞȚıȘ IJȘȢ İʌȓıȘȝȘȢ șȑıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȫıIJİ ĮijİȞȩȢ ȝİȞ ȞĮ İȞșĮȡȡȣȞșİȓ Ș ıȪȖțȜȚıȘ ȝİ IJȚȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓİȢ İțİȓȞİȢ ʌȠȣ įİȞ ʌȡȠȕȜȑʌȠȣȞ IJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ (ȩʌȦȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ), ĮijİIJȑȡȠȣ įİ ȞĮ ʌȡȠȦșȘșİȓ Ƞ įȚĮȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȩȢ įȚȐȜȠȖȠȢ įȓȤȦȢ ıȪȖȤȣıȘ, ĮȜȜȐ ȝİ ȟİțȐșĮȡİȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ șȑıİȚȢ.1 1

ȆȑȡĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȒ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ, Ș ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ ȑȤİȚ, įȓȤȦȢ ȐȜȜȠ, țĮȚ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȩ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞ. ǹȞ ȠȡȓıȠȣȝİ IJȘȞ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȒ ȦȢ IJȠ ȐȞȠȚȖȝĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ ĮȖțĮȜȚȐȗİȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȝİIJĮȝȠȡijȫȞİȚ ıİ ȜĮȩ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ, Įʌ’ ĮȣIJȒȞ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȚİțIJȚțȒ țȓȞȘıȘ įİȞ İȟĮȚȡİȓIJĮȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ. īȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ, IJȠ ĮȓIJȘȝĮ IJȠȣ İȞİȡȖȠȪ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ țĮȚ İȞIJȩȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȠȚ ıȤȑıİȚȢ ĮȣIJȫȞ ȝİ IJȠ ĮȞįȡȚțȩ ijȪȜȠ, Ș ȑȞIJĮȟȒ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ȗȦȒ İȓȞĮȚ

The Problem of the Catholic Church on Deaconesses

457

3. ȉȑȜȠȢ, ȦȢ ĮʌȠțĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ IJȠȣ ȤȐıȝĮIJȠȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣ consensus fidelium țĮȚ IJȘȢ İʌȓıȘȝȘȢ ȐʌȠȥȘȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠ șȑȝĮ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ıIJȠ țȠȚȞȩ ĮȓıșȘȝĮ ijĮȚȞȩIJĮȞ ȟİʌİȡĮıȝȑȞȘ, ĮțĮIJĮȞȩȘIJȘ țĮȚ İțIJȩȢ IJȠȣ “ʌȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ IJȘȢ İʌȠȤȒȢ”. ȈIJȠ ʌĮȡȩȞ ıȘȝİȓȦȝĮ, șĮ ȖȓȞİȚ ȝȚĮ ĮʌȩʌİȚȡĮ ʌĮȞȠȡĮȝȚțȒȢ İʌȚıțȩʌȘıȘȢ IJȠȣ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ, ȑIJıȚ ȩʌȦȢ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİIJĮȚ ıIJĮ ʌȚȠ ʌȡȩıijĮIJĮ İʌȓıȘȝĮ țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȠȣ ȡȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȠȪ įȚįĮțIJȚțȠȪ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ, ȝİ ıțȠʌȩ:2 (Į) Ȟ’ ĮȞĮȜȣșİȓ Ș ıȤİIJȚțȒ ȡȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒ. ȀȐʌȠȚĮ ȤȡȩȞȚĮ ʌȡȚȞ Ƞ ȃ. ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮȢ İȓȤİ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒıİȚ IJȘȞ ʌȡȩȕȜİȥȘ ʌȦȢ Ș ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ țĮIJİȟȠȤȒȞ țĮȚ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȐ ĮȚIJȒȝĮIJĮ. 2 īȚĮ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȠȪȢ țĮȚ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪȢ, įİȞ İȟİIJȐȗİIJĮȚ İįȫ Ș ʌȡȚȞ Įʌȩ IJȘ Ǻǯ ȈȪȞȠįȠ IJȠȣ ǺĮIJȚțĮȞȠȪ (1962-1965) ȡȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ĮȞĮijȠȡȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. Ȉİ țȐșİ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ, ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȘ įİțĮİIJȓĮ IJȠȣ ’60, ıIJĮ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȐ İȖȤİȚȡȓįȚĮ IJȠ șȑȝĮ İIJȓșİIJȠ İȟȩȤȦȢ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıIJȚțȐ: įİțIJȠȓ ıIJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ ȖȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ ȠȚ ȕĮʌIJȚıȝȑȞȠȚ ĮȡıİȞȚțȠȪ ijȪȜȠȣ. Ǿ įİ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ șİȝİȜȓȦıȘ ȕĮıȚȗȩIJĮȞ ıIJĮ: ȀȠȡ. ǹǯ 14, 34 ȉȚȝ. ǹǯ 2,12. ȅ ȐȞįȡĮȢ, șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ İȚțȩȞĮ țĮȚ įȩȟĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ, İȞȫ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ įȩȟĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞįȡȩȢ. ȈIJȚȢ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȑȢ ıȣȞȐȟİȚȢ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ ıȚȦʌȐ țĮȚ Ȟ’ ĮțȠȪİȚ IJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ȝȩȞȠ ȑȤİȚ IJȠ įȚțĮȓȦȝĮ ȞĮ įȚįȐıțİȚ. Ǿ ȝȘ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȝȚĮ İʌȚIJĮȖȒ șİȓȠȣ įȚțĮȓȠȣ, ıȪȝijȦȞȘ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȝĮțȡĮȓȦȞȘ ʌȓıIJȘ țĮȚ ʌȡȐȟȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȅ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ĮʌȠțĮȜȪijșȘțİ ȦȢ ȐȞįȡĮȢ, İȞȫ Ƞ ĬİȩȢ ĮʌȠțĮȜİȓIJĮȚ “ȆĮIJȑȡĮȢ” țĮȚ ȩȤȚ “ȂȘIJȑȡĮ”, ȐȡĮ Ș ȗȦȒ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ʌȡȦIJȠȖİȞȫȢ ȦȢ ĮȡıİȞȚțȒ. Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ȦȢ ʌȡȠİȡȤȩȝİȞȘ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ, İȟĮȡIJȐIJĮȚ (ȣʌȠIJȐııİIJĮȚ) ı’ ĮȣIJȩȞ țĮȚ ĮʌȠțȜİȓİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ ȖȚĮ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ “ijȣıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ” (īİȞ. 2,21-25). Ǿ Įʌȩ IJȠ ʌȜİȣȡȩ IJȠȣ ȐȞįȡĮ (ǹįȐȝ) įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ (ǼȪĮ) ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ IJȘ ijȣıȚțȒ/ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮIJȦIJİȡȩIJȘIJȐ IJȘȢ (ȩʌȦȢ Ƞ ȐȞįȡĮȢ ijȡȠȞIJȓȗİȚ IJȘȞ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮ, ȠȝȠȓȦȢ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ IJİȜİȓ/įȚĮȤİȚȡȓȗİIJĮȚ IJĮ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚĮ), țĮȚ İʌȘȡİȐȗİȚ IJȘȞ țȡȓıȘ (Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȚȠ ıȣȞĮȚıșȘȝĮIJȚțȒ, ʌȚȠ ĮįȪȞĮȝȘ țĮȚ ʌȚȠ İȣȐȜȦIJȘ ıIJȘȞ țȡȓıȘ IJȘȢ). ȅ ȐȞįȡĮȢ ijȑȡȞİȚ IJȘ ȗȦȒ, Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ĮʌȜȫȢ IJȘ įȑȤİIJĮȚ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ijȡȠȞIJȓȗİȚ. Ǿ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ȐȞįȡĮ İȓȞĮȚ įȘȝȩıȚĮ, İȞȫ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȚįȚȦIJȚțȒ. ȅ ȐȞįȡĮȢ, ȦȢ İȚțȩȞĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ, ȝİıȠȜĮȕİȓ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ İʌȑȜșİȚ Ș șİȓĮ ȋȐȡȘ (ıIJȘȞ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȝȑıȦ IJȦȞ ȚİȡȫȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȦȞ), İȞȫ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ĮijȠıȚȫȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮ țȚ ȩȤȚ ıIJȘ ȝȠȞĮȟȚȐ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ (ıİ țȐʌȠȚİȢ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ȜȩȖȠȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘ “ijȣıȚțȒ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ” IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ: IJȘ ȝȘIJȡȩIJȘIJĮ, IJȘ ıȣȗȣȖȚțȩIJȘIJĮ, IJȘȞ ĮȖȦȖȒ). ȉȠ 1962, Ƞ ȠȜȜĮȞįȩȢ ȚȘıȠȣȓIJȘȢ Haye van der Meer șĮ įȘȝȠıȚİȪıİȚ, ȣʌȩ IJȠȞ K. Rahner, șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȚĮIJȡȚȕȒ ȖȚĮ IJȠ șȑȝĮ (ȣʌȩ IJȠȞ IJȓIJȜȠ: Priestertum der Frau? eine theologiegeschichtliche Untersuchung). Ǽțİȓ șĮ ȚıȤȣȡȚıIJİȓ, ʌȦȢ IJĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ İȞĮȞIJȓȠȞ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ İȜȜȚʌȒ, ȕĮıȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ıİ țȐʌȠȚȠ įȩȖȝĮ, Ș ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ theologice certum țĮȚ ȩȤȚ įȩȖȝĮ ʌȓıIJȘȢ, ȠȚ ĮʌȩȥİȚȢ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘ ijȣıȚțȒ țĮIJȦIJİȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȟİʌİȡĮıȝȑȞİȢ țĮȚ įȘȜȫȞȠȣȞ ȝȚĮ ȣʌȠIJȓȝȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠȣ ijȪȜȠȣ țĮȚ ȩIJȚ, IJİȜȚțȐ, Ș ȡȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ ȐʌȠȥȘ – ıİ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJȚȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓİȢ ʌȠȣ įȑȤȠȞIJĮȞ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ – İȓȞĮȚ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒ.

458

Chapter Thirty Two

ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ “ĮȡȖȐ Ș ȖȡȒȖȠȡĮ șĮ ȣȚȠșİIJȒıİȚ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ”.3 ĬĮ įȠȪȝİ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, İȐȞ Ș ʌȡȩȕȜİȥȘ IJȠȣ ĮİȚȝȞȒıIJȠȣ ȠȡșȩįȠȟȠȣ įȠȖȝĮIJȠȜȩȖȠȣ İʌĮȜȘșİȪIJȘțİ Ȓ ȩȤȚ țĮȚ șĮ İȞIJȠʌȓıȠȣȝİ IJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ ʌȠȣ ĮȞĮʌIJȪȤșȘțİ ȖȪȡȦ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ.4

1. To «ȩȤȚ» IJȠȣ ʌȐʌĮ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ Ȉȉǯ (1975) Ǿ ʌȡȫIJȘ ʌĮʌȚțȒ IJȠʌȠșȑIJȘıȘ ıIJȠ șȑȝĮ ȒIJĮȞ ĮȣIJȒ IJȠȣ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ Ȉȉǯ5 (1963-1978). ǹijȠȡȝȒ ȖȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ ıIJȐșȘțİ Ș ĮʌȠįȠȤȒ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ İț ȝȑȡȠȣȢ IJȘȢ ǹȖȖȜȚțĮȞȚțȒȢ ȀȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ. Ȉİ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȒ IJȠȣ ıIJȚȢ 30 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1975 ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ IJȩIJİ ǹȡȤȚİʌȓıțȠʌȠ IJȠȣ Canterbury, ĮȚįİı. 3

ȃ. ȂĮIJıȠȪțĮȢ, “Ǿ ǿİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȦȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ țĮȚ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ”, ıIJȠ Ȇ. ǺĮıȚȜİȚȐįȘȢ, İʌ., ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩȢ ǻȚȐȜȠȖȠȢ, ǹșȒȞĮ 2005, 127. 4 īȚĮ IJȠ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ șȑıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȒįȘ Ƞ ȆȐʌĮȢ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ Ȁīǯ, [ǼȖțȪțȜȚȠȢ Pacem in Terris, ıIJȠ AAS 55 (1963), 267-268], ĮȞĮȖȞȫȡȚȗİ «IJȘȞ İȓıȠįȠ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘ įȘȝȩıȚĮ ȗȦȒ». ȆȡȕȜ. İʌȓıȘȢ Ǻǯ ȈȪȞȠįȠȢ IJȠȣ ǺĮIJȚțĮȞȠȪ, ǻȚȐIJĮȖȝĮ Apostolicam Actuositatem, AAS 58 (1966), §9: «ǹʌȩ IJȘ ıIJȚȖȝȒ ʌȠȣ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮȞĮȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ ȑȞĮȞ ȠȜȠȑȞĮ țĮȚ ʌȚȠ İȞİȡȖȩ ȡȩȜȠ ıİ ȩȜȠ IJȠ ijȐıȝĮ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒȢ ȗȦȒȢ, İȓȞĮȚ ȝİȖȐȜȘȢ ıʌȠȣįĮȚȩIJȘIJĮȢ Ș ʌȚȠ İȣȡİȓĮ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȠȣȢ įȚȐijȠȡȠȣȢ IJȠȝİȓȢ IJȠȣ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȠȪ ȑȡȖȠȣ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ» ʌȡȕȜ. İʌȓıȘȢ IJȘ ǻȚȐIJĮȟȘ Gaudium et Spes, §29, İȞĮȞIJȓȠȞ «țȐșİ ȝȠȡijȒȢ įȚȐțȡȚıȘȢ IJȦȞ șİȝİȜȚȦįȫȞ įȚțĮȚȦȝȐIJȦȞ». Ȉİ țȐșİ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ, Ș Ǻǯ ȈȪȞȠįȠȢ IJȠȣ ǺĮIJȚțĮȞȠȪ įİȞ ĮıȤȠȜȒșȘțİ İȚįȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȠȪIJİ ȑȜĮȕİ ĮʌȠijȐıİȚȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ʌȚȠ İȞİȡȖȒ șȑıȘ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ȗȦȒ. ǺȑȕĮȚĮ, IJȘȞ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ İțİȓȞȘ, Ș ıȤİIJȚțȒ ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ ȕȡȚıțȩIJĮȞ ĮțȩȝĮ ıİ İȝȕȡȣĮțȒ ijȐıȘ. ȀĮIJȐ țĮȚȡȠȪȢ, ȦıIJȩıȠ, țĮȚ ıİ țȐșİ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ȝİIJȐ IJȘ ȜȒȟȘ IJȘȢ ȈȣȞȩįȠȣ, ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗȠȞIJĮȞ ĮȚIJȒȝĮIJĮ, Įʌȩ ȜĮȧțȑȢ Ȓ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓİȢ țĮșȠȜȚțȑȢ ȠȡȖĮȞȫıİȚȢ Ȓ ĮțȩȝĮ Įʌȩ ȝİȝȠȞȦȝȑȞȠȣȢ İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣȢ (țȣȡȓȦȢ Įʌȩ ȤȫȡİȢ IJȘȢ ȀİȞIJȡȚțȒȢ țĮȚ ǺȩȡİȚĮȢ ǼȣȡȫʌȘȢ, IJȦȞ Ǿ.Ȇ.ǹ., ȩʌȠȣ IJȠ șȑȝĮ İȓȤİ ȕȡİȚ İȣȡİȓĮ ĮʌȠįȠȤȒ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ȐȜȜİȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȑȢ ȅȝȠȜȠȖȓİȢ), ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȘ IJȘȢ ĮʌĮȜİȚijȒȢ ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȦȞ ʌȡȠțĮIJȐȜȘȥȘȢ İȞĮȞIJȓȠȞ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ĮȞȐȜȘȥȘȢ İȞȩȢ ʌȚȠ İȞİȡȖȠȪ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȐ ȡȩȜȠȣ, ʌȑȡĮȞ ĮȣIJȠȪ IJȦȞ ȝȠȞĮıIJȚțȫȞ IJĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮȢ (ʌ.Ȥ. ıIJĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȐ ĮȞĮȖȞȫıȝĮIJĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ țȒȡȣȟȘ IJȠȣ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ, ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ įȚȠȓțȘıȘ țIJȜ.). 5 ȆȡȠȘȖȠȣȝȑȞȦȢ, Ș ǼʌȚIJȡȠʌȒ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ĬİȓĮ ȁĮIJȡİȓĮ, ıIJȘȞ İijĮȡȝȠȖȒ IJȘȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒȢ ĮȞĮȖȑȞȞȘıȘȢ IJȘȢ Ǻǯ ȈȣȞȩįȠȣ IJȠȣ ǺĮIJȚțĮȞȠȪ, İȓȤİ İʌĮȞĮȜȐȕİȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ǺȜ. Congregazione per il Cultro Divino, Liturgiae instauratione, ıIJȠ AAS 62 (1970), 692-704. ȍıIJȩıȠ, Ƞ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ Ȉȉǯ İȓȤİ ȒįȘ (1973) ıȣıIJȒıİȚ ȝȚĮ ǼʌȚIJȡȠʌȒ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȝİȜȑIJȘ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ. ǺȜ. A. Polia, Donna e sacerdozio. Indagine storico-teologica degli aspetti antropologici dell’ordinazione delle donne (įȚįĮțIJȠȡȚțȒ įȚĮIJȡȚȕȒ), Torino 2005, 79.

The Problem of the Catholic Church on Deaconesses

459

Frederick D. Coggan (1974-1980), Ƞ ʌȠȞIJȓijȚțĮȢ țĮșȚıIJȠȪıİ ȖȞȦıIJȒ IJȘ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȇȫȝȘȢ ĮȞĮijȠȡȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ «ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ» – ȩʌȦȢ IJȠ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡȚȗİ – IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȝȚĮ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ ʌȠȣ, țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ ȓįȚȠ, įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȠȪıİ įȣıțȠȜȓİȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌȠȡİȓĮ țĮIJĮȜȜĮȖȒȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ǼțțȜȘıȚȫȞ.6 ȉȡİȚȢ ȒIJĮȞ ȠȚ «İȟĮȚȡİIJȚțȐ șİȝİȜȚȫįİȚȢ ȜȩȖȠȚ» ʌȠȣ, țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ ȆȐʌĮ ȆĮȪȜȠ, țĮșȚıIJȠȪıĮȞ ĮįȪȞĮIJȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȀĮșȠȜȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ Ȟ’ ĮʌȠįİȤIJİȓ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ: 1. ȉȠ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, ȑIJıȚ ȩʌȦȢ IJȠ țĮIJĮȖȡȐijȠȣȞ ȠȚ īȡĮijȑȢ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ İʌȑȜİȟİ IJȠȣȢ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ ȝȠȞȐȤĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮȞįȡȫȞ. 2. Ǿ įȚĮȡțȒȢ ʌȡȐȟȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ʌȠȣ ȝȚȝȒșȘțİ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ıIJȘȞ İʌȚȜȠȖȒ ȝȩȞȠ ĮȞįȡȫȞ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ. 3. Ǿ ıİ ȚıȤȪ İʌȓıȘȝȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ (magisterium) IJȘȢ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ țĮșȩȡȚıİ ıȣȞĮijȫȢ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ İȓȞĮȚ ıİ ĮȡȝȠȞȓĮ ȝİ IJȠ ıȤȑįȚȠ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ. ǼʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ, ıIJȘ ijȐıȘ ĮȣIJȒ Ƞ ʌȐʌĮȢ İȞįȚĮijİȡȩIJĮȞ țĮIJĮȡȤȒȞ ȞĮ įȚĮIJȣʌȫıİȚ IJȘȞ İʌȓıȘȝȘ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ıIJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ʌĮȡĮʌȑȝʌȠȞIJĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȒįȘ įȚĮȝȠȡijȦȝȑȞȘ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ʌȡȐȟȘ țĮȚ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ, įȓȤȦȢ ȞĮ ʌȡȠȤȦȡİȓ ıİ ʌİȡĮȚIJȑȡȦ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ İȝȕȐșȣȞıȘ.7 Ǿ «IJȡȚʌȜȒ» İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȒ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ – țĮȚ, țȣȡȓȦȢ, Ș ıȪȞįİıȒ IJȘȢ ȝİ IJȠ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ – șĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪıİ, ȩʌȦȢ șĮ įȠȪȝİ, IJȘ ȕĮıȚțȒ ʌȣȟȓįĮ ʌȐȞȦ ıIJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ șĮ ĮȞĮʌIJȣııȩIJĮȞ Ș șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞIJȚȝİIJȫʌȚıȘ IJȠȣ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ.

2. Ǿ ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ Inter insigniores ǹțȠȜȠȪșȦȢ, Ș ǼʌȚIJȡȠʌȒ (Congregatio) ȖȚĮ IJȘ ǻȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ IJȘȢ ȆȓıIJȘȢ (ıIJȠ İȟȒȢ=ǼǻȆ), İțȜȒșȘ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȆȐʌĮ ȞĮ İȟȘȖȒıİȚ IJȘ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ĮȞĮijȠȡȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠįȠȤȒ Ȓ ȩȤȚ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ 6

ǺȜ. AAS 68, 1976, 599-600. ȆȡȕȜ. İʌȓıȘȢ IJȘ ȝİIJȑʌİȚIJĮ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȒ IJȠȣ ȚįȓȠȣ ıIJȚȢ 23 ȂĮȡIJȓȠȣ 1976. Ǿ ȐʌȠȥȘ IJȠȣ ǹȖȖȜȚțĮȞȠȪ ǹȡȤȚİʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ ȒIJĮȞ İȖȖȪIJİȡȘ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ İȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ İȞ IJȘ ʌȠȚțȚȜȓĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȫȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȫȞ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȫȞ. ȉȠ ȪijȠȢ IJȘȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȠȖȡĮijȓĮȢ ȒIJĮȞ İȟȐʌĮȞIJȠȢ İȖțȐȡįȚȠ țĮȚ İȚȡȘȞȚțȩ, įİȓȖȝĮ ȝȚĮȢ įȚȐșİıȘȢ ȖȚĮ İȚȜȚțȡȚȞȒ ĮȞĮȗȒIJȘıȘ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ ıIJȠȞ țȠȚȞȩ ʌȩșȠ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ İȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ. 7 ȆȡȐȖȝĮIJȚ, ıIJȘ ıȪȞIJȠȝȘ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȞ ǹȖȖȜȚțĮȞȩ ǹȡȤȚİʌȓıțȠʌȠ, Ƞ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ Ȉȉǯ įİȞ ʌĮȡĮʌȑȝʌİȚ ıİ țĮȝȓĮ įȚȐIJĮȟȘ IJȠȣ ȀĮȞȠȞȚțȠȪ ǻȚțĮȓȠȣ, ȠȪIJİ ıİ țȐʌȠȚȠ ȕȚȕȜȚțȩ Ȓ ʌĮIJİȡȚțȩ ȤȦȡȓȠ.

460

Chapter Thirty Two

ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ. ȆȡȐȖȝĮIJȚ, Ș ǼʌȚIJȡȠʌȒ İȟȑįȦıİ IJȠ 1976 IJȘ ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ Inter insigniores ȖȪȡȦ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȑȞIJĮȟȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ, ıIJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ ȞĮ İȞIJȠʌȓıȠȣȝİ ȝȚĮ ʌȚȠ ıȣıIJȘȝĮIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ İʌİȟİȡȖĮıȓĮ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ.8 H ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ İȓȞĮȚ įȚĮȡșȡȦȝȑȞȘ ıİ ȑȟȚ șİȝĮIJȚțȐ țİijȐȜĮȚĮ: Į) Ƞ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ, ȕ) Ș ıIJȐıȘ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ, Ȗ) Ș ʌȡȐȟȘ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, į) IJȠ ȝȩȞȚȝȠ țȪȡȠȢ IJȘȢ ıȣȝʌİȡȚijȠȡȐȢ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, İ) IJȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ ȣʌȩ IJȠ ijȦȢ IJȠȣ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, țĮȚ ıIJ) IJȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ ıIJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȉȠ țİȓȝİȞȠ ȟİțȚȞȐİȚ (țİij. 1) ĮȞĮȖȞȦȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJȠȞ ĮʌȠijĮıȚıIJȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ ʌȠȣ įȚĮįȡĮȝȐIJȚıĮȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ: ıIJȠ ȝȠȞĮıIJȚțȩ ȕȓȠ (ȩʌȦȢ Ș ǹȖȓĮ Chiara Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ǹııȓȗȘ, Ș ǹȖȓĮ ǹȚțĮIJİȡȓȞȘ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȈȚȑȞĮ, Ș ǹȖȓĮ ȉİȡȑȗĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ Avila, ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJȐ IJȠȣȢ ȣʌȒȡȟĮȞ “ǻȐıțĮȜȠȚ” IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ), ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȒȢ, IJȠȣ ĮijȚİȡȦȝȑȞȠȣ ȕȓȠȣ, IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮȢ (ȝİ IJȘ įȚįĮțĮȜȓĮ IJȘȢ ʌȓıIJȘȢ, ȝİ ȑȡȖĮ ĮȖȐʌȘȢ). ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ȐȜȜȘ, įȚĮʌȚıIJȫȞİȚ IJĮ ʌȡȠȕȜȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ įȘȝȚȠȪȡȖȘıİ Ș ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȦȞ ǼțțȜȘıȚȫȞ IJȘȢ ȂİIJĮȡȡȪșȝȚıȘȢ ȞĮ įȑȤȠȞIJĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȠ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ, ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ʌȠȣ İȞİșȐȡȡȣȞİ IJȘ įȘȝȠıȚȠʌȠȓȘıȘ ĮȞȐȜȠȖȦȞ ĮȚIJȒȝĮIJȦȞ țĮȚ ıIJȠ ȡȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȩ țȩıȝȠ, İʌȦijİȜȠȪȝİȞĮ IJȘȢ ĮıĮijȠȪȢ Ȓ ȑıIJȦ, țȐʌȠȚȠ ȕĮșȝȩ, ĮȡȞȘIJȚțȒȢ IJȠʌȠșȑIJȘıȘȢ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȝİıĮȚȦȞȚțȒ țĮȚ ıȤȠȜĮıIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ.9 ȈIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ, Ș ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ ʌȡȠȤȦȡȐİȚ ıIJȘȞ țȪȡȚĮ İʌİȟİȡȖĮıȓĮ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ. ǹȡȤȚțȐ, İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȩIJȚ Ș ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ – ȝȑȞȠȞIJĮȢ ʌȚıIJȒ ıIJȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ “IJȪʌȠ” ʌȠȣ șȑȜȘıİ ȞĮ ʌĮȡĮįȫıİȚ Ƞ ǿȘıȠȪȢ țĮȚ ʌȠȣ ĮțȠȜȠȪșȘıĮȞ ȠȚ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ – İȓȤİ ȒįȘ ĮʌȠțȜİȓıİȚ IJȘȞ Ƞįȩ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ 8

ǺȜ. AAS 69 (1977) 98-116. Ǽįȫ, ʌȡȠijĮȞȫȢ, Ș ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ĬȦȝȐ ǹțȚȞȐIJȘ țĮȚ IJȘȞ, ĮȡțİIJȐ ıȣȗȘIJȒıȚȝȘ, șȑıȘ IJȠȣ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ İʌȘȡȑĮıİ ȑȞIJȠȞĮ IJȘȞ ʌȡȚȞ IJȘ įİțĮİIJȓĮ IJȠȣ ’60 ȡȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ. ȅ ǹțȚȞȐIJȘȢ ĮȞĮijİȡȩIJĮȞ ıIJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȦȢ “femina quasi mancus” țĮȚ ȦȢ “mas occasionatus”. ǼʌȘȡİĮıȝȑȞȠȢ ȑȞIJȠȞĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȡȚıIJȠIJİȜȚțȒ ȐʌȠȥȘ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮʌĮȡĮȖȦȖȒ IJȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ, įİ șĮ įȚıIJȐıİȚ ȞĮ ʌİȚ ʌȦȢ Ƞ ȐȞįȡĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ țȣȡȓĮȡȤȠ/IJȑȜİȚȠ ijȪȜȠ ʌȠȣ – ȦȢ ijȠȡȑĮȢ ĮȞĮʌĮȡĮȖȦȖȒȢ (Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ĮʌȜȐ “įȑȤİIJĮȚ” IJȘ ȗȦȒ) – ĮȞĮʌĮȡȐȖİȚ ȝȑıȦ IJȠȣ ıʌȑȡȝĮIJȠȢ IJȠȞ İĮȣIJȩ IJȠȣ, įȘȜ. IJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ. Ǿ ȠȣıȓĮ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ ȐȞįȡĮȢ Ș įİ ȝȠȡijȒ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ İȓIJİ Ƞ ȐȞįȡĮȢ (IJȑȜİȚȠ, İȣȖİȞȑȢ ijȪȜȠ) İȓIJİ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ (IJȠ ĮIJİȜȑȢ, ĮȞȠȜȠțȜȒȡȦIJȠ, İȜȜȚʌȑȢ ijȪȜȠ). Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, İȟĮȚIJȓĮȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ/ijȣıȚțȒȢ ĮIJİȜȠȪȢ țĮIJĮıțİȣȒȢ, ȝȠȜȠȞȩIJȚ – ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ Ƞ ȐȞįȡĮȢ – İȓȞĮȚ “İȚțȩȞĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ”, IJİȜȚțȐ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ ȣʌȠIJȐııİIJĮȚ ıIJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ, ıIJȠ ȖȐȝȠ țĮȚ IJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ, ȖȚĮIJȓ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ IJȘ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ IJȘȢ țȡȓıȘȢ. īȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ țȚ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ (įȚįȐıțĮȜȠȢ, ȣʌȑȡȝĮȤȠȢ, țȣȕİȡȞȒIJȘȢ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȦʌȓȞȠȣ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ) ijĮȞİȡȫșȘțİ ȦȢ ȐȞįȡĮȢ. 9

The Problem of the Catholic Church on Deaconesses

461

IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ ȕĮșȝȩ IJȠȣ ʌȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȠȣ țĮȚ IJȠȣ İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ (ȝİ IJȘȞ İȟĮȓȡİıȘ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȦȞ ĮȚȡİIJȚțȫȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȫȞ ȠȝȐįȦȞ, ıȣȞȒșİȚĮ, ʌȐȞIJȦȢ, ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠįȠțȚȝȐıIJȘțİ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ȆĮIJȑȡİȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ). Ǿ įȚĮȡțȒȢ țĮȚ ĮȝİIJȐȕȜȘIJȘ ĮȣIJȒ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ įȚĮȝȩȡijȦıİ ȝȚĮ įȚĮȡțȒ ıIJȠ ʌȑȡĮıȝĮ IJȦȞ ĮȚȫȞȦȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ (Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ʌȡȠĮıʌȓıIJȘțİ țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȚțȑȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓİȢ), ȫıIJİ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ «įİȞ ĮȚıșȐȞșȘțİ IJȘȞ ĮȞȐȖțȘ ȞĮ ʌĮȡȑȝȕİȚ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ İʌȚȕİȕĮȚȫıİȚ ȑȞĮ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ ʌȠȣ įİȞ ȖȞȫȡȚıİ ĮȞIJȓȡȡȘıȘ, Ȓ ȞĮ ȣʌİȡĮȝȣȞșİȓ İȞȩȢ ȞȩȝȠȣ ʌȠȣ įİȞ ĮȝijȚıȕȘIJİȓIJȠ». ǼʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ǼʌȚIJȡȠʌȒ, Ș ȠȝȠijȦȞȓĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒȢ țĮȚ ǻȪıȘȢ ıİ ȩ,IJȚ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȘȞ ĮțȠȜȠȣșȠȪȝİȞȘ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ, țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ Ș ȝȩȞȚȝȘ, įȓȤȦȢ ȝİIJĮȕȠȜȑȢ, IJȒȡȘıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȡȤȒȢ IJȘȢ ȝȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȦȢ ıȣȝȝȩȡijȦıȘ ıIJȠ șİȓȠ șȑȜȘȝĮ, țĮșȚıIJȠȪȞ ȑȞĮȞ țĮIJĮȡȤȒȞ ȚıȤȣȡȩ ȜȩȖȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮʌȩȡȡȚȥȘ IJȑIJȠȚȦȞ ĮȚIJȘȝȐIJȦȞ. ȉȠ įİȪIJİȡȠ țİijȐȜĮȚȠ IJȘȢ Inter insigniores İʌȚțİȞIJȡȫȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ, țĮșȠȡȚıIJȚțȒ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ, ıIJȐıȘ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ. Ǿ ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ șĮ ıȘȝİȚȫıİȚ ȝİ ȑȝijĮıȘ, ȩIJȚ «Ƞ ǿȘıȠȪȢ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ įİȞ țȐȜİıİ țĮȝȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ ȝȑȡȠȢ IJȦȞ ǻȫįİțĮ. ǻİȞ IJȠ ȑʌȡĮȟİ ĮȣIJȩ, įȚȩIJȚ ȑʌȡİʌİ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıĮȡȝȠıIJİȓ ıIJȚȢ ıȣȞȒșİȚİȢ IJȠȣ țĮȚȡȠȪ ȉȠȣ, țĮșȫȢ Ș ıȣȝʌİȡȚijȠȡȐ ʌȠȣ ȣȚȠșȑIJȘıİ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ĮȞIJȚIJȓșİIJȠ ȝ’ ĮȣIJȒȞ IJȠȣ ʌİȡȚȕȐȜȜȠȞIJȩȢ ıIJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ ȑįȡĮıİ țĮȚ ıȘȝĮIJȠįȩIJȘıİ ȝȚĮ ȘșİȜȘȝȑȞȘ țĮȚ ȖİȞȞĮȓĮ ȡȒȟȘ». ȅ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ȒIJĮȞ țȠȞIJȐ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ țĮșȩȜȠ IJȠȞ İʌȓȖİȚȠ ȕȓȠ IJȠȣ (ȝİ IJȘ ȈĮȝĮȡİȓIJȚįĮ IJȠȣ ǿȦ. 4,27, ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮȝĮȡIJȦȜȒ IJȠȣ ȁț. 7,37 İȟ.), ĮʌȠıIJĮıȚȠʌȠȚȒșȘțİ Įʌȩ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞİȢ įȚĮIJȐȟİȚȢ IJȠȣ ȂȦıĮȧțȠȪ ȃȩȝȠȣ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ ȞĮ įȘȜȫıİȚ IJȘȞ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ ĮȞįȡȫȞ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ȖȐȝȠ (Ȃȡ. 10,2-11 Ȃș. 19,3-9), įȑȤIJȘțİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȠȞ țȪțȜȠ IJȦȞ ȝĮșȘIJȫȞ ʌȠȣ ȉȠȞ ĮțȠȜȠȣșȠȪıĮȞ (ȁț. 8,2-3), İȞȫ, IJȑȜȠȢ, ıİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ İȝijĮȞȓıIJȘțİ ȝİIJȐ IJȘȞ ǹȞȐıIJĮıȒ ȉȠȣ (ǿȦ. 20,11-18 țĮȚ ĮȜȜȠȪ). Ǿ ıȣȝʌİȡȚijȠȡȐ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ, ıȘȝİȚȫȞİȚ Ș ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ, ıȣȞȚıIJȐ Įʌȩ ȝȩȞȘ IJȘȢ ȝȚĮ İʌĮȡțȒ ĮʌȩįİȚȟȘ IJȘȢ ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ȍıIJȩıȠ, Ș ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȒ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ įİȞ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ țĮIJĮȞȠİȓIJĮȚ ȝȠȞȐȤĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȒ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ IJȦȞ țİȚȝȑȞȦȞ, ĮȜȜȐ ȤȡİȚȐȗİIJĮȚ Ș ıȣȖțȑȞIJȡȦıȘ ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ İȞįİȓȟİȦȞ İțİȓȞȦȞ ʌȠȣ İʌȚȕİȕĮȚȫȞȠȣȞ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ǿȘıȠȪȢ įİȞ ĮȞȑșİıİ ıİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ IJȠ ȡȩȜȠ ʌȠȣ İȓȤĮȞ ȠȚ ǻȫįİțĮ (ȦȢ ĮȞIJȚʌȡȩıȦʌȠȚ IJȦȞ įȫįİțĮ ijȣȜȫȞ IJȠȣ ǿıȡĮȒȜ, ȦȢ țĮșȠȜȚțȒ ʌȡĮȖȝȐIJȦıȘ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȒȢ ȉȠȣ: ȠȚ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ ĮȞIJȚʌȡȠıȦʌİȪȠȣȞ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ıIJȠ ȜĮȩ țĮȚ ıȣȞİȤȓȗȠȣȞ IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ ȉȠȣ). Ǿ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, ıȣȞİȤȓȗİȚ IJȠ țİij. 3, įȚĮIJȒȡȘıİ IJȠ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ. ȂȠȜȠȞȩIJȚ Ș ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ İȓȤİ ȝȚĮ ʌȡȠȞȠȝȚȠȪȤĮ șȑıȘ ıIJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ ȝİIJȐ IJȘȞ ǹȞȐȜȘȥȘ, Ƞ įȦįȑțĮIJȠȢ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ İʌİȜȑȖȘ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮȞįȡȫȞ. ȉȠ DZȖȚȠ ȆȞİȪȝĮ, țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȆİȞIJȘțȠıIJȒ, țĮIJȒȜșİ ıİ ȩȜȠȣȢ, ȐȞįȡİȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ (ȆȡȐȟ. 1,14.2,1), ĮȜȜȐ Ș țȒȡȣȟȘ IJȠȣ

462

Chapter Thirty Two

ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ıIJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ ȑȖȚȞİ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ «ȆȑIJȡȠ țĮȚ IJȠȣȢ DzȞįİțĮ» (ȆȡȐȟ. 2,14). ȈIJȘȞ țȒȡȣȟȘ IJȠȣ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ ȠȚ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ – ʌĮȡȩIJȚ įİȞ įİıȝİȪȠȞIJĮȞ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ įȚĮIJȐȟİȚȢ IJȠȣ ǿȠȣįĮȧțȠȪ ȃȩȝȠȣ – įİȞ ıȣȝʌİȡȚȑȜĮȕĮȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ ʌȠȣ ȠȚ ȓįȚȠȚ ĮıțȠȪıĮȞ, ĮȞ țĮȚ ȣʌȒȡȤĮȞ ȚȑȡİȚİȢ ıIJȚȢ İșȞȚțȑȢ șȡȘıțİȓİȢ. ȅ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ ȝĮȢ ʌȜȘȡȠijȠȡİȓ ȩIJȚ İȓȤİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıȣȞİȡȖȐIJȡȚİȢ (ȇȦȝ. 16,3 ĭȚȜ. 4,2-3) țĮȚ ȩIJȚ ıİȝȞȣȞȩIJĮȞ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ʌȠȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ʌȠȣ ȝİIJĮıIJȡȐijȘțĮȞ ıIJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȩ, ĮȜȜȐ įȚĮIJȒȡȘıİ IJȠȞ IJȓIJȜȠ IJȠȣ «ıȣȞİȡȖȠȪ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ» (ǹǯ ȀȠȡ. 3,9) ȝȩȞȠ ȖȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ ʌȠȣ ĮıțȠȪıĮȞ ȝĮȗȓ IJȠȣ IJȠ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ IJȘȢ țȒȡȣȟȘȢ IJȠȣ ȁȩȖȠȣ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ. DzIJıȚ, țĮIJĮȜȒȖİȚ Ș ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ, «ʌĮȡȐ IJȠȞ IJȩıȠ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ IJȠȣȢ IJȘ ıIJȚȖȝȒ IJȘȢ ǹȞȐıIJĮıȘȢ, Ș ıȣȞİȡȖĮıȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ įİ șĮ ĮȖȖȓȟİȚ ʌȠIJȑ ıIJȠȞ ȆĮȪȜȠ IJȘȞ ȐıțȘıȘ IJȘȢ İʌȓıȘȝȘȢ țĮȚ įȘȝȩıȚĮȢ țȒȡȣȟȘȢ IJȠȣ ȝȘȞȪȝĮIJȠȢ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȒ İȣșȪȞȘ IJȘȢ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȒȢ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ». Ǿ ıȣȝʌİȡȚijȠȡȐ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ İȓȤİ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȑȞĮ țĮȞȠȞȚıIJȚțȩ țȪȡȠȢ. ȉĮ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ İʌȚIJȡȑʌȠȣȞ IJȘ ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ ȞĮ ȣʌȠȖȡĮȝȝȓıİȚ (țİij. 4) IJȠ ȝȩȞȚȝȠ țĮȚ įȚĮȤȡȠȞȚțȩ țȪȡȠȢ IJȘȢ ıIJȐıȘȢ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ, ʌȠȣ įİȞ ȠijİȚȜȩIJĮȞ ıİ țȐʌȠȚĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ-ʌȠȜȚIJȚıIJȚțȒ ĮȞȐȖțȘ, Ȓ ıİ İȣțĮȚȡȚĮțȠȪȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ: «ȀĮȞİȓȢ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ ʌȠIJȑ ĮʌȠįİȓȟİȚ – țĮȚ, ĮȞĮȝijȓȕȠȜĮ, İȓȞĮȚ ĮįȪȞĮIJȠ ȞĮ IJȠ țȐȞİȚ – ʌȦȢ ĮȣIJȒ Ș ıȣȝʌİȡȚijȠȡȐ İȝʌȞİȩIJĮȞ ȝȠȞȐȤĮ Įʌȩ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠʌȠȜȚIJȚıIJȚțȠȪȢ ʌĮȡȐȖȠȞIJİȢ». Ǿ ȡȒȟȘ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ȝİ IJȠ ȃȩȝȠ țĮȚ Ș ȝȘ ĮʌȠįȠȤȒ, İț ȝȑȡȠȣȢ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȩ ıȫȝĮ, ȝȠȜȠȞȩIJȚ ıIJȠȞ İȜȜȘȞȚțȩ țȩıȝȠ įİȞ ȣʌȒȡȤĮȞ IJȑIJȠȚȠȣ İȓįȠȣȢ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȠȓ ijĮȞİȡȫȞȠȣȞ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ IJȘ ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ, ȝȐȜȜȠȞ IJȠ ĮȞIJȓșİIJȠ. Ǿ ȐʌȠȥȘ ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ Ƞ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ İȝʌȞİȩIJĮȞ Įʌȩ ĮȞįȡȠțȡĮIJȠȪȝİȞİȢ ʌȡȠțĮIJĮȜȒȥİȚȢ, įȚĮȥİȪİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ IJȘȞ ʌĮȪȜİȚĮ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ ȩȜȦȞ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ (īĮȜ. 3,28), țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮȖȦȖȒ ʌȠȣ țȐȞİȚ Ƞ ȓįȚȠȢ Ƞ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ ıIJȠ șİȓȠ ȞȩȝȠ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ĮʌĮȖȠȡİȪİȚ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ įȚįȐȟȠȣȞ ıIJȚȢ ıȣȞȐȟİȚȢ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ (ȀȠȡ. ǹǯ, 11,7, ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȩȢ ʌȠȣ įİȞ ĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȘȞ ȐıțȘıȘ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠijȘIJȚțȠȪ ȤĮȡȓıȝĮIJȠȢ). DZȡĮ, ıIJȘȞ ʌĮȪȜİȚĮ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ, Ș șİȝİȜȓȦıȘ IJȠȣ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȠȪ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJȠȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ ȑȤİȚ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ, ʌĮȡȐ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒʌȠȜȚIJȚıIJȚțȒ șİȝİȜȓȦıȘ. ǹțȠȜȠȪșȦȢ, Ș ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ İȟİIJȐȗİȚ IJȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ İȐȞ Ș ȐıțȘıȘ IJȦȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȦȞ, ȑIJıȚ ȩʌȦȢ ʌĮȡĮįȩșȘțĮȞ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ȝȑıȦ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, İȓȞĮȚ ıIJĮșİȡȒ, țĮȚ țĮIJȐ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ ĮȝİIJȐȕȜȘIJȘ, Ȓ İȐȞ ȣʌȩțİȚIJĮȚ ıIJȠȞ țĮȞȩȞĮ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒȢ ʌȡȠıĮȡȝȠȖȒȢ țĮȚ İȟȑȜȚȟȘȢ. Ǽįȫ Ș șȑıȘ IJȠȣ Inter insigniores İȓȞĮȚ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȘȝĮIJȚțȒ: «Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ țĮȝȓĮ İȟȠȣıȓĮ İʌȓ IJȘȢ ȠȣıȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȂȣıIJȘȡȓȦȞ, įȘȜĮįȒ ıİ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȠȣ Ƞ ȀȪȡȚȠȢ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ IJȦȞ ʌȘȖȫȞ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ǹʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘȢ, ȒșİȜİ ȞĮ ʌĮȡĮȝİȓȞİȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȩ ıȘȝİȓȠ [...] ȈIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȣijȓıIJĮIJȠ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ ĮȣIJȒ Ș

The Problem of the Catholic Church on Deaconesses

463

įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ, ȩIJȚ įȘȜĮįȒ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȐıțȘıȘ IJȦȞ ȂȣıIJȘȡȓȦȞ, įȚĮIJȘȡȫȞIJĮȢ ĮȞĮȜȜȠȓȦIJȘ IJȘȞ ȠȣıȓĮ IJȠȣȢ, ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ șİıʌȓıİȚ Ȓ ȞĮ ȝİIJĮȕȐȜİȚ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȠȣ țȡȓȞİȚ IJĮȚȡȚĮıIJȩ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȤȡȘıȚȝȩIJȘIJĮ ĮȣIJȫȞ ʌȠȣ IJĮ įȑȤȠȞIJĮȚ Ȓ ıİ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJĮ ȓįȚĮ IJĮ ȂȣıIJȒȡȚĮ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȝİIJĮȕȠȜȒ IJȦȞ ʌİȡȚıIJȐıİȦȞ, IJȘȢ İʌȠȤȒȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ IJȩʌȠȣ».10 ǻİȞ İȓȞĮȚ, ȩȝȦȢ, ȝȩȞȠ Ș ȠȣıȓĮ IJȦȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȦȞ ʌȠȣ ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ ĮȝİIJȐȕȜȘIJȘ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ Ƞ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȫȞ ıȘȝİȓȦȞ. ȉĮ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚĮ įİȞ ĮȞIJȚțĮIJȠʌIJȡȓȗȠȣȞ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȐ ȖİȖȠȞȩIJĮ ȠȪIJİ ĮȞĮʌĮȡȐȖȠȣȞ IJȘ įȚȐıIJĮıȘ IJȠȣ țȩıȝȠȣ, ĮȜȜȐ İțijȡȐȗȠȣȞ ȝȚĮ ȐȜȜȘ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ: İȞIJȐııȠȣȞ IJȠȞ ʌȚıIJȩ ıIJȠ ȣʌȑȡIJĮIJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ, ıIJȘȞ ʌĮȚįĮȖȦȖȓĮ IJȦȞ īȡĮijȫȞ, ıIJȘ ȤȐȡȘ ʌȠȣ ĮȣIJȐ İȝʌİȡȚȑȤȠȣȞ. ȉĮ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚĮ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ «țĮșȡȑijIJİȢ» IJȘȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ, ȐȡĮ «Ș ʌȡȠıĮȡȝȠȖȒ ıIJȠȣȢ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȠȪȢ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ țȐșİ İʌȠȤȒ, įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ țĮIJĮȡȖȒıİȚ, ıIJĮ ȠȣıȚȫįȘ ıȘȝİȓĮ, IJȘ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ıIJĮ ȚįȡȣIJȚțȐ ȖİȖȠȞȩIJĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȠȪ» (țİij. 4). ȆȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ, ĮȣIJȒ «įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȑȞĮ ĮʌȜȩ įȚĮțȩȞȘȝĮ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȠȪ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ, ĮȜȜȐ İȖȖȣȐIJĮȚ IJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ IJȦȞ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȘȝȐIJȦȞ ʌȠȣ įȩșȘțĮȞ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ıIJȠȣȢ ǻȫįİțĮ, țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ IJȦȞ İȟȠȣıȚȫȞ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞįȑȠȞIJĮȚ ȝİ ĮȣIJȐ» (țİij. 4). ǼȡȦIJȐIJĮȚ: ǺȡȚıțȩȝĮıIJİ ıIJȘ – ıȤȠȜĮıIJȚțȒ – įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ȝİIJĮȟȪ (ĮȞĮȜȜȠȓȦIJȘȢ) ȠȣıȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȦȞ țĮȚ ȝİIJĮȕȜȘIJȒȢ ȤȡȘıȚȝȩIJȘIJȐȢ IJȠȣȢ; ȀȚ ĮțȩȝĮ, Ș ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ȚİȡȑȦȞ ȝȠȞȐȤĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȘȞ ȠȣıȓĮ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ Ȓ IJȘ ȝİIJĮȕȜȘIJȒ ȤȡȘıȚȝȩIJȘIJȐ IJȘȢ; DzȤȠȞIJĮȢ ȣʌȩȥȘ IJĮ ȠȡȚȗȩȝİȞĮ ıIJȠ țİij. 2, Ș ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ șȑȜİȚ İįȫ ȞĮ ĮȞȣȥȫıİȚ IJȘȞ «ĮȞįȡȚțȒ ȑțijȡĮıȘ» IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ ıİ ĮȝİIJȐȕȜȘIJȘ ȠȣıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȚİȡȠȪ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ. Ȉİ IJİȜȚțȒ ĮȞȐȜȣıȘ: «Ș ȓįȚĮ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȝȑıȦ IJȠȣ įȚįĮțIJȚțȠȪ IJȘȢ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ, ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ įȚĮțȡȓȞİȚ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȠȣ ȝʌȠȡİȓ Ȟ’ ĮȜȜȐȟİȚ țĮȚ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȠȣ ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ ĮȝİIJȐȕȜȘIJȠ. ǵIJĮȞ șİȦȡİȓ, ʌȦȢ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ įİȤIJİȓ ĮȜȜĮȖȑȢ, IJȠ ʌȡȐIJIJİȚ ȖȞȦȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ ʌȦȢ İȓȞĮȚ ıȣȞįİįİȝȑȞȘ ȝİ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ʌȠȣ İȞȒȡȖȘıİ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ». ȉİȜȚțȐ, «ĮȣIJȒ Ș ʌȡȐȟȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ İȞįȪİIJĮȚ ȝȚĮȢ țĮȞȠȞȚıIJȚțȒȢ ȚıȤȪȠȢ» (țİij. 4). Ǿ ȝȑșȠįȠȢ ʌȠȣ İʌȚȜȑȖİȚ Ș Inter insigniores İȓȞĮȚ ĮȞĮȜȠȖȚțȒ, ʌȡȐȖȝĮ ʌȠȣ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ʌȦȢ: ȩ,IJȚ ĮțȠȜȠȣșİȓ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ıIJȘ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ IJȘȢ ȗȦȒ IJȠ ʌȡȐIJIJİȚ ȦȢ ĮȞĮȜȠȖȓĮ ıIJȘȞ ʌȓıIJȘ ȩIJȚ ȑIJıȚ ȑʌȡĮȟİ Ƞ ȓįȚȠȢ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ țĮȚ ʌȦȢ ȩ,IJȚ ijĮȞİȡȫȞİȚ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ įİȞ ȝİIJĮȕȐȜȜİIJĮȚ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȒ İȟȑȜȚȟȘ, ĮȜȜȐ ĮȞIJȚʌȡȠıȦʌİȪİȚ IJȠ īİȖȠȞȩȢ IJȘȢ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ. ǹȞĮȜȠȖȚțȩȢ țĮȚ ĮȞIJȚʌȡȠıȦʌİȣIJȚțȩȢ İȓȞĮȚ, İʌȓıȘȢ, Ƞ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮȢ IJȠȣ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJȠȢ. ȅ ȚİȡȑĮȢ įİȞ Įıțİȓ IJȠ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝȐ IJȠȣ in propria persona (įȘȜ. ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ijȣȜİIJȚțȒ/ĮȞįȡȚțȒ IJȠȣ ȚįȚȩIJȘIJĮ), ĮȜȜȐ ȦȢ persona Christi țĮȚ 10

Ȁİij. 4. ȅȚ ʌĮȡĮșȑıİȚȢ İįȫ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤĮ Įʌȩ: ȆȓȠȢ ǿǺǯ, Sacramentum Ordinis, §5 ȈȪȞȠįȠȢ IJȠȣ ȉȡȚįȑȞIJȠȣ, țİij. 2, ıIJȠ Denzinger-Schönmetzer, Enchridion symbolorum, Įȡ. 1728.

464

Chapter Thirty Two

persona Ecclesiae, ȦȢ İȚțȩȞĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ: «ȅ ȚİȡȑĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȑȞĮ ıȘȝİȓȠ, IJȠȣ ȠʌȠȓȠȣ Ș ȣʌİȡijȣıȚțȒ İȖțȣȡȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȡȠȑȡȤİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ʌȠȣ ȑȜĮȕİ. ȍıIJȩıȠ, țȐșİ ıȘȝİȓȠ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ țĮIJĮȜȘʌIJȩ ȑIJıȚ ȫıIJİ ȠȚ ʌȚıIJȠȓ ȞĮ IJȠ ĮȞĮȖȞȦȡȓȗȠȣȞ İȪțȠȜĮ [...] ȉĮ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȐ ıȘȝİȓĮ – ȜȑİȚ Ƞ ĬȦȝȐȢ Ƞ ǹțȚȞȐIJȘȢ – ĮȞIJȚʌȡȠıȦʌİȪȠȣȞ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȠȣ ıȘȝĮȓȞȠȣȞ ȤȐȡȘ ıİ ȝȚĮ ijȣıȚțȒ ȠȝȠȚȩIJȘIJĮ» (țİij. 5). ǻȠșȑȞIJȠȢ ȩIJȚ Ș «ǼȞıȐȡțȦıȘ IJȠȣ ȁȩȖȠȣ ȑȖȚȞİ ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȠ ĮȡıİȞȚțȩ ȖȑȞȠȢ» ȝȚĮ «ijȣıȚțȒ ȠȝȠȚȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȠȪ ȉȠȣ». ǹȣIJȩ įİȞ ĮȞĮȚȡİȓ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ, ʌȦȢ Ș ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ʌȡȠȢ ȩijİȜȠȢ ȩȜȘȢ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ «IJȩıȠ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȩıȠ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ», įȚȩIJȚ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ ȝȠȞȠȖİȞȒȢ ȊȚȩȢ ȉȠȣ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȩIJȚ «įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ʌȜȑȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ʌȡȐȖȝĮIJȚ, ȩȜȠȚ İȓȞĮȚ ȑȞĮ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ» (țİij. 5 ʌȡȕȜ. īĮȜ. 3,28). ǵȞIJĮȢ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ Ƞ ȃȣȝijȓȠȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ʌȜȑȠȞ ȩ,IJȚ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıİ ǹȣIJȩȞ ĮijȠȡȐ ȩȜȘ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ. ȅ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ ıȪȝȕȠȜȠ ʌȠȣ İțijȡȐȗİȚ IJȘ ȕĮșȚȐ İȞȩIJȘIJĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ȐȞįȡĮ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, ıȣȝijȫȞȦȢ ȝİ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ. DzIJıȚ, Ƞ ȚİȡȑĮȢ «țȣȡȓȦȢ ȩIJĮȞ ʌȡȠǸıIJĮIJĮȚ IJȦȞ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȫȞ ıȣȞȐȟİȦȞ, ĮȞIJȚʌȡȠıȦʌİȪİȚ İȟȓıȠȣ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ: İȞİȡȖİȓ ıIJȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ ĮȣIJȒȢ, ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȡȩșİıȘ ȞĮ ʌȡȐȟİȚ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȠȣ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ʌȡȐIJIJİȚ», ʌȡȠıİȪȤİIJĮȚ İȟ ȠȞȩȝĮIJȠȢ ȩȜȦȞ, ʌȡȠıijȑȡİȚ ıIJȘȞ ǼȣȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮ IJȘ șȣıȓĮ ȩȜȘȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. īȚ’ ĮȣIJȠȪȢ IJȠȣȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ, İȓȞĮȚ țĮIJĮȞȠȘIJȒ Ș ʌȡȩșİıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȞĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞİȓ ȚİȡİȓȢ ȝȠȞȐȤĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮȞįȡȫȞ. ȅȚ įİ İȞıIJȐıİȚȢ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠțȪʌIJȠȣȞ İȓȞĮȚ İȣțĮȚȡȓĮ ȖȚĮ ȝȚĮ İȞįİȜİȤȒ țĮȚ ȕĮșȪIJİȡȘ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ IJȠȣ İȚįȚțȠȪ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȦȞ ʌȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȦȞ țĮȚ IJȦȞ İʌȚıțȩʌȦȞ ıIJȠ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩ ıȫȝĮ, ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓȠȚ İȓȞĮȚ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞĮ ȝȑȜȘ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ ĮȜȜȐ įȚĮțȡȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ ĮȣIJȒȞ ȜȩȖȦ IJȦȞ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȫȞ ʌȡȐȟİȦȞ ʌȠȣ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚțȐ İȚțȠȞȓȗȠȣȞ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ (țİij. 5).11 Ǿ ȐıțȘıȘ, țĮIJȐ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ, IJȠȣ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJȠȢ Įʌȩ ȐȞįȡİȢ įİ įȘȜȫȞİȚ țĮȞİȞȩȢ İȓįȠȣȢ ȣʌİȡȠȤȒ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ĮȜȜȐ ȝȚĮ de facto įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ıIJȠ ʌİįȓȠ IJȠȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ. ȉȑȜȠȢ, (țİij. 6) IJȠ Inter insigniores IJȠȞȓȗİȚ ʌȦȢ «ȠȚ ĮȞșȡȦʌȚıIJȚțȑȢ İʌȚıIJȒȝİȢ, ȩıȠ ʌȠȜȪIJȚȝȘ țȚ ĮȞ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ıȣȝȕȠȜȒ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȠ ȖȞȦıIJȚțȩ IJȠȣȢ ȤȫȡȠ, įİȞ İʌĮȡțȠȪȞ, įȚȩIJȚ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȞ ȞĮ ijșȐıȠȣȞ IJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ ʌȓıIJȘȢ [...] Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȚĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ȐȜȜİȢ 11

ǼȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞ ȑȤİȚ Ș İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ ȑȞIJĮȟȘ ıIJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȦȞ, ȚįȓȦȢ ıIJȘ ȤȡȒıȘ IJȠȣ İȚțȠȞȚțȠȪ-ĮȞIJȚʌȡȠıȦʌİȣIJȚțȠȪ įİıȝȠȪ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ȚİȡȑĮ/ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȠȪ țĮȚ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ. ȅȚ ȕȚȕȜȚțȑȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȦIJȠȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȑȢ ȕȐıİȚȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȡȠijĮȞİȓȢ. Ǽįȫ, Ș ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ ʌĮȡĮʌȑȝʌİȚ ıIJȠȞ ȀȣʌȡȚĮȞȩ ȀĮȡșĮȖȑȞȘȢ, ıIJȠ ĬȦȝȐ ǹțȚȞȐIJȘ, țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ ıIJĮ țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȘȢ Ǻǯ ȈȣȞȩįȠȣ IJȠȣ ǺĮIJȚțĮȞȠȪ (ǻȚȐIJĮȟȘ Lumen Gentium, ǻȚȐIJĮȟȘ Sacrosanctum Concilium țĮȚ ǻȚȐIJĮȖȝĮ Presbyterorum Ordinis).

The Problem of the Catholic Church on Deaconesses

465

țȠȚȞȦȞȓİȢ, ȝȠȞĮįȚțȒ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘ ijȪıȘ țĮȚ IJȚȢ įȠȝȑȢ IJȘȢ [...] īȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ ȜȩȖȠ įİ ȕȜȑʌİȚ, ʌȫȢ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ʌȡȠIJİȓȞİȚ IJȘȞ İȓıȠįȠ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ, ȕȐıİȚ IJȘȢ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȦȞ įȚțĮȚȦȝȐIJȦȞ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȦʌȓȞȠȣ ʌȡȠıȫʌȠȣ, ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȠȣ ȚıȤȪİȚ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠȪȢ [...] (țȐIJȚ IJȑIJȠȚȠ) șĮ ıȒȝĮȚȞİ IJȘȞ ʌȜȒȡȘ ʌĮȡĮȖȞȫȡȚıȘ IJȘȢ ijȪıȘȢ IJȠȣ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞIJȚȝİIJȫʌȚıȒ IJȠȣ ȦȢ ȑȞĮ įȚțĮȓȦȝĮ». ȈȣȞȠȥȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ, ȠȚ ȕĮıȚțȑȢ șȑıİȚȢ IJȘȢ Inter insigniores İȓȞĮȚ ȠȚ ĮțȩȜȠȣșİȢ:12 1. Ǿ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ʌȠIJȑ įİȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȩȞȘıİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȦȞ ʌȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȦȞ țĮȚ IJȦȞ İʌȚıțȩʌȦȞ.13 2. Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȝȑȞİȚ ʌȚıIJȒ ıIJȠ «țĮȞȠȞȚıIJȚțȩ» ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȐȟȘ IJȦȞ ǹȖȓȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ. 3. Ǿ įȚĮȤȡȠȞȚțȒ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ, ĮȞĮIJȠȜȚțȒ țĮȚ įȣIJȚțȒ, IJȘȡİȓ IJȠ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ țĮȚ IJȠ șȑȜȘȝĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȦȢ țĮȞȩȞĮ. Ǿ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ ĮȞȒțİȚ ıIJȘ ĮȝİIJȐȕȜȘIJȘ ȠȣıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȝȣıIJȘȡȓȠȣ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ıIJĮ ȝİIJĮȕȜȘIJȐ ıIJȠȚȤİȓĮ IJȘȢ. 4. ȅ ǿȘıȠȪȢ - ȃȣȝijȓȠȢ țĮȚ ȀİijĮȜȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ - İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ȣʌȩįİȚȖȝĮ țĮȚ Ș İȚțȩȞĮ ʌȠȣ ĮțȠȜȠȣșİȓ IJȠ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩ ıȫȝĮ. ȅ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ ȦȢ «ȐȞįȡĮȢ», țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ, İȟȣȥȫȞİȚ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ ıIJȘȞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮ IJȘȢ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ ȖȚĮ ȤȐȡȘ ȩȜȘȢ IJȘȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮȢ, ȀĮIJ’ ĮȞĮȜȠȖȓĮ, Ƞ ȚİȡȑĮȢ/İȚțȩȞĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȠȑȡȤİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ, įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȐ ĮȞĮȚȡİȓIJĮȚ Ș ıȣȝȕȠȜȚțȒ-ĮȞIJȚʌȡȠıȦʌİȣIJȚțȒ ȚıȤȪȢ IJȠȣ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJȠȢ. 5. Ǿ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ įȚțĮȓȦȝĮ, ĮȜȜȐ įȫȡȠ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ. ǹijȠȡȐ ıIJȘȞ ʌȓıIJȘ țĮȚ ȖȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ İȓȞĮȚ ȡȚȗȚțȐ ĮȞȩȝȠȚĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ “ĮȞșȡȦʌȚıIJȚțȒ” ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ ȖȪȡȦ Įʌȩ IJĮ įȚțĮȚȫȝĮIJĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ.

3. Ǿ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȒ Ordinatio Sacerdotalis IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ Ǻǯ ȅȚ İʌİȟȘȖȒıİȚȢ IJȠȣ Inter insigniores șİȦȡȒșȘțĮȞ İʌĮȡțİȓȢ țĮȚ įİȞ ȣʌȒȡȟĮȞ ʌİȡĮȚIJȑȡȦ İʌȓıȘȝİȢ ʌĮȡİȝȕȐıİȚȢ. ȆȑȡĮıİ, ıȤİįȩȞ, ȝȚĮ İȚțȠıĮİIJȓĮ 12

ȍȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞȐʌIJȣȟȘ IJȘȢ ıȤİIJȚțȒȢ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ, Ș ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ șİȦȡİȓ IJȘ īȡĮijȒ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ – įȘȜ. IJȘȞ İȟ ǹʌȠțĮȜȪȥİȦȢ ĮȜȒșİȚĮ, ʌȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ ȝȩȞȠȢ ĮȣșİȞIJȚțȩȢ țĮȞȩȞĮȢ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮȢ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ įȚȠȓțȘıȘȢ. ǺȜ. İʌȓıȘȢ IJȠ ȈȤȩȜȚȠ İʌȓ IJȘȢ ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘȢ ıIJȠ L’Osservatore Romano 28 ǿĮȞȠȣĮȡȓȠȣ 1973, 3. 13 ȆȡȠijĮȞȫȢ, įȚĮ IJȘȢ ıȚȦʌȒȢ (silentio), Ș ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ įİȞ șȑIJİȚ İȝʌȩįȚĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠ ȕĮșȝȩ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ.

466

Chapter Thirty Two

ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȘȞ ȆİȞIJȘțȠıIJȒ IJȠȣ 1994, ȩIJĮȞ Ƞ ȆȐʌĮȢ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ Ǻǯ (1978-2005) İȟĮʌȑȜȣıİ IJȘȞ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȒ Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ĮȞĮijȠȡȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȒ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ.14 Ȉ’ ĮȣIJȒȞ İʌĮȞȑȜĮȕİ IJȩıȠ IJȘ șȑıȘ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠțĮIJȩȤȠȣ IJȠȣ, ȆȐʌĮ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ Ȉȉǯ, ȖȪȡȦ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ IJȡȚʌȜȒ İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ (ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, ĮįȚȐțȠʌȘ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ʌȡȐȟȘ, įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ IJȠȣ İʌȓıȘȝȠȣ įȚįĮțIJȚțȠȪ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ) ȩıȠ țĮȚ IJȠ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ IJȘȢ ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘȢ Inter insigniores, İȞȫ ȣʌİȞșȪȝȚıİ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ ĮįȚȐȜİȚʌIJȘȢ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȒȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ, ʌȠȣ IJȘȡİȓIJĮȚ ʌȚıIJȐ țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȚțȑȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓİȢ (§1). ǹțȠȜȠȪșȦȢ, Ƞ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ İʌĮȞȑȜĮȕİ ȩIJȚ IJȠ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ȞĮ İʌȚȜȑȟİȚ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ Įʌȩ IJȠ ĮȞįȡȚțȩ ijȪȜȠ įİȞ ʌȡȠȑțȣȥİ Įʌȩ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠȪȢ Ȓ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıIJȚțȠȪȢ ʌĮȡȐȖȠȞIJİȢ, ĮȜȜȐ İȝʌİȡȚİȓȤİ ȝȚĮ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ șİȝİȜȚȦȝȑȞȘ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮ ʌȠȣ ʌĮȡĮįȩșȘțİ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ İȞıȦȝĮIJȫșȘțİ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ ıIJȘȞ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȒ IJȘȢ. ȉȠ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ įİȞ įȚȐȜİȟİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȦȢ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ įİ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȩIJȚ IJȠ ȑʌȡĮȟİ įİıȝİȣȩȝİȞȠȢ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ, įȚțĮȚȧțȑȢ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıIJȚțȑȢ ıȣȞșȒțİȢ IJȘȢ IJȩIJİ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ȑįȡĮıİ ȝİ İȜİȪșİȡȠ țĮȚ țȣȡȓĮȡȤȠ IJȡȩʌȠ (ȕȜ. Ȃȡ. 3, 13-14)15 ıİ İȞȩIJȘIJĮ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ İȞ ǹȖȓȦ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȚ (ȕȜ. ȆȡȐȟ. 1,2). Ǿ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ʌȐȞIJĮ ĮȞĮȖȞȫȡȚıİ ȦȢ ȝȩȞȚȝȠ țĮȞȠȞȚıIJȚțȩ ʌȡȩIJȣʌȩ IJȘȢ IJȘȞ İʌȚȜȠȖȒ IJȠȣ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ ȞĮ įȚĮȜȑȟİȚ įȫįİțĮ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȐ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮȞįȡȫȞ țĮȚ ȞĮ IJȠȣȢ IJȠʌȠșİIJȒıİȚ ȦȢ șİȝȑȜȚȠ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ (§2 ʌȡȕȜ. ǹǯ ȉȚȝ. 3,1 Ǻǯ ȉȚȝ. 1,6 ȉȚIJ. 1,5). Ǿ ĮȞȐįİȚȟȘ, ȦıIJȩıȠ, Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȓįȚȠ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ, IJȘȢ ĮȟȚȠʌȡȑʌİȚĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ țȜȒıȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮ ȒIJĮȞ ȝȚĮ ȤİȚȡȠȞȠȝȓĮ ʌȠȣ İȡȤȩIJĮȞ ıİ ĮȞIJȚʌĮȡȐșİıȘ ȝİ IJĮ țȣȡȓĮȡȤĮ ȒșȘ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ıȣȞȒșİȚİȢ IJȘȢ İʌȠȤȒȢ ȉȠȣ (§2), Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ țĮIJȑıIJȘıİ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ țĮȚ IJȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȑıIJȦ ȩȤȚ ıȣȞįİȩȝİȞȠ ȝİ IJȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ, ȑȞĮ ĮȖĮșȩ ĮȞĮȖțĮȓȠ țĮȚ ĮȞĮȞIJȚțĮIJȐıIJĮIJȠ (§3). ǹțȠȜȠȪșȦȢ, Ƞ ȆȐʌĮȢ ȣʌİȞșȣȝȓȗİȚ ʌȦȢ IJȩıȠ Ș ȀĮȚȞȒ ǻȚĮșȒțȘ ȩıȠ țĮȚ Ș ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ İʌĮȜȘșİȪȠȣȞ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ʌȠȣ ȣʌȒȡȟĮȞ ĮȜȘșȚȞȑȢ ȝĮșȒIJȡȚİȢ țĮȚ ȝȐȡIJȣȡİȢ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮȢ, IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒȢ 14 ǹijȠȡȝȒ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȒ ȣʌȒȡȟİ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ, ȩIJȚ «ȝȠȜȠȞȩIJȚ Ș įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȒ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ʌȠȣ ĮijȠȡȐ ȝȠȞȐȤĮ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ įȚĮIJȘȡȒșȘțİ Įʌȩ IJȘ ıȣȞİȤȒ țĮȚ ʌĮȖțȩıȝȚĮ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮȚ įȚįȐȤșȘțİ ȝİ ıIJĮșİȡȩIJȘIJĮ Įʌȩ IJȠ įȚįĮțIJȚțȩ ıȫȝĮ (magisterium) ıIJĮ ʌȚȠ ʌȡȩıijĮIJĮ țİȓȝİȞĮ, ʌĮȡȩȜȠ ʌȠȣ ıIJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ ȝĮȢ, ıİ įȚȐijȠȡĮ ȝȑȡȘ, ĮȣIJȒ Ș įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ ıȣȗȘIJȒıȚȝȘ, Ȓ ĮțȩȝĮ ĮʌȠįȓįİȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮʌȩijĮıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ įİȤIJİȓ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ ȝȚĮ țĮșĮȡȐ țĮȞȠȞȚıIJȚțȒ ĮȚIJȚȠȜȩȖȘıȘ» [§4]). 15 ȆȡȕȜ. ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ Ǻǯ, ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȒ Mulieris dignitatem, (15 ǹȣȖȠȪıIJȠȣ 1988), §26-27. ȈIJȠ «țȠȚȞȩ ȚİȡȐIJİȣȝĮ ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ ȕĮʌIJȚıȝȑȞȦȞ» ĮȞȒțȠȣȞ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ (ʌȡȕȜ. LG, §10).

The Problem of the Catholic Church on Deaconesses

467

įȡȐıȘȢ, IJȘȢ ĮijȚȑȡȦıȘȢ ıIJȠ Ĭİȩ țĮȚ IJȠ ǼȣĮȖȖȑȜȚȩ ȉȠȣ. «ȆȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ – ȜȑİȚ – ȖȚĮ ȐȖȚİȢ ȝȐȡIJȣȡİȢ, ʌĮȡșȑȞİȢ, ȝȘIJȑȡİȢ ȠȚțȠȖİȞİȚȫȞ, ʌȠȣ ȝİ țȠȣȡȐȖȚȠ ȑįȦıĮȞ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ʌȓıIJȘȢ IJȠȣȢ țĮȚ įȓįĮȟĮȞ IJĮ ʌĮȚįȚȐ IJȠȣȢ ȣʌȩ IJȠ ʌȞİȪȝĮ IJȠȣ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ, ȝİIJĮįȓįȠȞIJȐȢ IJȠȣȢ IJȘȞ ʌȓıIJȘ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ» (§3). Ȉİ IJİȜȚțȒ ĮȞȐȜȣıȘ, ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȠ ȤȐȡȚıȝĮ – ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ – İȓȞĮȚ ĮȣIJȩ IJȘȢ ĮȖȐʌȘȢ. «ȅȚ ȣȥȘȜȩIJİȡȠȚ IJȘȢ ǺĮıȚȜİȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȠȣȡĮȞȫȞ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȠȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȠȓ, ĮȜȜȐ ȠȚ ȐȖȚȠȚ» (§4 ʌȡȕȜ. Inter insigniores, țİij. 6). ȆȡȠȢ İʌȓȡȡȦıȚȞ IJȦȞ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ, Ș ʌĮʌȚțȒ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȒ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ ȩIJȚ ȠȪIJİ Ș ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ, Ș ȂȘIJȑȡĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȑȜĮȕİ IJȠ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ ʌȠȣ İȓȤĮȞ ȠȚ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ ȠȪIJİ IJȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ.16 ǹȣIJȩ, ȕȑȕĮȚĮ, įİ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ʌȦȢ Ƞ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıȝȩȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ ıȣȞȚıIJȐ țȐʌȠȚȠȣ İȓįȠȣȢ ʌİȡȚșȦȡȚȠʌȠȓȘıȘ Ȓ ȣʌȠȕȐșȝȚıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȟȚȠʌȡȑʌİȚĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ĮȜȜȐ IJȘȞ ʌȚıIJȒ IJȒȡȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ıȠijȠȪ ĬİȠȪ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ (§3). ȀȜİȓȞȠȞIJĮȢ, Ƞ ʌȐʌĮȢ ȠȡȓȗİȚ (§4): ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ ȞĮ įȚĮȜȪıȦ țȐșİ ĮȝijȚȕȠȜȓĮ ȖȪȡȦ Įʌȩ ȑȞĮ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ ȝİȖȐȜȘȢ ıʌȠȣįĮȚȩIJȘIJĮȢ ʌȠȣ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ IJȘ șİȓĮ ıȪıIJĮıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ıİ İijĮȡȝȠȖȒ IJȠȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒȝĮIJȩȢ ȝȠȣ ȞĮ ıIJȘȡȓȗȦ IJȠȣȢ ĮįİȜijȠȪȢ ȝȠȣ, įȚĮțȘȡȪııȦ ȩIJȚ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ İʌ’ ȠȣįİȞȓ IJȡȩʌȠ IJȘȞ İȟȠȣıȓĮ (facultatem) ȞĮ ʌĮȡȐıȤİȚ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȒ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ țĮȚ ȩIJȚ ĮȣIJȒ Ș ĮʌȩijĮıȘ șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ IJȘȡİȓIJĮȚ ȦȢ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȒ (definitive tenendam) Įʌ’ ȩȜȠȣȢ IJȠȣȢ ʌȚıIJȠȪȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ.

Ǿ ʌĮȡȑȝȕĮıȘ IJȠȣ ȆȐʌĮ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ Ǻǯ İȓȞĮȚ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ ȖȚĮ IJȡİȚȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ – ȑȞĮȞ țĮȞȠȞȚıIJȚțȩ țĮȚ įȪȠ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪȢ: Ƞ ʌȡȫIJȠȢ ĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȠȞ IJİȜȚțȩ Ȓ, țĮȜȪIJİȡĮ, «ȠȡȚıIJȚțȩ» ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ IJȘȢ țĮIJĮȜȘțIJȚțȒȢ ĮʌȩijĮıȒȢ IJȠȣ ȣʌȑȡ IJȘȢ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȒȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ. Ǽįȫ Ƞ ʌȐʌĮȢ, İijĮȡȝȩȗİȚ IJȠ, ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȠ ȁț. 22,32, įȚțĮȓȦȝȐ IJȠȣ ȞĮ «ıIJȘȡȓȗİȚ IJȠȣȢ ĮįİȜijȠȪȢ IJȠȣ» – įȘȜ. ȞĮ Įıțİȓ ȝȚĮ įȚİȣȡȣȝȑȞȘ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ țĮȚ țĮȞȠȞȚıIJȚțȒ įȚțĮȚȠįȠıȓĮ İʌȓ IJȠȣ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȠȪ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ. DzIJıȚ, ĮʌȠijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȝİ ĮȣșİȞIJȚțȩ IJȡȩʌȠ İʌȓ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȚ İȞIJȐııİȚ IJȘ ȝȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ țĮȞȠȞȚıIJȚțȠȪ țȪȡȠȣȢ İʌȓıȘȝȘ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ. ǼʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ, țĮȝȓĮ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ șȑıȘ ʌȑȡĮȞ ĮȣIJȒȢ ʌȠȣ ȣʌȑįİȚȟİ ʌȡȫIJȠȢ Ƞ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ Ȉȉǯ, İʌİȟİȡȖȐıIJȘțİ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ Ș ǻȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ Inter insigniores țĮȚ IJȫȡĮ Ƞ ȓįȚȠȢ İʌȚȕİȕĮȚȫȞİȚ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ 16

Ǿ ȝȘ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ ıIJȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ ȑȤİȚ ĮȟȓĮ «ȣʌȠįİȓȖȝĮIJȠȢ». ǺȜ. Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Sulla Risposta della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede circa la dottrina proposta nella Lettera apostolica Ordinatio sacerdotalis.

468

Chapter Thirty Two

ĮʌȠįİțIJȒ Įʌȩ IJȠ ıȫȝĮ IJȘȢ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, țĮșȫȢ ĮȞIJȚȕĮȓȞİȚ IJȘȞ İʌȓıȘȝȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ, IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ʌȡȐȟȘ țĮȚ, ʌȡȠʌĮȞIJȫȢ, IJȠ ȓįȚȠ IJȠ șȑȜȘȝĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ. ȅ ȜȩȖȠȢ ʌȠȣ İȞįİȤȠȝȑȞȦȢ ȫșȘıİ IJȠȞ ȡȦȝĮȓȠ ʌȠȞIJȓijȚțĮ ȞĮ ʌȡȠȤȦȡȒıİȚ ıIJȘȞ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȒ įȚİȣșȑIJȘıȘ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ ȒIJĮȞ, ʌȚșĮȞȩȞ, IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ ȝȩȜȚȢ ȜȓȖİȢ İȕįȠȝȐįİȢ ʌȡȚȞ Įʌȩ IJȘ įȘȝȠıȓİȣıȘ IJȠȣ Inter insigniores İȓȤİ ȖȓȞİȚ Ș ʌȡȫIJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ǹȖȖȜȚțĮȞȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȘȢ ǹȖȖȜȓĮȢ, İȞȫ ȣʌȒȡȤİ Ș ĮȓıșȘıȘ ʌȦȢ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠȚ ȡȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȠȓ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȚ ȒIJĮȞ ȑIJȠȚȝȠȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȐȟȠȣȞ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ȝİ IJȠ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ, ʌȦȢ ȝȚĮ IJȑIJȠȚĮ ʌȡȐȟȘ ȒIJĮȞ ĮȣIJȠįȚțĮȓȦȢ ȑȖțȣȡȘ șİȓȦ įȚțĮȓȦ17. To įİȪIJİȡȠ ȐȟȚȠ ȝȞİȓĮȢ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȠ IJȘȢ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȒȢ, ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘȢ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ, İȓȞĮȚ Ș įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ țĮȚ ȝĮșȘIJȫȞ. ȅ ǿȘıȠȪȢ İʌȑȜİȟİ IJȠȣȢ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȣȢ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȐ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮȞįȡȫȞ țȚ ĮȣIJȠȪȢ ȑșİıİ ȦȢ șİȝȑȜȚĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. Ǿ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȒ İȟȠȣıȓĮ įȩșȘțİ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ įȚĮ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, įȚĮIJȘȡȒșȘțİ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ įȚĮȝȑıȠȣ IJȘȢ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒȢ įȚĮįȠȤȒȢ țĮȚ ıȣȞįȑİȚ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ ȝİ IJȘȞ İțȜȠȖȒ ȚİȡȑȦȞ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȐ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮȞįȡȫȞ. ȉȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ ʌȠȣ ȑȜĮȕĮȞ ȠȚ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ İȟĮıțȘșİȓ Įʌȩ țĮȞȑȞĮ ȐȜȜȠ ȝȑȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ʌĮȡȐ ȝȠȞȐȤĮ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ țĮȚ Įʌȩ ȩıȠȣȢ IJȠȣȢ įȚĮįȑȤșȘțĮȞ ıIJȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ (§2 ȆȡȕȜ. ȀȫįȚțĮ ȀĮȞȠȞȚțȠȪ ǻȚțĮȓȠȣ, §1024 țĮȚ ȀĮIJȒȤȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, §1577-1578).18 ǼȣȡȪIJİȡȠ, ĮȞIJȓșİIJĮ, İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ ȤȐȡȚıȝĮ IJȘȢ ȝĮșȘIJİȓĮȢ. ȅ ǿȘıȠȪȢ İȓȤİ IJȩıȠ ȝĮșȘIJȑȢ ȩıȠ țĮȚ ȝĮșȒIJȡȚİȢ. ȅȚ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓİȢ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ ĮıțȠȪıĮȞ ȑȞĮ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ: ȝĮșȒIJİȣıĮȞ ȠȚ ȓįȚİȢ IJȠȣ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȠ įȓįĮȟĮȞ İȓIJİ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮȢ, İȓIJİ ı’ ĮȣIJȩȞ IJȠȣ ȝȠȞĮıIJȚțȠȪ ȕȓȠȣ. ȅȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȝĮșȒIJȡȚİȢ ȣʌȒȡȟĮȞ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ ȑȞĮ ĮȞĮȞIJȚțĮIJȐıIJĮIJȠ ĮȖĮșȩ ʌȠȣ ʌȜȠȪIJȚȗİ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, įȓȤȦȢ Ƞ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȠȣȢ ȞĮ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑIJİȚ IJȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ.19 17

ǺȜ. Polia, Donna e sacerdozio, 20-21. Ǿ §1577 IJȘȢ ȀĮIJȒȤȘıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȠȡȓȗİȚ ȩIJȚ: “ȁĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ȑȖțȣȡĮ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȒ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȐ Ƞ ȕĮʌIJȚıșİȓȢ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ ĮȡıİȞȚțȠȪ. ȅ ȀȪȡȚȠȢ ǿȘıȠȪȢ İʌȑȜİȟİ ȐȞįȡİȢ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ įȚĮȝȠȡijȫıİȚ IJȠ țȠȜȑȖȚȠ IJȦȞ įȫįİțĮ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ țĮȚ ȠȚ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ ȑʌȡĮȟĮȞ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ, ȩIJĮȞ İʌȑȜİȟĮȞ IJȠȣȢ ıȣȞİȡȖȐIJİȢ IJȠȣȢ [...] Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ șİȦȡİȓ IJȠȞ İĮȣIJȩ IJȘȢ įİıȝİȣȝȑȞȠ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ İʌȚȜȠȖȒ IJȠȣ ȚįȓȠȣ IJȠȣ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ. īȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ ȜȩȖȠ, Ș ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ įȣȞĮIJȒ”, İȞȫ Ș §1578 İʌİȟȘȖİȓ ʌİȡĮȚIJȑȡȦ ʌȦȢ “țĮȞİȓȢ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ IJȠ įȚțĮȓȦȝĮ ȞĮ ȜȐȕİȚ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ȋİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ. ȆȡȐȖȝĮIJȚ, țĮȞİȓȢ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȤȠȡȘȖȒıİȚ ıIJȠȞ İĮȣIJȩ IJȠȣ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ.” 19 ȆĮȡȩȝȠȚĮ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȚ ȤĮȡȓıȝĮIJȠȢ – įȓȤȦȢ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ĮȖȚȩIJȘIJĮ – İȓȤİ İțijȡȐıİȚ Ƞ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ ıIJȘȞ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ȆȡȠIJȡȠʌȒ Christifideles Laici (30 ǻİțİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1988), ȩʌȠȣ IJȩȞȚȗİ IJĮ ĮțȩȜȠȣșĮ: “ǻȣȞȐȝİȚ IJȠȣ ǺĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȋȡȓıȝĮIJȠȢ, Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ – ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ Ƞ 18

The Problem of the Catholic Church on Deaconesses

469

ȉȑȜȠȢ, Ƞ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ įȚĮțȡȓȞİȚ IJȠ ĮȓIJȘȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ – IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ IJȠ ȕȜȑʌİȚ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ ȦȢ İʌĮțȩȜȠȣșȠ ȝȚĮȢ ʌİȡȚȡȡȑȠȣıĮȢ İțțȠıȝȚțİȣȝȑȞȘȢ ȚįİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ – Įʌȩ IJȘ «șİȓĮ» ıȪıIJĮıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ įİ ıȣıIJȒșȘțİ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ, ȚįİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ Ȓ ȐȜȜİȢ ĮȞȐȖțİȢ. Ǿ İțȜȠȖȒ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ȣʌȒȡȟİ İȜİȪșİȡȘ Įʌȩ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıIJȚțȠȪȢ ʌĮȡȐȖȠȞIJİȢ, ıİ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞİȢ įİ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ĮȞIJȚʌĮȡĮIJȑșȘțİ ȝİ ĮȣIJȑȢ (Ș țĮIJĮȟȓȦıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ȣʌȒȡȟİ Įʌȩ ȝȩȞȘ IJȘȢ ȝȚĮ ȝȠȡijȒ ĮȞIJȓșİıȘȢ ȝİ IJȘȞ İʌȚțȡĮIJȠȪıĮ IJȩIJİ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ ȜȠȖȚțȒ). ȈȣȞİʌȫȢ, Ș șİȓĮ, įȘȜĮįȒ Ș ĮʌİȣșİȓĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ, İʌȚIJĮȖȒ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȠȡȖȐȞȦıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ – țĮȚ ȐȡĮ Ș ȝȘ ȤİȚȡȠȞȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ – șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ’ ĮȞĮȗȘIJȘșİȓ ȩȤȚ ıİ țȐʌȠȚȠȣ İȓįȠȣȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ ĮȞȐȖțȘ ʌȠȣ «įȑıȝİȣıİ» IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ ıIJȘȞ İʌȚȜȠȖȒ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȐ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ĮȞįȡȫȞ, ĮȜȜȐ ıIJȠ İȜİȪșİȡȠ șȑȜȘȝȐ ȉȠȣ ȞĮ İʌȚȜȑȟİȚ ȐȞįȡİȢ ȦȢ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ. ȉȠȪIJȘ IJȘ șİȓĮ İțȜȠȖȒ ȠijİȓȜİȚ Ȟ’ ĮțȠȜȠȣșİȓ ʌȚıIJȐ Ș İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ – țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ IJȩIJİ țĮȡį. J. Ratzinger «Ș ȠȞIJȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ įȫįİțĮ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ țĮȞȠȞȚıIJȚțȩ ȣʌȩįİȚȖȝĮ țȐșİ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJȠȢ» IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ Ș įȣIJȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮIJĮȞȠİȓ, ȗİȚ İȞ ʌȓıIJİȚ țĮȚ ȖȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ «ȣʌȠIJȐȤșȘțİ» ı’ ĮȣIJȩ ȒįȘ Įʌȩ IJȘ ıȪıIJĮıȒ IJȘȢ20. Ǿ ȈȘȝİȓȦıȘ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞȠįİȪİȚ IJȘ įȘȝȠıȓİȣıȘ IJȘȢ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȒȢ ıIJȠ İʌȓıȘȝȠ ȩȡȖĮȞȠ IJȘȢ ǹȖȓĮȢ DzįȡĮȢ, IJȠ L’Osservatore Romano, ʌȡȠȤȦȡİȓ ȑȞĮ ȕȒȝĮ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ, IJȠȞȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ ȩIJȚ, Įʌȩ IJȘ ıIJȚȖȝȒ ʌȠȣ Ș ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȚĮ ȠȣıȚȫįȘȢ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ įȠȝȒȢ țĮȚ įȣȞȐȝİȚ IJȘȢ «șİȓĮȢ» ıȪıIJĮıȘȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, Ș ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȒ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ șİȓȠȣ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȠȪ įȚțĮȓȠȣ țĮȚ ĮʌȠțIJȐ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȩ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ ʌȠȣ įİıȝİȪİȚ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȐ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ: «ǻİȞ ʌȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ, İʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ», ȜȑİȚ Ș ȈȘȝİȓȦıȘ, «ȖȚĮ ȝȚĮ țĮȚȞȠȪȡȚĮ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒ įȚĮIJȪʌȦıȘ, ĮȜȜȐ ȖȚĮ ȝȚĮ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ʌȠȣ įȓįĮȟİ IJȠ įȚįĮțIJȚțȩ ıȫȝĮ ȝİ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȩ IJȡȩʌȠ ȐȞįȡĮȢ – ȝİIJȑȤİȚ IJȠȣ IJȡȚʌȜȠȪ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJȠȢ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ȚİȡȑĮ, ʌȡȠijȒIJȘ țĮȚ ȕĮıȚȜȑĮ țĮȚ İʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ įȪȞĮIJĮȚ ȞĮ ıȣȝȝİIJȐıȤİȚ IJȠȣ șİȝİȜȚȫįȠȣȢ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȠȪ ȑȡȖȠȣ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ: IJȠȣ İȣĮȖȖİȜȚıȝȠȪ. ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ȐȜȜȘ ʌȜİȣȡȐ, ıIJȘȞ İțʌȜȒȡȦıȘ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ IJȠȣ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȠȪ IJȘȢ ȑȡȖȠȣ, Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȑȤİȚ țȜȘșİȓ ȞĮ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȫıİȚ IJĮ “įȫȡĮ” IJȘȢ: țĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ, IJȠ įȫȡȠ IJȘȢ ĮIJȠȝȚțȒȢ ĮȟȚȠʌȡȑʌİȚĮȢ, įȚĮȝȑıȠȣ IJȘȢ țȒȡȣȟȘȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȗȦȒȢ İȞ ıȣȞİȤİȓĮ, IJĮ įȫȡĮ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞįȑȠȞIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ țȜȒıȘ IJȘȢ ȦȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ. ȈIJȘ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ, ȦıIJȩıȠ, ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȜȐȕİȚ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ țĮȚ, țĮIJȐ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ, įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ İțʌȜȘȡȫıİȚ IJĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ ĮȞȒțȠȣȞ ıIJȠ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ [...] ǺȡȚıțȩȝĮıIJİ ıIJȠ ʌİįȓȠ IJȦȞ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȘȝȐIJȦȞ, ȩȤȚ IJȘȢ ĮȟȚȠʌȡȑʌİȚĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ĮȖȚȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ȆȡȑʌİȚ, İʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ, ȞĮ ʌȠȪȝİ ʌȦȢ: ʌĮȡȩIJȚ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ įȚĮșȑIJİȚ ȝȚĮ ȚİȡĮȡȤȚțȒ įȠȝȒ, ĮȣIJȒ Ș įȠȝȒ İȓȞĮȚ ȠȜȩIJİȜĮ IJĮȖȝȑȞȘ ıIJȘȞ ĮȖȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ ȝİȜȫȞ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ” (Ȟ. 27). 20 ǺȜ. J. Ratzinger, “La Lettera Apostolica Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, ıIJȠ L’Osservatore Romano 8 ǿȠȣȞȓȠȣ 1994, 1.

470

Chapter Thirty Two

[...] ȩȤȚ ȦȢ ȝȚĮ ʌȚșĮȞȒ ȣʌȩșİıȘ ȠȪIJİ ȦȢ țȐʌȠȚĮ ʌİȚșĮȡȤȚțȒ įȚȐIJĮȟȘ, ĮȜȜ’ ȦȢ ȝȚĮ ȝİIJȐ ȕİȕĮȚȩIJȘIJȠȢ ĮȜȘșȚȞȒ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ».21 Ȃİ ȕȐıȘ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, IJȘȞ analogiae țĮȚ sequela Christi, Ș ĮȟȓȦıȘ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ ĮʌȠįİțIJȒ, įȚȩIJȚ țȐIJȚ IJȑIJȠȚȠ șĮ ıȒȝĮȚȞİ ʌȦȢ IJȠ șİȓȠ șȑȜȘȝĮ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȣʌȠIJȐııİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȚȢ țȐșİ ijȠȡȐ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ ĮȞȐȖțİȢ.22 ȅijİȓȜİȚ țĮȞİȓȢ ȞĮ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡȒıİȚ ȩIJȚ Ș ȜȠȖȚțȒ ıȣȞȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ıțȑȥȘȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ İȓȞĮȚ İȜțȣıIJȚțȒ: İijȩıȠȞ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ İʌȑȜİȟİ ȐȞįȡİȢ ȦȢ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ, IJȩIJİ Ș İʌȚȜȠȖȒ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ șĮ ıȤİIJȚțȠʌȠȚȠȪıİ țĮȚ șĮ ȑșİIJİ İȞ ĮȝijȚȕȩȜȦ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ IJȘȞ İȖțȣȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ șİȓȠȣ șİȜȒȝĮIJȠȢ! īȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ țĮȚ ʌȡȠșȪȝȦȢ Ƞ Ratzinger ȣʌȠȖȡĮȝȝȓȗİȚ IJȘȞ ĮȚIJȚĮIJȒ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ (ĮʌȠȡȡȓʌIJȠȞIJĮȢ IJȘȞ ȐʌȠȥȘ ʌȦȢ Ș ȚİȡĮIJȚțȒ IJȐȟȘ ʌȡȠȑțȣȥİ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ ȝȚĮ ȝİIJĮȖİȞȑıIJİȡȘ țĮȚ ĮȞİȟȐȡIJȘIJȘ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȒ İȟȑȜȚȟȘ), ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȘ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ IJȘȢ ıȤİIJȚțȒȢ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ: «ȉȠ ĮȞIJȚțİȓȝİȞȠ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ ʌȡȐȟȘȢ [ı.ı. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis] İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ țĮșȠȡȚıȝȩȢ ȝȚĮȢ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ įȚįȐȤșȘțİ ȦȢ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȒ țĮȚ İʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ įİȞ İʌȚįȑȤİIJĮȚ ĮȜȜĮȖȒȢ [...] țĮȚ țĮșȚıIJȐ ıĮijȒ, ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ĮȣșİȞIJȓĮ IJȠȣ ǹȖȓȠȣ ȆĮIJȑȡĮ, ȝȚĮ ȕİȕĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȠȣ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ ȣijȓıIJĮIJȠ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ»23. ȉİȜȚțȐ, Ș įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ʌİȡȓ IJȘȢ ȝȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İȟȣȥȫȞİIJĮȚ mutatis mutandis ıİ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒ ĮȜȒșİȚĮ, ĮijȠȪ Ș IJȒȡȘıȘ IJȘȢ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȒȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ ıȪȝijȦȞȘ IJȩıȠ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȓıIJȘ țĮȚ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌİȣșİȓĮȢ ȣʌĮțȠȒ ıIJȠ șȑȜȘȝĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, ȩıȠ țĮȚ ȝİ IJĮ șİȝİȜȚȫįȘ ıȣıIJĮIJȚțȐ ıIJȠȚȤİȓĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ĬĮ ʌİȚ ıȤİIJȚțȐ Ƞ īİȡȝĮȞȩȢ șİȠȜȩȖȠȢ: «Ǽįȫ įİȞ ȑȤȠȣȝİ ȞĮ țȐȞȠȣȝİ ȝİ ȚİȡĮȡȤȓĮ İȞĮȞIJȓȠȞ įȘȝȠțȡĮIJȓĮȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ȝİ ȣʌĮțȠȒ İȞĮȞIJȓȠȞ įȚțIJĮIJȠȡȓĮȢ».24 ȍȢ įȚțIJĮIJȠȡȓĮ İȞȞȠİȓ IJȘ ȞȠȠIJȡȠʌȓĮ ʌȠȣ ȕȜȑʌİȚ IJȠ įȚĮȤȦȡȚıȝȩ IJȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ ȤȡȘıIJȚțȐ (functional). Ȃİ IJȘȞ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȓĮ İȞȩȢ ĮȡȤĮȧțȠȪ ʌĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚıȝȠȪ, IJȠ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ ijȪȜȠ İȟİIJȐȗİIJĮȚ ȩȤȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȐ, ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ĮȚIJȓĮ țĮȚ IJȠ

21

Nota di presentazione alla Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, ıIJȠ L’Osservatore Romano 30-31 ȂĮǸȠȣ 1994, 4. 22 ȉȘ șȑıȘ ʌİȡȓ įȚĮijȠȡȐȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ijȣıȚțȫȞ țĮȚ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȫȞ įȚțĮȚȦȝȐIJȦȞ șĮ IJȘȞ İʌĮȞĮȜȐȕİȚ Ƞ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ țĮȚ ĮȡȖȩIJİȡĮ: “ǻȓȤȦȢ ĮȝijȚȕȠȜȓĮ, Ș ĮȟȚȠʌȡȑʌİȚĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ – ʌȠȣ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ’ ĮȞĮįİȚȤșİȓ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ țĮȚ ĮțȩȝĮ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ – İȓȞĮȚ ȝİȖȐȜȘ! ǹȜȜȐ IJĮ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞĮ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȐ įȚțĮȚȫȝĮIJĮ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠıȫʌȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒȢ ijȪıİȦȢ ıİ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJĮ įȚțĮȚȫȝĮIJĮ, IJĮ țĮșȒțȠȞIJĮ, IJĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒȝĮIJĮ IJȠȣ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȠȪ įȚĮțȠȞȒȝĮIJȠȢ”. ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ Ǻǯ, “La Chiesa, sacramento universale di salvezza”, ıIJȠ L’Osservatore Romano 21 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ1999, 5. 23 Ratzinger, “La Lettera Apostolica Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, 6. 24 ǵ.ʌ., 6.

The Problem of the Catholic Church on Deaconesses

471

ıțȠʌȩ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȠȣ, ĮȜȜȐ ȤȡȘıIJȚțȐ țĮȚ ȖȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ İʌȚȗȘIJİȓ IJȘȞ İȟȦIJİȡȚțȒ țĮIJĮȟȓȦıȒ IJȠȣ.25

4. ȈȣȗȘIJȒıİȚȢ ȝİIJȐ IJȘȞ Ordinatio Sacerdotalis ǼȡȦIJȐIJĮȚ, ȦıIJȩıȠ: Įʌȩ IJȘ ıIJȚȖȝȒ ʌȠȣ Ș ȝȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İʌȚȕȐȜȜİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ, įȪȞĮIJĮȚ Ș IJİȜİȣIJĮȓĮ ȞĮ įȚĮȝȠȡijȫıİȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȐȟȘ ȑȞĮ ȞȑȠ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩ ȑșȠȢ ʌȠȣ ȞĮ ʌȡȠȕȜȑʌİȚ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ; Ȃİ ȐȜȜĮ ȜȩȖȚĮ, ȝʌȠȡİȓ ıIJȠ ȝȑȜȜȠȞ Ș ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȞĮ șİȝİȜȚȫıİȚ IJȘȞ de facto įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ; Ȃİ ȕȐıȘ IJȘ įȚĮIJȪʌȦıȘ IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ ǺǯIJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ ȑȤİȚ țȜİȓıİȚ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȐ. ǹȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ǹʌȐȞIJȘıȒ IJȘȢ (Responsum) ıİ ȝȚĮ «ĮȝijȚȕȠȜȓĮ» (dubium) ĮȞĮijȠȡȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ ĮȜȐșȘIJȠ Ȓ ȩȤȚ țȪȡȠȢ IJȠȣ Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, Ș ǼǻȆ ʌȡȠȤȫȡȘıİ ıIJȘȞ ĮțȩȜȠȣșȘ İʌİȟȒȖȘıȘ: ǹȝijȚȕȠȜȓĮ: ǼȐȞ Ș įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ IJȘȞ İȟȠȣıȓĮ (facultatem) ȞĮ ʌĮȡȐıȤİȚ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ, ȩʌȦȢ ʌȡȠIJİȓȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȒ Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȒ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȞĮ ıȣȖțĮIJĮȜȑȖİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ fidei depositum. ǹʌȐȞIJȘıȘ: ȃĮȚ. Ǿ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ĮȟȚȫȞİȚ IJȘȞ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȒ IJȒȡȘıȒ IJȘȢ, țĮșȫȢ, șİȝİȜȚȦȝȑȞȘ ıIJȠ ȖȡĮʌIJȩ ȜȩȖȠ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ țĮȚ ȑȤȠȞIJĮȢ įȚĮȡțȫȢ IJȘȡȘșİȓ țĮȚ İijĮȡȝȠıIJİȓ ıIJȘȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮʌĮȡȤȒ IJȘȢ, ȑȤİȚ ĮȜĮșȒIJȦȢ ʌȡȠIJĮșİȓ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ. ȈIJȚȢ ʌĮȡȠȪıİȢ ʌİȡȚıIJȐıİȚȢ, Ƞ ʌȠȞIJȓijȚțĮȢ [...] ʌȡȩIJİȚȞİ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ȝİ ȝȚĮ İʌȓıȘȝȘ įȚĮIJȪʌȦıȘ, ȕİȕĮȚȫȞȠȞIJĮȢ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȘȝĮIJȚțȐ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ

25 ǵ.ʌ., 1. ȀȐȞȠȞIJĮȢ IJȠ įȚĮȤȦȡȚıȝȩ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒȢ țĮȚ ȤȡȘıIJȚțȒȢ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ, Ƞ Ratzinger șȑIJİȚ, ıȦıIJȐ, IJȘ ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ ıIJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȒ IJȘȢ ȕȐıȘ İȓȞĮȚ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩ ȞĮ İȟİIJĮıIJİȓ, ȣʌȩ IJȠ ʌȡȓıȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ ʌȓıIJȘȢ (ȐȡĮ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒȢ ȗȦȒȢ), Ș ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȒ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, Ș ıȤȑıȘ ȐȞįȡĮ-ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ İȞIJȩȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ıȣȝȕȠȜȚțȒȢ ıȘȝĮıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ıİȟȠȣĮȜȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ țIJȜ. ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ȐȜȜȘ, ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ Ȟ’ ĮijȒȞİIJĮȚ İțțȡİȝȑȢ IJȠ İȟȒȢ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ: ʌȫȢ İȓȞĮȚ įȣȞĮIJȩȞ Ș İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ/ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ʌȡȠIJİȡĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣ–ʌȠȣ ȠȡșȐ ĮȞIJȚʌĮȡĮIJȓșİIJĮȚ İįȫ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȤȡȘıIJȚțȒ/İțțȠıȝȚțİȣȝȑȞȘ–Ȟ’ ĮʌȠțȜİȓİȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞȐȜȘȥȘ țȐʌȠȚȠȣ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJȠȢ; ȆȫȢ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ȝȠȜȠȞȩIJȚ țĮIJĮȟȚȦȝȑȞȘ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȐ, ĮʌȠțȜİȓİIJĮȚ IJȠȣ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒȝĮIJȠȢ; Ǿ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ șĮ ıȒȝĮȚȞİ ĮʌȜȐ IJȘ “ȤȡȘıIJȚțȒ” İʌȚȕİȕĮȓȦıȒ IJȠȣȢ, Ȓ ȝȒʌȦȢ șĮ İȝʌİȡȚİȓȤİ țĮȚ IJȘ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ıİ ȝȚĮ ȕĮșȪIJİȡȘ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȠȣ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ įȚĮȚıșĮȞșİȓ;

472

Chapter Thirty Two IJȘȡİȓIJĮȚ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ, ʌĮȞIJȠȪ țĮȚ Įʌ’ ȩȜȠȣȢ IJȠȣȢ ʌȚıIJȠȪȢ, ȦȢ ĮȞȒțȠȣıĮ ıIJȠ fidei depositum.26

ȂȑȤȡȚ IJȘ ıIJȚȖȝȒ ʌȠȣ įȘȝȠıȚİȪIJȘțİ Ș ǹʌȐȞIJȘıȘ IJȘȢ ǼǻȆ, ȣʌȠȖİȖȡĮȝȝȑȞȘ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ʌȡȩİįȡȩ IJȘȢ, țĮȡįȚȞȐȜȚȠ Ratzinger, įİȞ İȓȤİ ȖȓȞİȚ ĮțȩȝĮ ȜȩȖȠȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ĮȜȐșȘIJȠ țȪȡȠȢ IJȘȢ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȝȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȝİ ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıȝĮ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠȚ ȞĮ șİȦȡȠȪȞ ʌȦȢ IJȠ șȑȝĮ İȓȞĮȚ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ «ıȣȗȘIJȒıȚȝȠ» Ȓ ȩ,IJȚ, İȞ ʌȐıİȚ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚ, ĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȠ ʌİȚșĮȡȤȚțȩ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ IJȠ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȩ įȓțĮȚȠ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ.27 Ȃİ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡȑȝȕĮıȘ ĮȣIJȒ Ș ǼʌȚIJȡȠʌȒ, ȑȤȠȞIJĮȢ ȣʌȩȥȘ IJȘȞ Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, ĮȞȠȓȖİȚ ȑȞĮȞ ȞȑȠ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȩ ȠȡȓȗȠȞIJĮ: ıȣȞįȑİȚ ĮʌİȣșİȓĮȢ IJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ȝİ IJȘ ȕȚȕȜȚțȒ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ İȟ ĮʌȠțĮȜȪȥİȦȢ ĮȜȒșİȚĮ – ȑIJıȚ ȩʌȦȢ ijĮȞİȡȫȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ – țĮȚ țĮIJȐ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ ĮȞȐȖİȚ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ ıIJȠ ʌİįȓȠ IJȘȢ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȒȢ, ʌĮȞIJȠIJȚȞȒȢ – țĮȚ ȐȡĮ ĮȜȐșȘIJȘȢ – įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒȢ ȚıȤȪȠȢ. Ǿ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ șȑıȘ İȓȞĮȚ İįȫ ȟİțȐșĮȡȘ: İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ʌȡȐȟȘ, ʌȓıIJȘ/įȩȖȝĮ, īȡĮijȒ țĮȚ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ ȕȡȓıțȠȞIJĮȚ ıİ ȝȚĮ ıȤȑıȘ ĮȜȜȘȜİȟȐȡIJȘıȘȢ. Ǿ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ĮȞȒțİȚ ıIJȠ jus divinum (Ƞ IJȡȩʌȠȢ țĮȚ Ș ȝȠȡijȒ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ ʌĮȡĮįȩșȘțİ ĮʌİȣșİȓĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȋȡȚıIJȩ, įİȞ țĮșȠȡȓıIJȘțİ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ)28 țĮȚ, ȝȠȜȠȞȩIJȚ įİȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ Įʌȩ ȝȩȞȘ IJȘȢ ȑȞĮ «įȩȖȝĮ», ĮȞȒțİ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ ıIJȠ șİȝĮIJȠijȣȜȐțȚȠ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ʌȓıIJȘȢ – ʌȠȣ įȚĮijȣȜȐııȠȣȞ Ƞ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ ȇȫȝȘȢ țĮȚ ȠȚ ıİ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ȝ’ ĮȣIJȩȞ țĮȚ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣȢ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȚ – țĮȚ ȐȡĮ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȜȐșȘIJȘ țĮȚ 26

AAS 87 (1995), 1114. ȆȡȐȖȝĮIJȚ, İȟ ĮʌȩȥİȦȢ įȚțĮȚȧțȒȢ, ȝȚĮ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȒ (ȩʌȦȢ Ș Ordinatio Sacerdotalis) įİȞ İȚıȐȖİȚ Įʌȩ ȝȩȞȘ IJȘȢ ȝȚĮ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ȠȪIJİ ıȣȞȚıIJȐ ʌȡȦIJȠȖİȞȒ ȞȠȝȠșİıȓĮ, ĮȜȜȐ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJİȪİIJĮȚ șİȝĮIJȚțȑȢ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȒȢ țĮȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒȢ ȣijȒȢ. ȍıIJȩıȠ, Ƞ IJȩIJİ ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJȑĮȢ IJȘȢ ǼǻȆ, țĮȡį. T. Bertone, șĮ ʌİȚ ʌȦȢ “Įʌȩ IJȘ ıIJȚȖȝȒ ʌȠȣ Ƞ ȇȦȝĮȓȠȢ ȆȠȞIJȓijȚțĮȢ șȑȜȘıİ, ȑıIJȦ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ȝİ İʌȓıȘȝȠ IJȡȩʌȠ, ȞĮ İʌȚȕİȕĮȚȫıİȚ Ȓ ȞĮ İʌĮȞĮȕİȕĮȚȫıİȚ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓİȢ ʌȠȣ ĮȞȒțȠȣȞ ıIJȘȞ ʌĮȖțȩıȝȚĮ țĮȚ ĮȣIJȠȞȩȘIJȘ ʌȓıIJȘ IJȠȣ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȠȪ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ, ĮȣIJȑȢ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ IJȘȡȠȪȞIJĮȚ ȝİ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȩ țĮȚ ĮȞȑțțȜȘIJȠ IJȡȩʌȠ”. T. Bertone, “A proposito della recezione dei Documenti del Magistero e del dissenso pubblico”, ıIJȠ L’Osservatore Romano 20 ǻİțİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1996, 1.5. Ǿ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ĮȣIJȒ ȑȖȚȞİ ʌȡȠijĮȞȑıIJĮIJĮ ȜȩȖȦ IJȘȢ ĮʌȩıIJĮıȘȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣ İʌȓıȘȝȠȣ magisterium țĮȚ IJȦȞ IJȠʌȚțȫȞ İʌȚıțȩʌȦȞ Ȓ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ țȪțȜȦȞ, ʌȠȣ İȓȤĮȞ įȚĮȚıșĮȞșİȓ IJȘȞ ȑȜȜİȚȥȘ įȚĮȜȩȖȠȣ ȝİIJĮȟȪ țȠȡȣijȒȢ țĮȚ ȕȐıȘȢ IJȠȣ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȠȪ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ. 28 Ȉİ ıȤȩȜȚȩ IJȠȣ Ƞ L’Osservatore Romano İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ: “ǼȓȞĮȚ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩ ȞĮ ȑȤȠȣȝİ ȣʌȩȥȘ, ʌȦȢ IJȠ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠ șȑȜȘȝĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ įȚĮȚIJȘIJȚțȩ [...] ĮȜȜȐ İȞįȩIJĮIJĮ İȞȦȝȑȞȠ ȝİ IJȠ șİȓȠ șȑȜȘȝĮ IJȠȣ ĮȚȦȞȓȠȣ ȊȚȠȪ, Įʌȩ IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ İȟĮȡIJȐIJĮȚ Ș ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ țĮȚ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȜȒșİȚĮ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ”. Sulla Risposta della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede circa la dottrina proposta nella Lettera apostolica “Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”, ıIJȠ L’Osservatore Romano 19 NoİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1995, 2. 27

The Problem of the Catholic Church on Deaconesses

473

ĮȞȑțțȜȘIJȘ.29 ǼʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ, ʌȡȠțȪʌIJİȚ ĮȞĮʌȩijİȣțIJĮ ʌȦȢ «Ș ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȩȢ ȤȫȡȠȢ ȩʌȠȣ ĮıțİȓIJĮȚ țĮȚ İțijȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ȝİ įȚȐijȠȡİȢ ȝȠȡijȑȢ – ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ȠʌȠȓȦȞ țĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮıijĮȜȒ ʌİʌȠȓșȘıȘ – Ș ĮȜȘșȒȢ ıȣȞİȓįȘıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȈIJȘ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȘ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ, ȝİ ȠȝȠijȦȞȓĮ țĮȚ ıIJĮșİȡȩIJȘIJĮ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ įİȞ șİȫȡȘıİ ʌȠIJȑ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȞ ȞĮ ȜȐȕȠȣȞ İȖțȪȡȦȢ IJȘȞ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȒ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ».30 ǼȓȞĮȚ ʌȡȠijĮȞȑȢ İįȫ ʌȦȢ Ș ǼǻȆ İȞįȚĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ʌȡȦIJȓıIJȦȢ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıIJĮIJİȪıİȚ ȝȚĮ ȒįȘ įȚĮȝȠȡijȦȝȑȞȘ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ʌȡȐȟȘ, ʌȡȠıįȓįȠȞIJȐȢ IJȘȢ įȚĮȤȡȠȞȚțȩ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ țȪȡȠȢ țĮȚ ĮȞȑțțȜȘIJȘ įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȒ ȚıȤȪ, ȫıIJİ Ȟ’ ĮʌȠijȪȖİȚ ʌȚșĮȞȑȢ «Įʌȩ IJȘ ȕȐıȘ» ȝİIJĮȡȡȣșȝȚıIJȚțȑȢ ʌȚȑıİȚȢ. ȀĮȚ IJȠ ʌȡȐIJIJİȚ ȝİ, ȠȝȠȜȠȖȠȪȝİȞȦȢ, șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ıȣȞĮijȒ IJȡȩʌȠ, įȓȤȦȢ ȞĮ IJȘȞ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȣȞ ȠȚ İʌȚȝȑȡȠȣȢ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȑȢ ʌȡȠİțIJȐıİȚȢ, țȐIJȚ ʌȠȣ ȒIJĮȞ Ș țȪȡȚĮ ĮȞȘıȣȤȓĮ ĮȡțİIJȫȞ ĮȞȐ IJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ İʌȚıțȩʌȦȞ.31 ǹȣIJȠȞȠȒIJȦȢ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, țĮIJĮȜȒȖİȚ ıIJȘ șȑıȘ ȩIJȚ, ȑȤȠȞIJĮȢ ʌĮȖȚȦșİȓ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ Ș ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȒ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ, Ș ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ ĮȣIJȒ ȑȤİȚ ĮȟȓĮ ȚıȩIJȚȝȘ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠțȒȡȣȟȘ İȞȩȢ įȩȖȝĮIJȠȢ, ĮijȠȪ ĮȞȐȖİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮʌȠțİțțĮȜȣȝȝȑȞȘ ĮȜȒșİȚĮ IJȠȣ ǿȘıȠȪ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ IJȘȞ ʌȓıIJȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȉİȜȚțȐ, țĮȚ Ƞ ȓįȚȠȢ Ƞ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ Ǻǯ, ȣʌȩ IJȠ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ʌȡȓıȝĮ, șĮ įȘȜȫıİȚ ĮȡȖȩIJİȡĮ, ȩIJȚ «IJȠ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩ magisterium įİȞ ȑȜĮȕİ ĮȣIJȒ IJȘȞ ĮʌȩijĮıȘ (ı.ı. IJȘȢ 29 ǺȜ. İʌȓıȘȢ J. Ratzinger, “Introduzione”, ıIJȠ Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Dall’“Inter insigniores” all’“Ordinatio Sacerdotalis”. Documenti e commenti, Città del Vaticano 1996, 19, ȩʌȠȣ İȟȘȖİȓ ʌȦȢ, IJȠʌȠșİIJȫȞIJĮȢ Ƞ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ țĮȚ İʌȚıțȠʌȚțȒ ʌȡȐȟȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, șȑȜȘıİ ȞĮ İȟĮıijĮȜȓıİȚ IJȠ ĮȜȐșȘIJȠ țȪȡȠȢ IJȘȢ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ, ȩıȠ țĮȚ IJȠȣ įȚįĮțIJȚțȠȪ ıȫȝĮIJȠȢ (IJȠȣ ʌȠȞIJȚijȚțȠȪ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȠȣ İʌȚıțȠʌȚțȠȪ IJȠȣ ıİ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ȝİ IJȠȞ ǼʌȓıțȠʌȠ ȇȫȝȘȢ), ȕȐıİȚ IJȘȢ ȈȣȞȠįȚțȒȢ ǻȚȐIJĮȟȘȢ Lumen Gentium §25, ıIJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ ʌĮȡĮʌȑȝʌİȚ Ș ǹʌȐȞIJȘıȘ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ “ȩʌȠIJİ ȠȚ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȚ, ȑȞĮȢ ʌȡȠȢ ȑȞĮȞ, įİȞ ĮʌȠȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ IJȠ ʌȡȠȞȩȝȚȠ IJȠȣ ĮȜĮșȒIJȠȣ, ĮȜȜȐ, ʌĮȡȩȜȠ ʌȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ įȚĮıțȠȡʌȚıȝȑȞȠȚ ıIJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ țĮȚ įȚĮIJȘȡȠȪȞ IJȠ įİıȝȩ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣȢ țĮȚ ȝİ IJȠȞ įȚȐįȠȤȠ IJȠȣ ȆȑIJȡȠȣ, ıȣȝijȦȞȠȪȞ ȞĮ įȚįȐȟȠȣȞ ĮȣșİȞIJȚțȫȢ ʌȦȢ, ȩIJĮȞ ȝȚĮ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ʌȠȣ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȘȞ ʌȓıIJȘ țĮȚ IJĮ ȒșȘ İʌȚȕȐȜȜİIJĮȚ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ, IJȩIJİ ĮȣIJȒ İțijȡȐȗİȚ ĮȜȐȞșĮıIJĮ IJȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ”. 30 Bertone, “A proposito della recezione dei Documenti del Magistero e del dissenso pubblico”, 1.5. ȆȡȕȜ. Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Sulla Risposta della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede circa la dottrina proposta nella Lettera apostolica Ordinatio sacerdotalis: «ȉȠ magisterium İȓȞĮȚ ȠȡȖĮȞȚțȩ ȝȑȡȠȢ IJȘȢ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ țĮȚ İȡȝȘȞİȪİȚ ĮȣșİȞIJȚțȐ IJȠ ȁȩȖȠ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ, ȖȡĮʌIJȩ țĮȚ ʌĮȡĮįİįȠȝȑȞȠ (ȕȜ. ǻȚȐIJĮȟȘ Dei Verbum, 9-10) [...] O ȠȡȚıIJȚțȩȢ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮȢ (ı.ı. IJȘȢ ȝȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ) ʌȡȠțȪʌIJİȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ IJȘ ijȪıȘ IJȘȢ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ, įȚȩIJȚ, șİȝİȜȚȦȝȑȞȘ ıIJȠ ȁȩȖȠ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ, İȖȖİȖȡĮȝȝȑȞȘ țĮȚ įȚĮȡțȫȢ IJȘȡȠȪȝİȞȘ țĮȚ İijĮȡȝȠȗȩȝİȞȘ ıIJȘȞ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȑȤİȚ ʌȡȠIJĮșİȓ ĮȜĮșȒIJȦȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ». 31 ǺȜ. Polia, Donna e sacerdozio, 29-35.

474

Chapter Thirty Two

ȝȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ) ȦȢ ȝȚĮ ʌȡȐȟȘ IJȘȢ İȟȠȣıȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ įȚĮșȑIJİȚ, ĮȜȜȐ ȝİ IJȘ ıȣȞİȓįȘıȘ IJȠȣ țĮșȒțȠȞIJȠȢ ȞĮ ȣʌĮțȠȪıİȚ ıIJȘ șȑȜȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȀȣȡȓȠȣ»,32 ȣʌĮțȠȒ ʌȠȣ IJȠ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩ ıȫȝĮ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ IJȘȡİȓ. ȈȣȞȠȥȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ: Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤȚțȒ ĮȡȞȘIJȚțȒ IJȠʌȠșȑIJȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ Ȉȉǯ ıIJȘ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȘ «șİȝİȜȚȫįȘ» IJȡȚʌȜȒ İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ (ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ʌȡȐȟȘ, İʌȓıȘȝȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ), țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌȡȫIJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ İʌİȟİȡȖĮıȓĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ǼǻȆ (Ƞ ȚİȡȑĮȢ, ȦȢ «İȚțȩȞĮ» IJȠȣ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJȠȢ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ, Įıțİȓ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ ȩȤȚ țĮIJȐ IJȠ ijȪȜȠ IJȠȣ, ĮȜȜȐ ȦȢ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠȢ ʌȠȣ İȝʌİȡȚȑȤİȚ țĮȚ IJĮ įȪȠ ijȪȜĮ – İȓȝĮıIJİ ıIJȠ İʌȓʌİįȠ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ) ȑȦȢ IJȘȞ ʌȚȠ ʌȡȩıijĮIJȘ – țĮȚ țĮIJĮȜȣIJȚțȒ ȖȚĮ IJȠ șȑȝĮ – ʌĮȡȑȝȕĮıȘ IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ Ǻǯ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ǼǻȆ, ȣʌȩ IJȠȞ țĮȡįȚȞȐȜȚȠ Ratzinger, ʌȠȣ ıȣȞįȑİȚ IJȘ ȝȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝİ IJȚȢ ĮȜȒșİȚİȢ ʌȠȣ İȝʌİȡȚȑȤȠȞIJĮȚ ĮȜĮșȒIJȦȢ ıIJȘ șİȓĮ ĮʌȠțȐȜȣȥȘ țĮȚ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ IJȘȡȠȪȞIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȐ. Ȃİ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ĮȣIJȩ (įȘȜĮįȒ ȝİ IJȘȞ İʌȚȕȠȜȒ «țĮșĮȡȫȞ țȡȚIJȘȡȓȦȞ»)33 İʌȚijȑȡİIJĮȚ «ȘȡİȝȓĮ» ıIJȚȢ ıȣȞİȚįȒıİȚȢ Ȓ ĮȝijȚȕȠȜȓİȢ IJȦȞ ʌȚıIJȫȞ, įȠȖȝĮIJȚțȠʌȠȚİȓIJĮȚ Ș ıȤİIJȚțȒ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ȝİ ıțȠʌȩ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ ȣʌȐȡȟİȚ ȝİIJĮȕȠȜȒ IJȘȢ (İįȫ, ȕȑȕĮȚĮ, șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȡȦIJȘșİȓ țĮȞİȓȢ: ȝȚĮ İȞįİȤȩȝİȞȘ șȑıȘ ȣʌȑȡ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ șĮ ıȣȞȚıIJȠȪıİ ĮȓȡİıȘ; ȀȚ ĮțȩȝĮ, Ș ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ İȓȞĮȚ ıIJĮIJȚțȒ Ȓ įȣȞĮȝȚțȒ, ĮȞȑțțȜȘIJȘ Ȓ ȝİIJĮȕȜȘIJȒ, ĮțȓȞȘIJȘ Ȓ IJİȓȞİȚ ʌȡȠȢ ȝȚĮ ʌȡȩȠįȠ;), İȞȫ, IJȑȜȠȢ, ĮȞȣȥȫȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ İʌȓʌİįȠ IJȘȢ ĮȣșİȞIJȚțȒȢ țĮȚ ȝȘ İʌȚįİȤȩȝİȞȘȢ ȐȜȜȘȢ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ.34 ǹȞİȟȐȡIJȘIJĮ, ȩȝȦȢ, Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȞȑțțȜȘIJȘ įȚĮȤȡȠȞȚțȒ țĮȚ ʌĮȖțȩıȝȚĮ ȚıȤȪ IJȘȢ ĮȜȒșİȚĮȢ ȖȪȡȦ IJȘȢ ȝȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, Ƞ ʌȣȡȒȞĮȢ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ȕȡȓıțİIJĮȚ, țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȐʌȠȥȒ ȝȠȣ, ıIJȘ «ijȪıȘ» IJȠȣ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJȠȢ (ȩȤȚ IJȣȤĮȓĮ, IJĮ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȘȢ ǼǻȆ ĮȞȒțȠȣȞ ıIJȘȞ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȓĮ IJȦȞ «ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒȢ ijȪıİȦȢ» İȖȖȡȐijȦȞ): Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ İʌȑȜİȟİ ȐȞįȡİȢ ȦȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ țĮȚ įȚĮijȪȜĮȟİ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȑȞĮȞ ȡȩȜȠ ȟİȤȦȡȚıIJȩ, ʌȠȣ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȜİȓIJĮȚ ȞĮ įȚĮțȡȓȞİȚ țĮȚ Ȟ’ ĮȞĮįİȓȟİȚ.

32 ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ Ǻǯ, “La Chiesa, sacramento universale di salvezza”, ıIJȠ L’Osservatore Romano 21 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 1999, 5. 33 Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Sulla Risposta della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede circa la dottrina proposta nella Lettera apostolica Ordinatio sacerdotalis: 34 ǻİȞ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȠțĮȜİȓ, İʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ, İȞIJȪʌȦıȘ IJȠ ȩIJȚ Ș ǼǻȆ İȟȑįȦıİ, ıIJȚȢ 19 ǻİțİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 2007, ȑȞĮ īİȞȚțȩ ǻȚȐIJĮȖȝĮ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ «ʌĮȡȐʌIJȦȝĮ IJȘȢ ĮʌȩʌİȚȡĮȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ» (ȕȜ. AAS 100 (2008), 403). ȈȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȠ ǻȚȐIJĮȖȝĮ, ȩʌȠȚȠȢ ĮʌȠʌİȚȡĮșİȓ ȞĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȒıİȚ ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ Ȓ ȩʌȠȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒıİȚ ȞĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȘșİȓ, ȣʌȩțİȚIJĮȚ IJȘȢ ĮȣIJȩȝĮIJȘȢ (latae sententiae) ĮțȠȚȞȦȞȘıȓĮȢ.

The Problem of the Catholic Church on Deaconesses

475

5. ȅȚ ʌĮȡİȝȕȐıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ʌȐʌĮ ĭȡĮȖțȓıțȠȣ ǹǯ ǶıIJİȡĮ Įʌȩ IJĮ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ ȞĮ ȣʌȠșȑıİȚ ʌȦȢ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȑțȜİȚıİ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȐ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ. ǹȢ įȠȪȝİ, ȦıIJȩıȠ, ĮȞ ıIJȚȢ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȫȡĮ IJȠʌȠșİIJȒıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ȞȣȞ ȆȐʌĮ ĭȡĮȖțȓıțȠȣ ǹǯ (2013-) ʌȡȠțȪʌIJİȚ țȐʌȠȚĮ ȞȑĮ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ șȑıȘ. ȈIJȚȢ 28 ǿȠȣȜȓȠȣ 2013, ĮʌĮȞIJȫȞIJĮȢ ıİ ıȤİIJȚțȒ İȡȫIJȘıȘ, Ƞ ĭȡĮȖțȓıțȠȢ IJȩȞȚȗİ IJĮ İȟȒȢ: ȂȚĮ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȤȦȡȓȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ İȓȞĮȚ ıĮȞ IJȠ țȠȜȑȖȚȠ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ ȤȦȡȓȢ IJȘ ĬİȠIJȩțȠ. ȅ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌȜȩȢ ȩıȠ ĮȣIJȩȢ IJȘȢ ȝȘIJȡȩIJȘIJĮȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ʌȠȜȪ İȣȡȪIJİȡȠȢ: İȓȞĮȚ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ IJȠ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ İȚțȩȞĮ IJȘȢ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȣ ʌȠȣ ȕȠȘșȐ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȞĮ ʌȡȠȠįİȪİȚ! ǹȜȜȐ, ıțİijIJİȓIJİ IJȠ, Ș ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȚȠ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ [...] Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ șȘȜȣțȒ. ǼȓȞĮȚ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, Ș ȞȪijȘ, Ș ȝȘIJȑȡĮ [...] ȅ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ įİȞ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ʌİȡȚȠȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȘIJȑȡİȢ, İȡȖĮȗȩȝİȞİȢ, ȑȞĮȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ įȘȜĮįȒ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠȢ [...] ǻİȞ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ ȞĮ ijĮȞIJĮıIJȠȪȝİ ȝȚĮ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȤȦȡȓȢ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȠȣ ȞĮ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȠʌȠȚȠȪȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȝİ IJȠ įȚĮțȡȚIJȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ ʌȠȣ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȞ ȞĮ įȚĮįȡĮȝĮIJȓȗȠȣȞ [...] ȈIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȑIJıȚ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ıțİijIJȩȝĮıIJİ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ: ȞĮ ȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ İʌȚțȓȞįȣȞİȢ ĮʌȠijȐıİȚȢ, ĮȜȜ’ ȦȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ. ǹȣIJȩ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ İȟȘȖȘșİȓ țĮȜȪIJİȡĮ. ȆȚıIJİȪȦ, ʌȦȢ įİȞ ȑȤȠȣȝİ ĮțȩȝȘ țĮIJĮȜȒȟİȚ, ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ıİ ȝȚĮ ȕĮșȚȐ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ ijȪıȘȢ [...] ȆȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ĮȞĮʌIJȪȟȠȣȝİ ȝȚĮ ȕĮșȚȐ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ […] ĬĮ ȒșİȜĮ ȞĮ İȟȘȖȒıȦ ȜȓȖȠ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȠȣ İȓʌĮ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȞ ȞĮ ʌİȡȚȠȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ȞĮ İțIJİȜȠȪȞ țȐʌȠȚĮ įȚĮțȠȞȒȝĮIJĮ Ȓ ȞĮ ʌȡȠǸıIJĮȞIJĮȚ IJȠȣ ijȚȜĮȞșȡȦʌȚțȠȪ ȑȡȖȠȣ, ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ țĮIJȘȤȒIJȡȚİȢ... ǵȤȚ! ĬĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ țȐIJȚ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ, țȐIJȚ ȕĮșȪIJİȡȠ, ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȐ, țȚ ĮȣIJȩ İȞȞȠȠȪıĮ ȩIJĮȞ ȝȓȜȘıĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘ «șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ». ǹȞĮijȠȡȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȑȤİȚ ĮʌȠijĮȞșİȓ țĮȚ ȑȤİȚ ʌİȚ “ȩȤȚ”. ȉȠ İȓʌİ Ƞ ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ Ǻǯ, ȝİ ȝȚĮ įȚĮIJȪʌȦıȘ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȒ. ǹȣIJȒ Ș șȪȡĮ İȓȞĮȚ țȜİȚıIJȒ, ȦıIJȩıȠ ıIJȠ șȑȝĮ ĮȣIJȩ șȑȜȦ ȞĮ ʌȦ țȐIJȚ. Ǿ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ, Ș ȂĮȡȓĮ, ȒIJĮȞ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩIJİȡȘ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ, IJȠȣȢ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣȢ ȚİȡİȓȢ. Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȚȠ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣȢ ȚİȡİȓȢ ĮȣIJȩ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıʌĮșȒıȠȣȝİ ȞĮ ĮʌȠıĮijȘȞȓıȠȣȝİ țĮȜȪIJİȡĮ, įȚȩIJȚ ʌȚıIJİȪȦ, ʌȦȢ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȝȚĮ ȑȜȜİȚȥȘ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ İʌİȟȒȖȘıȘȢ ʌȐȞȦ ı’ ĮȣIJȩ».35

Ȉİ ıȣȞȑȞIJİȣȟȒ IJȠȣ ıIJȠ ȑȖțȣȡȠ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ įİȜIJȓȠ IJȦȞ ȚȘıȠȣȚIJȫȞ La Civiltà Cattolica, Ƞ ȆȐʌĮȢ ıȘȝİȓȦȞİ: 35

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/july/documents/ papafrancesco_20130728_gmg-conferenza-stampa_en.html (IJİȜİȣIJĮȓĮ ʌȡȠıʌȑȜĮıȘ: 2 ȈİʌIJİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 2014).

476

Chapter Thirty Two ǼȓȞĮȚ ĮʌĮȡĮȓIJȘIJȠ ȞĮ įȚİȣȡȪȞȠȣȝİ IJȠȣȢ ȤȫȡȠȣȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȚıȤȣȡȩIJİȡȘ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ. ĭȠȕȐȝĮȚ ȝȚĮ ȜȪıȘ IJȠȣ IJȪʌȠȣ «İʌȓįİȚȟȘ ĮȞįȡȠʌȡȑʌİȚĮȢ (machismo) ȝİ ijȠȪıIJĮ», įȚȩIJȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȑȤİȚ ȝȚĮ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ įȠȝȒ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ. ȍıIJȩıȠ, ȠȚ ıȣȗȘIJȒıİȚȢ ʌȠȣ ĮțȠȪȦ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ ıȣȤȞȐ İȝʌȞİȣıȝȑȞİȢ Įʌȩ ȝȚĮ ĮȜĮȗȠȞȚțȐ ĮȞįȡȠʌȡİʌȒ (macho) ȚįİȠȜȠȖȓĮ. ȅȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ șȑIJȠȣȞ ȕĮșȚȐ İȡȦIJȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ȟ’ ĮȞIJȚȝİIJȦʌȚıIJȠȪȞ [...] Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌĮȡĮȓIJȘIJȘ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ. Ǿ ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ, ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, İȓȞĮȚ ʌȚȠ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣȢ. ȉȠ ȜȑȦ ĮȣIJȩ, įȚȩIJȚ įİȞ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ıȣȖȤȑȠȣȝİ IJȠ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮȟȚȠʌȡȑʌİȚĮ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ įȚİȡİȣȞȒıȠȣȝİ țĮȜȪIJİȡĮ IJȘ ȝȠȡijȒ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ. ȆȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ İȡȖĮıIJȠȪȝİ ıțȜȘȡȩIJİȡĮ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ țȐȞȠȣȝİ ȝȚĮ ȕĮșȚȐ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ [...] Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ ȚįȚȠijȣǸĮ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌĮȡĮȓIJȘIJȘ ıIJȠȣȢ ȤȫȡȠȣȢ ȩʌȠȣ ȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȚ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȑȢ ĮʌȠijȐıİȚȢ. Ǿ ʌȡȩțȜȘıȘ ıȒȝİȡĮ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ĮțȩȜȠȣșȘ: ȃĮ ıțİijIJȠȪȝİ IJȘ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȘ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ĮțȩȝĮ țȚ İțİȓ ȩʌȠȣ ĮıțİȓIJĮȚ Ș İȟȠȣıȓĮ ıIJȠȣȢ įȚȐijȠȡȠȣȢ IJȠȝİȓȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ.36

Ȉİ ıȣȞȑȞIJİȣȟȒ IJȠȣ ıIJȘȞ İijȘȝİȡȓįĮ La Stampa, ıIJȚȢ 15 ǻİțİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 2013, Ƞ ĭȡĮȖțȓıțȠȢ ʌȡȠȤȫȡȘıİ ıIJȘȞ İȟȒȢ įȒȜȦıȘ: «(İȡȫIJȘıȘ įȘȝȠıȚȠȖȡȐijȠȣ:) – ȂʌȠȡȫ ȞĮ ıĮȢ ȡȦIJȒıȦ İȐȞ ıIJȠ ȝȑȜȜȠȞ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ șĮ ȑȤİȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ țĮȡįȚȞĮȜȓȠȣȢ; (ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ ʌȐʌĮ:) – ǻİȞ ȖȞȦȡȓȗȦ Įʌȩ ʌȠȪ ȟİʌȒįȘıİ ĮȣIJȒ Ș ȚįȑĮ. ȅȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ĮȞĮįİȚȤșȠȪȞ, ȩȤȚ ȞĮ “țȜȘȡȚțȠʌȠȚȘșȠȪȞ”. ǵʌȠȚȠȢ ȝȚȜȐ ȖȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ țĮȡįȚȞĮȜȓȠȣȢ ȣʌȠijȑȡİȚ ȜȓȖȠ Įʌȩ țȜȘȡȚțĮȜȚıȝȩ».37 ȉȑȜȠȢ, ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȩıijĮIJȘ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ȆȡȠIJȡȠʌȒ Evangelii Gaudium Ƞ ʌȐʌĮȢ İʌȚıȘȝȠʌȠȓȘıİ, țĮIJȐ țȐʌȠȚȠ IJȡȩʌȠ, IJȚȢ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȪȝİȞİȢ ȐIJȣʌİȢ șȑıİȚȢ IJȠȣ: «Ǿ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ĮȞĮȖȞȦȡȓȗİȚ IJȘ ȗȦIJȚțȒ ıȣȝȕȠȜȒ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ, ȝİ IJȘȞ İȣĮȚıșȘıȓĮ, IJȘ įȚĮȓıșȘıȘ țĮȚ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞİȢ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȑȢ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJİȢ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞȒșȦȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȑȝijȣIJİȢ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌĮȡȐ ıIJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ. īȚĮ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ, IJȠ ȟİȤȦȡȚıIJȩ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȣȢ ȐȜȜȠȣȢ, IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ İțijȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ȝ’ ȑȞĮ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ, ĮȞ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȩ, IJȡȩʌȠ, ıIJȘȞ ȝȘIJȡȩIJȘIJĮ [...] ȊʌȐȡȤİȚ, ȦıIJȩıȠ, ĮțȩȝĮ Ș ĮȞȐȖțȘ ȞĮ įȚİȣȡȣȞșİȓ Ƞ ȤȫȡȠȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ İȞIJȠȞȩIJİȡȘ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ [...] īȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ ȜȩȖȠ, ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ İȖȖȣȘșİȓ Ș ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ ıIJȠȞ İȡȖĮıȚĮțȩ ȤȫȡȠ, țĮȚ ıIJȠȣȢ įȚȐijȠȡȠȣȢ IJȠȝİȓȢ ȩʌȠȣ ȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȚ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȑȢ ĮʌȠijȐıİȚȢ, IJȩıȠ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȩıȠ țĮȚ ıIJȚȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ įȠȝȑȢ» (§103). «ȉĮ ĮȚIJȒȝĮIJĮ IJȦȞ ȞȩȝȚȝȦȞ įȚțĮȚȦȝȐIJȦȞ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȟİțȚȞȫȞIJĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌİʌȠȓșȘıȘ ȩIJȚ ȐȞįȡİȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȑȤȠȣȞ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ 36

La Civiltà Cattolica 3918/19 ȈİʌIJİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 2013, 466-467. http://www.lastampa.it/2013/12/15/esteri/vatican-insider/it/mai-avere-pauradella-tenerezza-1vmuRIcbjQlD5BzTsnVuvK/pagina.html (IJİȜİȣIJĮȓĮ ʌȡȠıʌȑȜĮıȘ: 2 ȈİʌIJİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 2014). 37

The Problem of the Catholic Church on Deaconesses

477

ĮȟȚȠʌȡȑʌİȚĮ, șȑIJȠȣȞ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȕĮșȚȐ İȡȦIJȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠțĮȜȠȪȞ țĮȚ ʌȠȣ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȞ Ȟ’ ĮȞIJȚȝİIJȦʌȚıIJȠȪȞ İʌȚijĮȞİȚĮțȐ. Ǿ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȐ ĮȞįȡȚțȒ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ [...] İȓȞĮȚ ȑȞĮ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ʌȠȣ įİȞ IJȓșİIJĮȚ ıİ ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ, ĮȜȜȐ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȑıİȚ ȝȚĮ ʌȘȖȒ ȟİȤȦȡȚıIJȒȢ ıȪȖțȡȠȣıȘȢ, İȐȞ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ IJĮȣIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ İȟȠȣıȓĮ. ǹȢ ȝȘȞ ȟİȤȞȐIJİ ʌȦȢ ȩIJĮȞ ȝȚȜȐȝİ ȖȚĮ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȒ İȟȠȣıȓĮ “ȕȡȚıțȩȝĮıIJİ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȠȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒȝĮIJȠȢ, ȩȤȚ IJȘȢ ĮȟȚȠʌȡȑʌİȚĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȩIJȘIJĮȢ” [...] Ǽįȫ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİIJĮȚ ȝȚĮ ȝİȖȐȜȘ ʌȡȩțȜȘıȘ ȖȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ʌȠȚȝȑȞİȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣȢ șİȠȜȩȖȠȣȢ, ʌȠȣ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȞ ȞĮ ȕȠȘșȒıȠȣȞ, ȫıIJİ Ȟ’ ĮȞĮįİȚȤșİȓ țĮȜȪIJİȡĮ IJȓ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ĮȣIJȩ ıİ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJȠȞ ʌȚșĮȞȩ ȡȩȜȠ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ İțİȓ ȩʌȠȣ ȜĮȝȕȐȠȞIJĮȚ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȑȢ ĮʌȠijȐıİȚȢ ıİ įȚȐijȠȡȠȣȢ IJȠȝİȓȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ» (§104).38 ȅȚ įȘȜȫıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ȆȐʌĮ ĭȡĮȖțȓıțȠȣ įİȞ șȓȖȠȣȞ, ʌȡȠijĮȞȫȢ, IJȠȞ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȩ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ ĮʌȠijȐȞșȘțİ Ƞ ʌȡȠțȐIJȠȤȩȢ IJȠȣ, ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ Ǻǯ. ȆĮȡȩȜ’ ĮȣIJȐ, ȠȚ IJȠʌȠșİIJȒıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ȕȠȘșȠȪȞ ıIJȘ įȚİȪȡȣȞıȘ IJȘȢ ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘȢ, țĮșȫȢ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠįİıȝİȪȠȣȞ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȪȝİȞȘ «țȜȘȡȚțȠțİȞIJȡȚțȒ» IJȘȢ ijȩȡȝȠȣȜĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ İȞIJȐııȠȣȞ ıİ ȝȚĮ İȣȡȪIJİȡȘ ʌȡȠȠʌIJȚțȒ. DzȤȠȞIJĮȢ, ʌȚșĮȞȩȞ, IJȘ įȚȐșİıȘ ȞĮ țĮIJİȣșȪȞİȚ IJȘ ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ ʌȑȡĮ Įʌȩ IJȘ ıIJİȞȦʌȩ IJȘȢ țȜȘȡȚțȠțİȞIJȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ, Ƞ ʌȐʌĮȢ ĮȚıșȐȞİIJĮȚ ȑțʌȜȘȟȘ, ȩIJĮȞ țȐʌȠȚȠȚ İʌȚȝȑȞȠȣȞ ıIJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, IJȘ ıIJȚȖȝȒ ʌȠȣ, ȩʌȦȢ ȠȝȠȜȠȖİȓ, Ș ĬİȠIJȩțȠȢ ȣʌȒȡȟİ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩIJİȡȘ IJȦȞ ȚİȡȑȦȞ țĮȚ IJȦȞ İʌȚıțȩʌȦȞ. DZȡĮ IJȠ ȗȘIJȠȪȝİȞȠ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ IJȩıȠ Ș ĮʌȩįȠıȘ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ țȐʌȠȚȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȘȝȐIJȦȞ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ, ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȠȪ, įȚįĮțIJȚțȠȪ Ȓ țĮIJȘȤȘIJȚțȠȪ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ – ȦȢ ĮʌȠțĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ țȐʌȠȚĮȢ ʌȡȠȨʌȐȡȤȠȣıĮȢ ĮįȚțȓĮȢ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ĮȜȜȐ Ș ĮʌȠıĮijȒȞȚıȘ İȞȩȢ ıĮijȑıIJİȡȠȣ, ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȐ, ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ (Ș ȝȠȡijȒ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ) – ĮȞ țĮȚ Ƞ ȓįȚȠȢ Ƞ ʌȐʌĮȢ įİȞ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ȣʌȠȞȠȠİȓ IJȘȞ ĮȞȐȜȘȥȘ țȐʌȠȚȠȣ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȠȪ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJȠȢ – ȝȚĮ ʌȚȠ ȟİțȐșĮȡȘ «șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ», ʌȠȣ Ȟ’ ĮȞĮįİȚțȞȪİȚ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȠȣ įȚĮșȑIJİȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝİ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȩ IJȡȩʌȠ țĮȚ ʌȠȣ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ įȚĮșȑıİȚ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȦʌȩIJȘIJĮ. ȀȐIJȚ IJȑIJȠȚȠ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ȝȘIJȡȩIJȘIJĮ. ȁȑİȚ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ: «ȆȠȜȜȐ ʌȡȐȖȝĮIJĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȞ Ȟ’ ĮȜȜȐȟȠȣȞ țĮȚ ȑȤȠȣȞ ĮȜȜȐȟİȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıIJȚțȒ țĮȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ İȟȑȜȚȟȘ, ĮȜȜȐ ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ʌȠȣ ıȣȜȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ, ijȑȡİȚ ıIJȘ ȝȒIJȡĮ IJȘȢ țĮȚ ȖİȞȞȐİȚ IJĮ ʌĮȚįȚȐ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ. ȀȚ ĮȣIJȩ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌȜȫȢ ȑȞĮ ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ıȣȞİʌȐȖİIJĮȚ ȑȞĮȞ ʌȜȠȪIJȠ ıȣȞİʌİȚȫȞ IJȩıȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ʌȠȣ ĮȣIJȒ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ, ȩıȠ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ıȤȑıİȚȢ IJȘȢ, ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ʌȠȣ 38

ȆȐʌĮȢ ĭȡĮȖțȓıțȠȢ, ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ȆȡȠIJȡȠʌȒ Evangelii Gaudium, 24 ȃȠİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 2013, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents /papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html (IJİȜİȣIJĮȓĮ ʌȡȠıʌȑȜĮıȘ: 2 ȈİʌIJİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 2014).

478

Chapter Thirty Two

IJȠʌȠșİIJİȓIJĮȚ ıİ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ȗȦȒ țĮȚ IJȘ ȗȦȒ İȞ ȖȑȞİȚ. ȀĮȜȫȞIJĮȢ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȘ ȝȘIJȡȩIJȘIJĮ, Ƞ ĬİȩȢ IJȘȢ ĮȞȑșİıİ ȝ’ ȑȞĮȞ ʌȠȜȪ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡȠ IJȡȩʌȠ IJȘȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȘ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ [...] įȪȠ țȓȞįȣȞȠȚ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȐȞIJĮ ʌĮȡȩȞIJİȢ, įȪȠ ĮȞIJȓșİIJĮ ȐțȡĮ ʌȠȣ țĮIJĮıIJȡȑijȠȣȞ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ țȜȒıȘ IJȘȢ [...] Ș ȝİȓȦıȘ IJȘȢ ȝȘIJȡȩIJȘIJĮȢ ıİ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ, ıİ İȡȖĮıȓĮ, ʌȠȣ, ĮȞ țĮȚ İȣȖİȞȒȢ, ıIJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ʌİȡȚșȦȡȚȠʌȠȚİȓ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJȑȢ IJȘȢ, įİȞ IJȘȞ ĮȟȚȠȜȠȖİȓ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȠȚțȠįȩȝȘıȘ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ȆȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ țȐIJȚ ʌȠȣ ıȣȝȕĮȓȞİȚ IJȩıȠ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ, ȩıȠ țĮȚ ı’ ĮȣIJȩȞ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ [...] (Ƞ ȐȜȜȠȢ țȓȞįȣȞȠȢ), ȦȢ ĮȞIJȓįȡĮıȘ ıIJȠȞ ʌȡȫIJȠ, ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ĮȞIJȓșİIJȘ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȘ (İȓȞĮȚ) Ș ʌȡȠȫșȘıȘ ȝȚĮȢ ȝȠȡijȒȢ ȤİȚȡĮijȑIJȘıȘȢ ʌȠȣ, ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ ȞĮ țĮIJĮȜȐȕİȚ IJȠȣȢ ȤȫȡȠȣȢ ʌȠȣ ĮijĮȚȡİȓ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ, ĮʌȠȖȣȝȞȫȞİȚ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ Įʌȩ IJĮ ʌȠȜȪIJȚȝĮ ȖȞȦȡȓıȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ IJȘȞ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȓȗȠȣȞ. ȀȚ İįȫ șĮ ȒșİȜĮ ȞĮ IJȠȞȓıȦ ȩIJȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȑȤİȚ ȝȚĮ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡȘ İȣĮȚıșȘıȓĮ ȖȚĮ IJĮ “ʌȡȐȖȝĮIJĮ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ”, ȚįȓȦȢ ıIJȠ ȞĮ ȝĮȢ ȕȠȘșȒıİȚ ȞĮ țĮIJĮȞȠȒıȠȣȝİ IJȠ ȑȜİȠȢ, IJȘȞ IJȡȣijİȡȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȖȐʌȘ ʌȠȣ ȑȤİȚ Ƞ ĬİȩȢ ȖȚĮ ȝĮȢ».39 ǺȡȚıțȩȝĮıIJİ İįȫ ıİ ȝȚĮ ĮȟȚȠıȘȝİȓȦIJȘ İȟȑȜȚȟȘ: ıIJȘ ıțȑȥȘ IJȠȣ ȆȐʌĮ J. Bergoglio Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌȜȐ ĮȣIJȒ ʌȠȣ ĮȞĮȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȘȢ ȝİIJȐįȠıȘȢ IJȘȢ ʌȓıIJȘȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ įȚįĮȤȒȢ IJȠȣ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ Ȓ ʌȠȣ ıȣȝȝİIJȑȤİȚ ıIJȠ țĮIJȘȤȘIJȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ – ĮȞĮȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȢ țȐʌȠȚȠ İȞİȡȖȩ İȟȦIJİȡȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ, įȚĮțȡȚIJȩ Įʌȩ ĮȣIJȩ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ – ĮȜȜȐ ĮȣIJȒ ʌȠȣ, ȑȤȠȞIJĮȢ İȞįȩIJĮIJĮ IJȠ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȩ ȤȐȡȚıȝĮ IJȘȢ ȝȘIJȡȩIJȘIJĮȢ, țĮIJĮȞȠİȓ IJȘȞ IJȡȣijİȡȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȖȐʌȘ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ țȩıȝȠ, ıȣȞ-ʌȜȘȡȫȞȠȞIJĮȢ IJĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒȝĮIJĮ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ țĮȚ İȞİȡȖȫȞIJĮȢ ȝĮȗȓ ȝİ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠ țĮȜȩ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, įȚȩIJȚ, IJİȜȚțȐ, Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ «ȤȐȞȠȞIJĮȢ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, țȚȞįȣȞİȪİȚ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ ıIJİȓȡĮ»! Ȃİ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ĮȣIJȩ, Ƞ ȆȐʌĮȢ ĭȡĮȖțȓıțȠȢ İʌĮȞȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ «ȤȡȘıIJȚțȒ» țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȟȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ıȚȦʌȘȡȐ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠıȣȞįȑİȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıIJȚțȒ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ IJȠȣ Ratzinger țĮȚ IJȘȞ İȞIJȐııİȚ ıİ İȣȡȪIJİȡĮ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ʌȜĮȓıȚĮ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤȚțȒ įȚĮȓıșȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ Ȉȉǯ: IJȠȞ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ĮȞİȟȐȡIJȘIJĮ țȚ ȩȤȚ ıİ ıȣȞȐȡIJȘıȘ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘ. DzIJıȚ, Ƞ ȜȩȖȠȢ įİ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ʌȜȑȠȞ ȖȚĮ ȠȝȠȖİȞȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȦȞ ijȪȜȦȞ ȠȪIJİ ȖȚĮ ȚıȩIJȚȝȘ țĮIJĮȞȠȝȒ IJȦȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȫȞ ĮȟȚȦȝȐIJȦȞ, ĮȜȜȐ ȖȚĮ IJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ IJȘȢ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȩIJȘIJȐȢ IJȠȣȢ (IJȘ «șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ»), ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ țĮȚ IJȠ ıțȠʌȩ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ Ƞ ĬİȩȢ ȑʌȜĮıİ IJȠȞ ȐȞșȡȦʌȠ,

39 ȆȐʌĮȢ ĭȡĮȖțȓıțȠȢ, ȅȝȚȜȓĮ ıIJȠȣȢ ıȣȝȝİIJȑȤȠȞIJİȢ ıIJȠ ȈİȝȚȞȐȡȚȠ ȖȚĮ IJĮ 25 ȤȡȩȞȚĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȒ Mulieris dignitatem, 12 ȅțIJȦȕȡȓȠȣ 2013, ıIJȠ http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/speeches/2013/october/documents /papa-francesco 20131012_seminario-xxv-mulieris-dignitatem_en.html (IJİȜİȣIJĮȓĮ ʌȡȠıʌȑȜĮıȘ: 2 ȈİʌIJİȝȕȡȓȠȣ 2014).

The Problem of the Catholic Church on Deaconesses

479

ȐȞįȡĮ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ.40 ȀĮȚ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ʌȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ ĮȣIJȒȞ IJȘȞ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȘ șĮ țȚȞȘșİȓ ıIJȠ İȟȒȢ Ș ȡȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȒ ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ.

40

Ǿ ʌȡȩıijĮIJȘ DzțIJĮțIJȘ ȈȪȞȠįȠȢ IJȦȞ ȇȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȫȞ ǼʌȚıțȩʌȦȞ, ʌȠȣ ıȣȞİțȜȒșȘ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ıȣȗȘIJȒıİȚ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȑȢ ʌȡȠțȜȒıİȚȢ IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮȢ ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȠȣ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȚıȝȠȪ (ǺĮIJȚțĮȞȩ, 18 ȅțIJȦȕȡȓȠȣ 2014), ıIJȘ Relatio ʌȠȣ İȟȑįȦıİ Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ, İȞ ʌȠȜȜȠȓȢ, ĮʌȘȤİȓ IJȚȢ ȚįȑİȢ IJȠȣ ȆȐʌĮ ĭȡĮȖțȓıțȠȣ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȖȦȞȓĮ ʌȠȜȜȫȞ IJȠʌȚțȫȞ ǼțțȜȘıȚȫȞ, ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ: «ǼȓȞĮȚ ĮȞȐȖțȘ Ș ĮȟȚȠʌȡȑʌİȚĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıIJĮIJİȣșİȓ țĮȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȠȦșȘșİȓ ĮțȩȝĮ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ. ȆȡȐȖȝĮIJȚ, ıȒȝİȡĮ, ıİ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ıȣȞȐijİȚİȢ, Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȞIJȚțİȓȝİȞȠ įȚȐțȡȚıȘȢ țĮȚ IJȠ įȫȡȠ IJȘȢ ȝȘIJȡȩIJȘIJĮȢ ıȣȤȞȐ ʌȠȚȞȚțȠʌȠȚİȓIJĮȚ (ı.ı. ȝȐȜȜȠȞ ȘșȚțȐ țĮȚ ȚįİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ʌĮȡȐ ȞȠȝȚțȐ), ĮȞIJȓ ȞĮ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİIJĮȚ ȦȢ ĮȟȓĮ. ǻİȞ ʌȡȑʌİȚ, İʌȓıȘȢ, ȞĮ ĮȖȞȠȘșİȓ IJȠ ĮȣȟȘȝȑȞȠ ijĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠ IJȘȢ ȕȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȠʌȠȓĮȢ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ İȓȞĮȚ șȪȝĮIJĮ, ıȣȤȞȐ – įȣıIJȣȤȫȢ – țĮȚ İȞIJȩȢ IJȦȞ ȠȚțȠȖİȞİȚȫȞ, ȩʌȦȢ İʌȓıȘȢ țĮȚ Ƞ ıȠȕĮȡȩȢ țĮȚ įȚĮįİįȠȝȑȞȠȢ ȖİȞİIJȚțȩȢ ĮțȡȦIJȘȡȚĮıȝȩȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıİ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞİȢ țȠȣȜIJȠȪȡİȢ» (§8). III Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, Relatio Synodi, ıIJȠ http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/synod/documents/rc_synod_doc2014 1018_relatio-synodi-familia_en.html (ʌȡȠıʌȑȜĮıȘ: 10 ǿĮȞȠȣĮȡȓȠȣ 2015).

CHAPTER THIRTY THREE CATHOLIC WOMEN DEACONS: PAST ARGUMENTS AND FUTURE POSSIBILITIES PHYLLIS ZAGANO

Abstract: This paper discusses past and future arguments regarding the ordination of women as deacons in the Catholic Church. Despite the common Catholic Orthodox history of women in the diaconate, arguments today essentially take the position used to oppose women as priests and impose it upon the question of the diaconate. The diaconate of women (the term “woman deacon” is preferred to “deaconess” which, in Catholic discussion, connotes a non-ordained person) died out in the West in the 12th century, and has not been restored in the Catholic Church. The objections to restoring women to the diaconate seem to be: 1) The historical female diaconate was a distinct non-sacramental order; 2) To be sacramentally ordained one must be able to physically represent Christ. This is known as the “iconic argument.” The “iconic argument” is presented in the 1976 Vatican document, Inter insigniores, which opposes women as priests, but not in the 1994 papal document, Ordinatio sacerdotalis. However, the Second Vatican Council formally restored the diaconate as a permanent grade of order, while informal discussions about women in the diaconate were not acted upon, even though the 1736 Holy Synod of Mount Lebanon (Maronite) included canons (which had been approved by the Pope) regarding the ordination of women as deacons. A work by the Vatican’s International Theological Commission (ITC) (1992-1997) supported women deacons, but was not published; a 2002 ITC document was inconclusive, leaving it to “the ministry of discernment” in the Church.

I am so honored to be with you today at this extremely important conference for the life of our Church, to speak about Catholic women deacons. The discussion is ongoing at many levels in the Catholic Church, and so I will briefly share with you the current debate, and speak a little about the future. Historical arguments are not going away in the Catholic Church, but are becoming more public. Last November, I debated a former member of the Vatican’s International Theological Commission, on the topic of

482

Chapter Thirty Three

women deacons. That is interesting, in and of itself, but the startling fact is that the debate occurred in the Catholic seminary of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, at the invitation of the rector and with the approval of the archbishop, before 200 seminarians, deacon candidates and faculty. It was quite interesting. It was also quite difficult to hear, over and over, how women cannot be icons of Christ. That, in a nutshell, would be what some would describe as the official Catholic teaching on women’s ordination to any rank of holy orders: women cannot represent the image of Christ. That is what the discussion is about: are women made in the image and likeness of God? To deny that a woman can represent the image of Christ is to deny the central fact of the incarnation: God became human. In the Catholic Church, the diaconate is the ordinary means by which women enter the clerical state. If women can rejoin the ranks of clergy, then they can obtain offices restricted to clerics. So, a resumption of the ordination of women deacons would give the Church a means by which women could preach and perform and witness sacraments. Women deacons are part of our common history. St. Paul called Phoebe the “deacon of the church at Cenchreae.” (Rom. 16:1) You know about the women in 1 Timothy 3:11. You know about the liturgies and canons and deep history of women deacons in the East. To start, let me say just one thing about terminology. While the work in Orthodoxy seems to generally prefer the term “deaconess”, in the current Catholic discussion “woman deacon” refers to the woman ordained to the rank of deacon, while “deaconess” is increasingly used to mean a non-ordained woman minister. Certainly, some of the women throughout history who were deaconesses were ordained, and some were not. But, increasingly, the concept of sacramentally-ordained women in the diaconate is connected with the term “women deacon,” perhaps more as a convenience than as a true linguistic distinction.

The debate about women’s ordination Women were ordained as deacons well into the 12th century in the West; the diaconate in the West effectively died out during the Middle Ages. We this know from many sources, including the letters of Peter Abélard (1079-1142) and Héloise (1100-1162), who calls herself a woman deacon and abbess in the fourth letter.1 As the deacon’s tasks and duties 1

Letters of Peter Abelard: Beyond the Personal, Trans. Jan. M. Ziolkowski. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2008; The Letters of Abelard and Heloise, Trans. Betty Radice. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974; The

Catholic Women Deacons: Past Arguments and Future Possibilities

483

were absorbed into priesthood, the diaconate eventually faded to the point that it was merely a step on the way to priesthood. Any permanent deacons were primarily the seven ceremonial deacons of major cathedrals. Everybody agrees with this history. There were men and women deacons who were ordained and served diaconal functions in the West (although not always the same diaconal functions), until the 12th century. The problem is whether they received sacramental ordination, and/or whether women are even capable of receiving sacramental ordination. It appears that those who argue against women deacons are using the same arguments that are used to oppose women becoming priests. The objections seem to be: 1) The female diaconate in history was a distinct non-sacramental order; 2) To be sacramentally ordained one must be able to physically represent Christ. This is known as the “iconic argument.” Now, it is hard to pinpoint exactly when the conversation about women deacons began to seriously spread in the Latin West, through the Roman Catholic Church. Various Latin manuals always note the Church’s history of women who were called deacons and deaconesses, who were ordained to perform certain tasks in the early Church. Brief paragraphs in these manuals state that the women deacons were needed to assist with immersion in the baptism of women, keep order in the women’s sections of the assembly, minister to sick women, and catechize women and children. The manuals noted that most, if not all, of these women ministered in the East, in the parent churches of modern Orthodoxy. The manuals rarely mention that these women were often ordained in ceremonies that were identical to those for male deacons. The argument that women cannot be ordained because the person ordained must be the icon of Christ, mistakes the risen Christ for the restricted, human male Jesus. The sign and symbol of every sacrament is the risen Lord, the glorified Christ. We are each and all challenged to image Christ. The flaw in the iconic argument is the fact that it does not distinguish the human male Jesus from the risen Christ. Leaving aside the detailed discussions of whether Jesus rose or was risen, we can all agree, at least, that Jesus risen is the risen Christ, and that he lives today in the Church, in and through all believers. But there is significant contention, much of it led by Cardinal Gerhard L. Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (which is the part of the Roman Curia that looks into these matters on behalf of

Letters of Abelard and Heloise, Trans. C. K. Scott Moncrieff. New York: Knopf, 1942.

484

Chapter Thirty Three

the Pope) that women cannot be ordained because women cannot image Christ. I am not aware of many other professional theologians who hold this view, although it certainly circulates around the Roman Curia and in episcopal circles. Where did this idea come from? Well, to begin with, it has nothing to do with women deacons. It is about women priests. In 1976, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) published a document called Inter insigniores,2 which gave its opinion that women cannot be ordained as priests. The document repeats St. Thomas Aquinas’s comment that sacramental signs must “represent what they signify by natural resemblance,”3 and combines St. Thomas’ comment with Pius XII’s statement that “the Church has no power over the substance of the sacraments […] over what Christ […] determined should be maintained as the sacramental sign.”4 The CDF presents the opinion that: The same natural resemblance is required for persons as for things: when Christ's role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this “natural resemblance” which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ. For Christ himself was and remains a man.5

Here they write “image of Christ” where they mean “image of Jesus.” Even without arguing that the priest is actually the president of the assembly that calls down the Holy Spirit to the Eucharistic banquet, and even without pointing out that the words of institution are not present in the approved East Syrian anaphora or Eucharistic prayer of Addai and Mari, we can agree that the point of this argument against women priests is that the celebrant must physically resemble the human male Jesus. But the CDF document states “icon of Christ” and, as I have said, we all image the risen Christ, who is God. We are all made in the image and 2

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Inter insigniores on the Question of Admission of Women to the Ministerial Priesthood (October 15, 1976) http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ con_cfaith_doc_19761015_inter-insigniores_en.html (accessed September 5, 2014). 3 St. Thomas, In IV Sent., dist. 25 q. 2, quaestiuncula 1a ad 4um, as cited in Inter insigniores, 5. 4 Pope Pius XII, Apostolic Constitution, Sacramentum Ordinis: loc. cit., 5, as cited in Inter insigniores, 5. 5 Inter insigniores, 5.

Catholic Women Deacons: Past Arguments and Future Possibilities

485

likeness of God. The God of philosophy is neither male nor female, while the God of theology is both. The unofficial arguments against women as deacons came well after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 1976 declaration against women as priests, and after John Paul II’s 1994 apostolic letter on the same. In fact, the CDF explicitly left the question of women deacons aside in 1976, and women deacons were not mentioned in 1994, or in the 1995 Responsum ad dubium, which is the CDF opinion on the level of the teaching on women priests. These documents have nothing to do with the diaconate, except insofar as they close the door to women priests and thereby further the discussion about women deacons. If women cannot be priests, and this is stated definitively, then there is no danger of women entering the diaconate as part of the cursus honorum, on the path to priesthood. Further, the two main reasons that were given in 1976 against women priests were the so-called “iconic argument” (the priest must be male) and the argument from authority (Jesus chose male apostles and the Church is bound by his choice). Even without the “iconic argument” against women priests, the argument from authority remains. In fact, for the most part, the Church has retained the constant tradition of a male priesthood. Sects here and there had women priests, and there were women called presbyteras, who were more likely the wives of priests. But the argument from authority has very real theological implications, because to perform a sacrament one must do as the Church does. The Church does not ordain women as priests. So, even where such ordinations would or could be attempted, they would be invalid in terms of Catholic ordinations.6 As it happened, the “iconic argument,” was dropped from the 1994 papal document, Ordinatio sacerdotalis, which retained the argument from authority.7 But a new position against ordaining women deacons uses an argument from authority to support an iconic argument that presents the icon of Jesus (not the icon of Christ), in support of what is called the “unicity of orders”: a person ordained to one order must automatically be eligible for the two others. This argument is supported by neither history nor practice.8 6

See Phyllis Zagano, Women & Catholicism: Gender, Communion, and Authority, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011, on this point. 7 Apostolic Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis of John Paul II to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone (May 22, 1994) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/1994/ documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html 8 See Catechism of the Catholic Church, nos. 1536, 1537, 1537 on the sacrament of

486

Chapter Thirty Three

Women deacons and Vatican Two By the time John Paul II’s apostolic letter against women as priests appeared in 1994, the conversation on women deacons had been going on for at least 30 years. At the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), there was much discussion about the diaconate, resulting in the renewal of the diaconate as a permanent vocation in the Latin Church. The order is defined in the Council document, Lumen gentium: 29. At a lower level of the hierarchy are deacons, upon whom hands are imposed “not unto the priesthood, but unto a ministry of service.” For strengthened by sacramental grace, in communion with the bishop and his group of priests they serve in the diaconate of the liturgy, of the word, and of charity to the people of God. It is the duty of the deacon, according as it shall have been assigned to him by competent authority, to administer baptism solemnly, to be custodian and dispenser of the Eucharist, to assist at and bless marriages in the name of the Church, to bring Viaticum to the dying, to read the Sacred Scripture to the faithful, to instruct and exhort the people, to preside over the worship and prayer of the faithful, to administer sacramentals, to officiate at funeral and burial services. Dedicated to duties of charity and of administration, let deacons be mindful of the admonition of Blessed Polycarp: “Be merciful, diligent, walking according to the truth of the Lord, who became the servant of all.” [….] It pertains to the competent territorial bodies of bishops, of one kind or another, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff, to decide whether and where it is opportune for such deacons to be established for the care of souls. With the consent of the Roman Pontiff, this diaconate can, in the future, be conferred upon men of more mature age, even upon those living in the married state. It may also be conferred upon suitable young men, for whom the law of celibacy must remain intact.9

What came out of the Council is different from what went into the Council, whose 2,600 bishops knew that women were (and, in fact, can again be) deacons. We know this from Council records and from the recollections of bishops and their assistants.

orders, especially 1536, which reads in part: “Today the word ‘ordination’ is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and […] confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a ‘sacred power’ (sacra potestas) which can come only from Christ himself through his Church.” 9 Italics mine. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen gentium (November 21, 1964) 29.

Catholic Women Deacons: Past Arguments and Future Possibilities

487

In discussions preparing for the Council, a Peruvian and an Italian bishop each discussed women in the diaconate. Their very language reflects the current debate about the diaconate for women. Bishop León Bonaventura de Uriarte Bengoa, OFM (1891-1970) of San Ramon, Peru, asked that “deaconesses be instituted”; Bishop Giuseppe Ruotolo (18981970) of Ugneto, Italy, suggested that “the order of deacons be restored and extended to women with the obligation of celibacy.”10 Women “installed” or women “restored” to the order of deacons? That would be, and is, the question. Were women ordained to the diaconate, or merely blessed for diaconal service? Were they ordained women deacons? Or were they non-ordained “deaconesses”? Among the 2,500 or so Catholic bishops who headed to Rome for the Council, Eastern Catholic Bishop Francis Mansour Zayek may have been in possession of the answer. Zayek, a bishop of the Syriac Maronite Church of Antioch, headed the Maronite Church in Brazil11 from 1962 and in the United States from 1966, until his retirement in 1995. When Zayek was appointed bishop, Pope St. John XXIII said: “What you Maronites have does not pertain to you alone but is part of the treasure of the Catholic Church.”12 Women deacons were, and are, well-embedded in the Maronite tradition. A Brooklyn Maronite priest told me of conversations with Archbishop Zayek, who related conversations with Vatican Two’s Latin prelates (that would be Roman Catholic bishops) who were not interested in engaging with the history and possibility of women deacons. But in the early 18th century, the Pope approved in forma specifica, Maronite synod canons that included ordained women deacons. The Pope’s approval meant (and means) the synod’s canons have the canonical weight of a formal papal act.13

10 Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando; Series prima (ante prapparatoria) (Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1960-61) (ADA), II/II, 121, as cited in Gary Macy, William T. Ditewig and Phyllis Zagano, Women Deacons: Past, Present, Future, Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2011. 11 Formally: The Maronite Apostolic Exarchate in Brazil. There are approximately 3.5 million Maronite Catholics in Syria, Lebanon, Cyprus, Canada, United States, Israel, Australia, Argentina, and Brazil. 12 “Address of Archbishop Francis M. Zayek to His Holiness Pope John Paul II on the Occasion of His Golden Jubilee of Priestly Ordination.” The Maronite Voice 6:9 (October 2010) p.8. 13 Benedict XIV approved the canons in 1741 in forma specifica, giving them the force of pontifical law.

Chapter Thirty Three

488

The National Synod of Mount Lebanon of 1736 met over three days, to regularize the Latin Church’s influence on Maronite liturgical and other practices. In some cases, Latin overtook older, Maronite use. In some cases, both uses were allowed. The text of the Synod document includes one very interesting point: Although the duties of deaconesses in regard to the sacraments of baptism, confirmation and extreme unction have already ceased because there is no longer anointing of the whole body, abbesses perform these functions in sacred houses of virgins dedicated to God.

And, further, If a bishop, for urgent necessity, truly wishes to ordain a woman aside from the abbess as deaconess, he is to ordain a woman whose chastity and doctrine is testified to according to the cited canons.14

So, at the time and in the context of Vatican Two, a few Latin bishops were mentioning women deacons. At least one Eastern bishop later reported many other Latin bishops were totally uninterested in the concept, but there is modern evidence of ordained women deacons. The Pope approved in forma specifica, the Lebanese Maronite practice of ordaining (as in the laying on of hands) women as deacons, and these women deacons could be charged to perform sacraments. As you know better than I, Eastern male clerics did not (and for the most part do not) deal directly with women. Such is the crux of the historical arguments about women deacons. Everyone accepts that they existed as ordained or non-ordained intermediaries between women and the bishop. History and practice seem to point to sacramental ordination for women deacons, at the very least because so many churches would never allow the sacred to be performed by someone not sacramentally ordained, but also because of the liturgical rites for the ordination of these women. A large part of the opposing Western argument is that ordination as a sacrament was defined after women ceased being ordained in the West. But here we have evidence of a papal law regarding sacred ordination of women as deacons in a Catholic Church.

14

F. Cappello, Tractatus canonico-moralis de Sacramentis, vol. IV, Torino: 1951, pp.55-6 (my translation); Morin, J., 1758. De sacris Ecclesiae ordinationibus secundum antiquos recentiores latinos, graecos ... commentarius. Editio nova; tertia parte auctior ... repurgata. Rome: Barbiellini; cap.2, pp.124-126. Arcudius, De Concordia Eccl. occid. et orient., lib.VI, cap.10.

Catholic Women Deacons: Past Arguments and Future Possibilities

489

So, the fathers of Vatican Two knew that women had been and could again be ordained as deacons — what the Church had done the Church could do again — although they did not want to talk about it. Even as the diaconate was well on its way to restoration as a permanent vocation and office in the Church, it was not being fully restored. It was not going to include women. However, the closing words of the Council in 1965 gave hope to those who wished for a full and complete restoration of the diaconate: The hour is coming; in fact it has come, when the vocation of women is being acknowledged in its fullness, the hour in which women acquire in the world an influence, an effect and a power never hitherto achieved. That is why, at this moment when the human race is undergoing so deep a transformation, women imbued with a spirit of the Gospel can do so much to aid humanity in not falling.15

Restoration of the male diaconate Soon after the Council ended, Paul VI issued the “General Norms for Restoring the Permanent Diaconate in the Latin Church.”16 Some years later, Paul VI issued specific norms for the diaconate in his motu proprio Ad pascendum (August 15, 1972).17 Around that time, in 1972, the Pope asked a member of the International Theological Commission (the ITC, a part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) directly about women deacons.18 Cipriano Vagaggini, a revered scholar of Eastern liturgy, wrote a long and dense academic paper in which he said “yes” to women deacons: what the Church has done, the Church can do again. Vagaggini’s paper never appeared as a formal ITC document, but the respected Roman journal, Orientalia Christiana Periodica, did publish it in its original Italian in 1974. Later, the Fathers of the 1987 Catholic Synod of Bishops on “The Vocation and Mission of the Lay Faithful in the Church and in the World” asked Vagaggini to make an intervention. 15

As quoted by John Paul II, Apostolic letter Mulierus dignitatum (August 15, 1988). 16 motu proprio Sacrum diaconatus ordinem (June 18, 1967). 17 Officially published in Latin with translations to Italian and Portuguese, now posted on the Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_pvi_motu-proprio_19720815_ad-pascendum_lt.html 18 See Peter Hebbelthwaite, Paul VI: The First Modern Pope. NY and Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1993, p.640.

490

Chapter Thirty Three

In what essentially was a 1,500-word summary of his earlier, longer paper, Vagaggini quite pointedly spoke in 1987 of: the legitimacy and urgency for competent authorities to admit women to the sacrament of order of the diaconate and to grant them all the functions, even the liturgical functions, that in the present historic moment of the church are considered necessary for the greater benefit of believers, not excluding — as I personally maintain — if it is judged pastorally appropriate, equality between the liturgical functions of men deacons and women deacons.19

Of course, the story does not end there, with a revered scholar telling a synod of bishops that admitting women to the diaconate was both legitimate and urgent. No matter how legitimate and urgent, things move slowly in Rome. At around the same time as the synod at which Vagaggini presented his intervention, the Committee on Women in Society and the Church of the National Council of Catholic Bishops (a predecessor organization to the current U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops) was writing on a pastoral letter on women. They began in 1983 and finished in 1994. The first of the pastoral’s four drafts suggested women be “installed” not “ordained” as deacons.20 That is a leading “solution,” so to speak, that is currently offered. Installed but not ordained women would have some liturgical role and would be called “deaconesses” but would not belong to the order of deacons. The second draft urged deeper study of the question of women as deacons, pointedly noting that the diaconate for women was left aside in the most recent document on women priests.21 The third and 19 Phyllis Zagano, ed., Ordination of Women to the Diaconate in the Eastern Churches: Essays by Cipriano Vagaggini, Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2013, p.5. 20 NCCB Ad Hoc Committee for a Pastoral Response to Women’s Concerns, “Partners in the Mystery of Redemption: First Draft of a Pastoral Letter on Women’s Concerns for Church and Society,” Origins 17:45 (April 21, 1988) 757, 759-788, para. 220 at 781 and fn. 144 citing Inter Insigniores 24. The footnote citation is unclear. 21 Idem, “One in Christ Jesus: A Pastoral Response to the Concerns of Women for Church and Society,” Origins 19:44 (April 5, 1990) 717, 719-740, para. 120 at 730 and fn. 97, here citing Commentary on Inter Insigniores, p.24: “In any case, it is a question that must be taken up fully by direct study of the texts, without preconceived ideas; hence the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged that it should be kept for the future and not touched upon in the present document.” Commentary by the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Declaration Inter Insigniores. L’Ossavatore Romano, January 27, 1977; Acta Apostilicae Sedis 69 (1977) 98-116.

Catholic Women Deacons: Past Arguments and Future Possibilities

491

fourth drafts merely asked for more study on the diaconate, on lectors and acolytes, without mentioning women in these roles.22 Overall, the pastoral gradually changed from a document reflecting the concerns of women and the needs of the Church, to a statement supporting Rome’s determinations that women could not be ordained as priests. A final approved and published committee report (not a pastoral letter) is called “Strengthening the Bonds of Peace.” The report admits sexism in the Church, and speaks about the value of women’s leadership, but does not consider the deep history of ordained women deacons in Christianity, nor does it suggest that Rome should.23 Meanwhile, in Rome, it was not until 1992 that Paul VI’s interest in women deacons was formally taken up by the International Theological Commission. By this time, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and therefore president of the ITC. Initiated in 1969 by Pope Paul VI, the ITC has member-theologians from around the world, appointed for five-year renewable terms. In 1992, the task of a small ITC subcommittee was simple: discuss and decide the history of and future possibility for women to be ordained to the diaconate. By 1997, the all-male working group24 had prepared an 18-page document 22 Idem, “Called to Be One in Christ Jesus,” Origins 21:46 (April 23, 1992) 761, 763-776; and, Idem, “One in Christ Jesus: Response to Women’s Concerns,” Origins 22:13 (September 10, 1992) 221, 223-240. Neither refers to women as deacons, lectors, or acolytes, nor to the Commentary on Inter Insigniores. 23 Idem. “Strengthening the Bonds of Peace,” Origins 24:25 (December 1, 1994) 417, 419-422; Hugh Joseph Nolan, Pastoral Letters of the United States Catholic Bishops: 1989-1997. Washington, DC: National Conference of Catholic Bishops, pp 13-16. See also, Rosemary Smith, “Strengthening the Bonds of Peace Revisited,” Proceedings of the Canon Law Society of America 58 (1996) 354-367. 24 Max Thurian (1921-1996), a Catholic priest member of Taize, was appointed to the Congregation for Clergy in 1994; Christoph Schönborn (b. 1945) was ordained a bishop in 1991 and elevated to cardinalate in 1998; Joseph Osei-Bonsu (b. 1948) became bishop of the newly-erected Diocese of Konongo-Mampong in 1995; Charles Acton (b. 1943) is now theological adviser at the seminary of the diocese of Westminster, England; Giuseppe Colombo (1923-2005) was a theology professor in Milan and ITC member from 1980-1987; Sulpician Joseph Doré (b. 1936) was ordained bishop and appointed archbishop of Strasbourg, France in October-November, 1997; Prof. Gösta Hallonsten; Fr. Henrique de Noronha Galvão (b. 1937), whose 1979 dissertation Die existentielle Gotteserkenntnis bei Augustin: Eine hermeneutische Lektüre der Confessiones was directed by Joseph Ratzinger. Fr. Stanislaw Nagy, SCI (b. 1921) was ordained bishop and elevated to cardinal in 2003; Catholic News reported on December 3, 2001 that the ITC had already considered two previous drafts. http://cathnews.acu.edu.au/112/05.php (accessed January 22, 2013).

492

Chapter Thirty Three

that I understand was printed and passed by the entire body of the ITC. The ITC president, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, refused to sign it.25 Why not sign and publish the opinion of genuine scholars? It seems the ITC agreed with history. It also seems that even though the iconic argument had already been disposed of within arguments opposing women becoming priests, the idea that a woman could not represent the risen Christ was still floating around Rome: “Christ was a man.”26 Shoring up the party line against ordained women, Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos (Prefect of the Congregation for Clergy at that time) said that “deaconesses” would run contrary to the intent of the diaconate.27 At the time, the French periodical, La Croix, opined that the fear was that if women were ordained as deacons they could become a “Trojan horse” used to break the barriers of the all-male priesthood.28 We know that not all deacons are expected to become priests, and that the Church has stated that women cannot become priests, but Rome cannot get its mind around the possibility of women deacons without the probability of women priests. So, what to do with a problem? Don’t make a decision. Send it back to the committee. That is exactly what happened with the ITC’s 1992-1997 work on women deacons. The mandate to provide a document on women deacons remained, so Cardinal Ratzinger reconfigured the committee, leaving his former graduate student, Portuguese Fr. Henrique de Noronha Galvão, as the only person remaining from the first subcommittee and appointing him as subcommittee Chair. Galvão wrote on St. Augustine at Regensburg. The new committee was comprised of six other priests: one each from Spain, Canada, France, Germany, the Philippines and Hungary. Gerhard

25

Phyllis Zagano, “It's Time: The Case for Women Deacons” Commonweal (December 21, 2012) 8-9. 26 La Croix “le diaconat féminine n’est pas à l’ordre du jour” March 12, 1998, 10. Martins, then Secretary of the Congregation for Catholic Education, was soon named Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints, and elevated to a cardinal in 2001. 27 Ibid. 28 La Croix “Faut-il inventer un ministère de diaconaesse?” March 29, 1999, 22. La Croix noted that the 1999 “Dialogue for Austria” voted overwhelmingly in favor of restoring women to the diaconate. It bears stating that those who fear women deacons becoming women priests, apparently do not accept teachings on women as priests.

Catholic Women Deacons: Past Arguments and Future Possibilities

493

Ludwig Muller, the current Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, was among them.29 Between 1997 and 2002, the new ITC subcommittee transformed an 18-page positive document into a 78-page inconclusive study that included uncited paragraphs from an earlier book by committee member, MĦller, in which he applied the iconic argument against both women priests and women deacons.30 It was published at around the same time as the 2002 ITC document, and MĦller became bishop of Cardinal Ratzinger’s old diocese of Regensburg. As Pope, Benedict XVI named Muller as Prefect 31 of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The new, 2002 ITC document concluded: With regard to the ordination of women to the diaconate, it should be noted that two important indications emerge from what has been said up to this point: 1. The deaconesses mentioned in the tradition of the ancient Church – as evidenced by the rite of institution and the functions they exercised – were not purely and simply equivalent to the deacons; 2. The unity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, in the clear distinction between the ministries of the bishop and the priests on the one hand and the diaconal ministry on the other, is strongly underlined 29 Fr. Santiago del Cura Elena, professor at the Theological Faculty of Northern Spain (Burgos); Fr. Pierre Gaudette, is now retired from the Grand Séminaire de Québec; Roland Minnerath (b. 1946) named archbishop of Dijon, France in 2004; Gerhard Ludwig MĦller was named bishop of Regensburg upon publication of the 2002 document, and became Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under Benedict XVI; Luis Antonio G. Tagle (b. 1957), named a bishop in 2001, became archbishop of Manila in 2011 and a cardinal a year later; and Prof. Fr. Ladislaus Vanyo (Hungary). 30 Compare, for example, From the Diakonia of Christ 3 and Priesthood and Diaconate 183, 185-6; From the Diakonia of Christ 4 and Priesthood and Diaconate 186, 184, 186, 187; From the Diakonia of Christ 5 and Priesthood and Diaconate 190-91; From the Diakonia of Christ 6 and Priesthood and Diaconate 187; From the Diakonia of Christ 19 and Priesthood and Diaconate 216; From the Diakonia of Christ 20 and Priesthood and Diaconate 216, 217, 204; From the Diakonia of Christ 22 and Priesthood and Diaconate 218; and From the Diakonia of Christ 23 and Priesthood and Diaconate 217. Some citations and footnotes are identical. See Gerhard L. Müller, Priesthood and Diaconate (San Francisco: Ignatius, 2002) trans. by Michael J. Miller of Priestertum und Diakonat: Der Empfänger des Weihesakramentes in schöpfungstheologischer und christologischer Perspecti. (Freiburg: Johannes Verlag, 2000). 31 On July 2, 2012. It should be noted that Müller’s patron in his home archdiocese, Cardinal Karl Lehman, is beyond retirement age.

494

Chapter Thirty Three by ecclesial tradition, especially in the teaching of the Magisterium. In the light of these elements which have been set out in the present historico-theological research document, it pertains to the ministry of discernment which the Lord established in his Church to pronounce authoritatively on this question.32

These are the most recent statements from Rome. Of course there is Phoebe, the only person in scripture called “deacon.” Of course, there is testimony to women deacons in Paul’s letter to Timothy. Of course, there are ancient conciliar statements that give details about the men and women deacons of the Church. There are papal letters from the 12th century giving bishops permission to ordain women deacons. There is so much literary, epigraphical, liturgical evidence for women deacons that there seems no way for either Rome or the U.S. bishops to ignore it. Except they have. Except they do. The important thing to remember here is that because there is so much evidence to support the restoration of women to the order of the diaconate, the restrictions against ordaining women to the diaconate are what is called a “merely ecclesial law.” That is, a discontinued practice now outlawed. There are other “merely ecclesial laws.” For example, Pope Francis has told bishops and bishops’ conferences that if they want to ordain married men they only have to ask. Theoretically, then, a bishops’ conference only has to ask for women deacons.

32 From the English translation (apparently identical to that of the Catholic Truth Society), as published on the Vatican website: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cf aith_pro_05072004_diaconate_en.html The original: “Pour ce qui est de l’ordination des femmes au diaconat, il convient de noter que deux indications importantes émergent de ce qui a été exposé jusqu’ici: 1) les diaconesses dont il est fait mention dans la Tradition de l’Église ancienne – selon ce que suggèrent le rite d’institution et les fonctions exercées – ne sont pas purement et simplement assimilables aux diacres; 2) l’unité du sacrement de l’ordre, dans la claire distinction entre les ministères de l’évêque et des presbytres d’une part et le ministère diaconal d’autre part, est fortement souligné par la Tradition ecclésiale, surtout dans la doctrine du concile Vatican II et l’enseignement postconciliaire du Magistère. À la lumière de ces éléments mis en évidence par la présente recherche historico-théologique, il reviendra au ministère de discernement que le Seigneur a établi dans son Église de se prononcer avec autorité sur la question.” http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/diaconatedocuments/conclusion.html (accessed January 23, 2013).

Catholic Women Deacons: Past Arguments and Future Possibilities

495

Conclusion I believe the question of women rejoining the ordained diaconate matters very deeply for our Church, our world and, most especially, for every woman on the planet. It is not only what deacons can do, it is who deacons are, and how our Church can make a positive stand for the status of women around the world.

CHAPTER THIRTY FOUR ORDINATION, APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION, AND ECUMENISM ELIZABETH M. SMITH

Abstract: Inherent in today’s Christianity is the differing approaches to central theological and practical questions in Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant denominations. The division among these denominations is contrary to the love and unity of Christ. Enter ecumenism. Women’s ordination relates closely to ecumenism in terms of questions regarding episcopacy and apostolic succession. My research focuses on the centrality of apostolic succession to ecumenism. This paper surveys documents that have come out of discussions between Northern European, American, and Canadian Lutherans and Anglicans on their way to full communion with each other. In particular, it surveys the way their strikingly different theologies of apostolic succession shaped their interactions with one another, and what theological moves were made that enabled them to finally enter into full communion. I conclude with a series of questions and observations. What can Christianity at large take from these discussions? What is inherent in questions of episcopacy? Are some items theologically central while others are flexible? How do we make sense of the different historical trajectories that various Christian denominations have taken while maintaining the integrity of the apostolic faith? How does ecclesiology solve or not solve differences? What is keeping Christendom divided? In particular, I will draw on the ecumenical theology and ecclesiology of Yves Congar to make my reflections. This methodology is not intended to be an exhaustive survey of Congar’s theology; rather, I use his theology to interpret the dialogue between Anglicans and Lutherans that led to their full communion. The reason I am focusing specifically on dialogues between Northern European, American and Canadian Anglicans and Lutherans is that these are the dialogues that actually led to full communion. They are not intellectual exercises; they are truly practical examples of ecumenism from which Christianity can and should glean wisdom.

Ecclesiology is a key concept in the topic of ecumenism. This research aims to offer a Catholic perspective on discussions between Northern European, American, and Canadian Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians

498

Chapter Thirty Four

on their way to full communion with each other. The reason for focusing on these discussions specifically is that these are the dialogues that actually led to full communion. As such, they are not intellectual exercises, but practical examples of ecumenism from which Christianity as a whole can and should glean wisdom. Women’s ordination relates closely to both areas as it relates to episcopacy and apostolic succession. As such, this paper aims to focus specifically on the topic of ordained ministry as a central element of ecclesiology, and what it reveals about the heart of ecclesiological difference which is, after all, at the heart of ecumenical dialogue. The method this paper will utilize is to survey the documents that have come out of these discussions between Northern European, American, and Canadian Lutherans and Anglicans on their way to full communion with each other, making pertinent observations. In particular, it surveys the way the strikingly different theologies of apostolic succession and ordination held by these different denominations shaped their interactions with one another and, additionally, what theological moves were made that enabled them to finally enter into full communion.

Ecclesiology Let us begin with the following claim: the majority of theological topics that separate denominations are rooted in ecclesiology. Martin Luther’s various 16th century critiques of the Catholic Church reveal such topics as justification, the practice of confession, and indulgences, all of which revolve around one central question: who has the power to forgive sins? Can grace be compromised once a person has been saved in baptism, and who has the authority to decide? A Catholic would say that Christ clearly gives the apostles the power to forgive and to bind sins, and Luther would highlight the corruption of the papacy of the time as nullifying or, perhaps, redirecting the power of grace to one’s personal relationship to Christ. Other topics might include the number and practice of sacraments, transubstantiation, and interpreting the Bible. All of these topics revolve around the concept of revelation: where do the faithful hear God’s voice? Is the Holy Spirit active in the hierarchy as a partner to the scriptures (and in fact their interpreter) or are the scriptures alone the voice of revelation? Other topics might include ministry: what can we say about the ministry all Christians are called to by virtue of their baptism, and how does it differ from the special ministry of leadership in the Church? Is ordination a sacrament? Does it make a person ontologically different from the non-ordained? This short and non-exhaustive list keeps pointing

Ordination, Apostolic Succession, and Ecumenism

499

again and again to the topic of ecclesiology: the concept of Church, its governance, its ontological reality, the way God works in and through it, and issues of authority. If we were to continue onward and look at concepts separating today’s Christians, an even broader list emerges: abortion and contraception, female ordination, Eucharistic theology, governance, and other topics are as much political as they are theological. And they, too, seem to all point to the central question: who has the power? Surely God has the power? But through which channels does God exercise that power? The reality of the Church is simultaneously practical and theological. It includes both the beliefs about how God chooses to act on Earth, as well as implications for how churches will organize themselves, their sacramental practices, governance, and decision-making processes. They are at once earthly and eternal questions. Ordained ministry seems to be at the very heart of the ecclesiology involved in ecumenism. The Catholic Church, as well as the Anglican and Episcopal Churches in the U.S. and Canada, value highly the concept of apostolic succession as the ordination of one bishop by another, stemming all the way back to the apostles through the laying on of hands. The Lutheran Church, however, most often appears in these debates to suggest that, simply being removed by 2,000 years and the countless redirections in both theology and practice, makes the laying on of hands and the overall concept of the historic episcopate a mere formality, guaranteeing no continuity of ontological status. Rather, it is the continuity in ministry that the Lutheran Church wants to emphasize as important, and this is surely achieved most of all through simple faithfulness by all of the faithful to the scriptures, without the adiaphora of the laying on of hands. Faithfulness to the teachings of Christ as present in the scriptures is the only constitutive element to the ministry of Christ. Now, we might stop here and solve the issue easily by positing: isn’t the disagreement over apostolic succession something about which various Christian denominations might simply have a legitimate plurality of opinions? Or, could not these two communions reunite as Karl Rahner and Heinrich Fries suggest, in their book, The Unity of the Churches,1 by having Catholic bishops present at the ordinations of Lutherans (and other churches not currently in the line of apostolic succession), while also having leadership from the other Church present? Wouldn’t this kind of co-ordination satisfy both the people looking for a legitimate link to the 1 Fries, Heinrich and Karl Rahner. Unity of the Churches: An Actual Possibility. Trans. Ruth C. L. Gritsch and Eric W. Gritsch. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1983.

500

Chapter Thirty Four

apostles, as well as those for whom it does not matter? Why would this not work? According to several of the published statements coming out of ecumenical dialogues between Episcopalians and Lutherans in Canada, the problem here is that it is contrary to the fellowship, communion, and koinonia that full communion entails. It would be insulting to the ministries of non-historic episcopates to suggest any illegitimacy if it were not done in this way. Any practice that involves re-apostolizing, as it were, the ministers of one Church so that they are once again legitimate in the other seems to simply make them Anglican, or Catholic, whatever the case may be. It is one-sided. And yet, anything less than that is unacceptable to denominations for whom apostolic succession is a constitutive element of the ordained ministry. It seems we are at a standstill.

Ecumenism Here is where we should step back and ask: what is the goal of ecumenism? Is it full communion or total reunification of denominations? Or is there something to be said for diversity of theology and practice among Christians? A survey of both Catholic and Protestant literature on this question yields a variety of answers, but the overall consensus, especially from the Catholic tradition, seems to be no. Nothing less than full communion and complete reunification is not only desirable, but a constitutive element and necessary feature of Christ’s Church on Earth. The aforementioned Unity of the Churches, by Jesuit theologian Karl Rahner and Heinrich Fries, is what they call a “cry of distress”2 regarding this “urgent matter of survival for Christianity.”3 Looking at contemporary secularism and atheism, they say such an age cries out for the saving power of Christian truth, but that the fraction of Christianity into various opposing denominations undermines its credibility and efficacy. They rightly observe that a broken church is hard to sell, and that it incorrectly suggests a broken faith. Moreover, this disunity is an internal flaw: “the unity of the Church is the commandment of the Lord, who will demand from the leaders of the churches an accounting as to whether or not they have really done everything possible in this matter.”4 For these reasons,

2

Ibid., 3. Ibid., 1. 4 Ibid., 1. 3

Ordination, Apostolic Succession, and Ecumenism

501

the consolidation of all denominations is a “matter of life or death for Christendom.”5 Vatican II paid special attention to both ecumenism and intra-religious dialogue, revealing a spirit of caritas not only with fellow Christians, but with various religious traditions. Nostra Aetate acknowledges those things other religious traditions hold in common with Catholicism. It states: “In Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry […] Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world […] The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God […] they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting […] The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men […] The Church, therefore, exhorts her sons, that through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions to recognize, preserve and promote the good things, spiritual and moral, as well as the socio-cultural values found among these men.”6

This should strike all of us! While the Church would not and does not abandon its teachings for political reasons, “the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death […] in order that all may reach salvation [….and] We cannot truly call on God, the Father of all, if we refuse to treat in a brotherly way any man, created as he is in the image of God.”7 This emphasis reveals a theological trend away from the dogmatic and structural debates of the Reformation era and the ushering in of an era of fellowship, co-operation, and emphasis on unity. Vatican II’s Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, states that division “openly contradicts the will of Christ, provides a stumbling block to the world, and inflicts damage on the most holy cause of proclaiming the Good News to every creature”8 The Decree seems to invoke the oftcited maxim: in big things, unity; in small things, diversity; and in all things, love. It states later that we “should remember that in Catholic 5

Ibid., 1. Vatican II. Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions Nostra Aetate. 28 October 1965. Vatican. The Holy See. 3, emphasis added. 7 Ibid., 5. 8 Vatican II. Decree on Ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio. November 21, 1964. Vatican. The Holy See. 1. 6

502

Chapter Thirty Four

teaching there exists an order or 'hierarchy' of truths, since they vary in their relationship to the foundation of the Christian faith.” Already, here, we see an avenue for the discussion of ordained ministry: where does it fall along this “hierarchy of truths?” Similar to Nostra Aetate, Unitatis Redintegratio looks to Protestant brothers and sisters who are looking for what we hold in common. This methodological move is precisely, it argues, the only way ecumenism will happen. What we see in the ecumenical theology of Vatican II is an emphasis on the dire necessity of visible and ontological unity for the Church to be Church. Indeed, this is the very heart of what it means to say ecclesiology is at the heart of ecumenism, for the Church cannot be Church as Christ designed, without unity. St. John Paul II shows no less fervor and commitment to nothing short of full communion between divided Christendom in his 1995 work, Ut Unum Sint. He states that: “the unity of all divided humanity is the will of God. For this reason, he sent his Son, so that by dying and rising for us he might bestow on us the Spirit of love. On the eve of his sacrifice on the Cross, Jesus himself prayed to the Father for his disciples and for all those who believe in him, that they might be one, a living communion. This is the basis not only of the duty, but also of the responsibility before God and his plan, which falls to those who through Baptism become members of the Body of Christ, a Body in which the fullness of reconciliation and communion must be made present. How is it possible to remain divided, if we have been ‘buried’ through Baptism in the Lord's death, in the very act by which God, through the death of his Son, has broken down the walls of division?”9 To emphasize the importance and necessity of unity is not, of course, to minimalize the complexities of navigating a solution to the issue of ordained ministry, the “standstill” we have already mentioned. That being said, this reflection is meant to compel us to see how urgent it is, nonetheless, to come up with creative ways forward. And it is with this spirit of creativity, surely, that the Anglicans/Episcopalians and Lutherans embarked on their discussions with each other in the documents I’d now like to survey topically.

9 Vatican II. Encyclical on commitment to Ecumenism Ut Unum Sint. May 25, 1995. Vatican. The Holy See. 6.

Ordination, Apostolic Succession, and Ecumenism

503

The Primary Documents The guiding question here is what can the Catholic Church – as well as other divided denominations – take from their discussion? Regarding either method or content (or both), is there, buried in these under-read documents, a pearl of great value? First, a jointly agreed-upon definition of “full communion” at work in several of these documents: what we are talking about is not the conflation of two churches into one, the way Rahner and Fries suggest in their book, but rather, a relationship between two distinct churches or communions in which each maintains its own autonomy while recognizing the catholicity and apostolicity of the other, and believing the other to hold the essentials of the Christian faith. Central to the definition are being able to freely communicate at the altar of the other, and the freedom of ordained ministers to officiate sacramentally in either church. It also implies transferability of members and the freedom to use each other’s liturgies. “Full communion involves a state of mutual recognition short of merger.” However, priests of each can minister over each other’s sacraments.10 So it does not imply sameness, but unity in koinonia. Conversations began between the two denominations in Canada in 1969, eventually leading to the 1998 document, Called to Full Communion: A Study Resource for Lutheran-Anglican Relations Including the Waterloo Declaration.11 It comes from the work carried out by the Joint Working Group of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada, in December 1997, and officially declares full communion between the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada. In the U.S., the discussion began in 1970s. The Division of Theological Studies, the Lutheran Council in the U.S.A., and the Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations of the Episcopal Church conversed with each other from 1978-80 to produce: Lutheran – Episcopal Dialogue: Report and Recommendations12 (1981). This document represents the earliest 10

“Anglicans, Lutherans Urge Full Communion: Canadian Lutheran Anglican Dialogue.” Anglican Journal 120:8 (Oct 1994). 12. 11 Called to Full Communion: A Study Resource for Lutheran-Anglican Relations Including the Waterloo Declaration. The Joint Working Group of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada, December 1997. Toronto, Ontario: Anglican Book Centre, 1998. 12 Lutheran – Episcopal Dialogue: Report and Recommendations. Second Series 1976-1980. Sponsored by the Division of Theological Studies, Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. and the Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations of the

504

Chapter Thirty Four

published dialogue between the two denominations in the U.S. The 1990s was a fruitful time for Lutheran-Episcopal dialogue in the U.S. The 1991 document, “Toward Full Communion” And “Concordat of Agreement”: Lutheran Episcopal Dialogue Series III,13 which reflects dialogue between the two denominations in the U.S., and the accompanying Concordat of Agreement: Supporting Essays14 (1995), preceded the 1999 document, Called to Common Mission: A Lutheran Proposal for a Revision of the Concordat of Agreement15 by just a few short years. It is in Called to Common Mission that the Lutheran Church in the United States confirmed full communion with the Episcopal Church. In Europe, the major texts include The Meissen Agreement Texts: On the Way to Visible Unity16 (1988) and Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statement with Essays17(1993). The latter document declares full communion that is representative of work between the British and Irish Anglican churches, together with the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran churches. These documents, which come out of individual churches in the U.S., Canada, and Northern Europe, are not the only documents to have emerged through these conversations. Additionally, the Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians have produced a couple of international documents that do not represent one particular country. The Niagara Report: Report of the Anglican-Lutheran Consultation on Episcope 198718 (1988) represents Episcopal Church. Cincinnati, Forward Movement Publications, 1981. 13 “Toward Full Communion” And “Concordat of Agreement”: Lutheran Episcopal Dialogue Series III. Ed. William A. Norgren and William G. Rusch. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1991. 14 Concordat of Agreement: Supporting Essays. Ed. Daniel F. Martensen. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1995. 15 Called to Common Mission: A Lutheran Proposal for a Revision of the Concordat of Agreement. An agreement of Full Communion with the Episcopal Church as amended and Adopted by the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, August 19, 1999. Chicago: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 1999. 16 The Meissen Agreement Texts: On the Way to Visible Unity. The Council for Christian Unity of the General Synod of the Church of England. Meissen, March 18, 1988. Occasional Paper No. 2. 17 Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statement With Essays on Church and Ministry in Northern Europe. Conversations between the British and Irish Anglican Churches and the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches. London: Church House Publishing, 1993. 18 The Niagara Report: Report of the Anglican-Lutheran Consultation on Episcope 1987. By the Anglican-Lutheran International Continuation Committee. London:

Ordination, Apostolic Succession, and Ecumenism

505

an early international conversation. In 2003, another international dialogue produced Growth in Communion: Report of the Anglican-Lutheran International Working Group 2000-2002.19 Given the short length of this paper and the amount of repetition between documents, we will not, here, repeat information cited across several of the documents. Instead, we will explore items topically and imply that these themes are present across several of the documents from various regions of the world, all of which seem to be in conversation with each other. There is a lot of crossover and very similar themes across the board. One theme present across the board is that of discovering a hidden brotherhood or familiar ties in each other. Fellow churches see in each other the story of long lost siblings. The idea that continually arises from both sides of the discussion is that God has given both churches sufficient faithfulness to the Apostolic Gospel that they can recognize each other as sister Christians today. In particular, both recognize one another as products of the Protestant Reformation. In recognizing the intact proclamation of the Gospel in each other, we observe each denomination agreeing to the following surprising changes. The Lutherans agree to all of the following: that the title of bishop is extended to those who exercise office of episcope (pastoral leadership and spiritual supervision); that the rites of installations of bishops are to be revised so that there is a laying on of hands by at least three bishops, and only bishops preside at ordinations. Now, if this does not seem revolutionary, recall that the Lutherans formed around the central idea of the priesthood of all believers, strictly rejecting this kind of attention to hierarchy, or even the very acknowledgement of a hierarchy! In turn, Anglicans agree to the following: to make canonical revisions that recognize the full authenticity of existing ministries of Lutheran churches (this does not undermine or surrender the gift of the historic episcopate), and regularly invite Lutheran bishops to participate in the laying on of hands at ordinations of Anglican bishops. Both denominations say that these changes are not meant to imply indifference to the gift and symbol of the historic episcopate. So, we see here that it is not theological moves per se, but a shift in orientation towards the other, a shift from hostility to community, that

Church House Publishing, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Lutheran World Federation, 1988. 19 Growth in Communion: Report of the Anglican – Lutheran International Working Group 2000-2002. Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2003.

506

Chapter Thirty Four

allows the other to vocalize or conceptualize one another’s ministry with the charity needed to accommodate each other. In fact, each side seems to almost laugh at themselves about the fact that historically, Anglicans considered acceptance of the historic episcopate a precondition for communion, and for Lutherans it is enough to have unity in word and sacrament and that, in fact, insisting on episcopal succession undermines the work of Lutheran ministry: “The frustrating character of the historic disagreement between Anglicans and Lutherans – its sheer folly – can be formulated thus. Anglicans say to Lutherans, if you have no objection in principle to episcopal government, then your refusal to adopt it can only be obstinacy. Lutherans say to Anglicans, of course we can adopt it, provided you Anglicans say it is not necessary for us to do so. To which Anglicans reply, we haven’t got any official theology which says that it, the episcopate, is of the essence of the Church, but we couldn’t possibly say, dogmatically, that it wasn’t. This conversation is not merely frustrating, it is dumb. And our parent bodies ought to demand their money back from us in this consultation if we cannot show a way out of this ludicrous impasse.”20

The Niagara Report speaks at length about the discovery that Lutherans have a long theological history in terms of a place for bishops, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada having had bishops since its inauguration in 1986. Conversely, it highlights the extent to which Anglicans/Episcopalians do value a place for the ministry of all believers. They further come together in a broadening of the definition of apostolic succession, to de-emphasize the extent to which bishops stand per se in apostolic succession, and emphasize instead that “to speak of Apostolic succession is to speak primarily of characteristics of the whole Church and recognize a Church as being in the apostolic succession.”21 We see here an emphasis on the Church existing because of the unbroken continuity of baptism and the Lord’s supper. Apostolic succession is not, in this emphasis, primarily an unbroken chain of those ordaining to those ordained, but a succession of the presiding ministry of a church which stands in continuity of apostolic faith. Conversely, then, the documents point to the fact that Lutherans recognize the sacramentality of ordination, stating that, on occasion in Lutheran confessional documents, the term sacrament is deemed applicable to ordination: “what the Reformers objected to was the idea that succession constitutes a guarantee or criterion of apostolic faithfulness, but once one thinks in terms of the sign value of 20 21

“Toward Full Communion,” 21. The Niagara Report, 53.

Ordination, Apostolic Succession, and Ecumenism

507

continuity in office, this difficulty vanishes. Signs strengthen the reality they signify, but the sign can be present without the reality.”22 To conclude, it seems that a shift in emphasis, more than a change in any theology, allows the Lutheran and Anglican communions to recognize in each other a commonly held apostolic faith. The issue of ordained ministry does not need, therefore, to divide the two churches. Both denominations seem to be able to make a variety of statements that evidence an agreement on the very nature of ordination. Both agree it is a gift from God above and not from the congregation below. Both declare that both churches already stand in apostolic succession. Both agree that “scripture and tradition” are not dual partners in revelation, but that scripture is ultimately the only source of revelation (from a Catholic standpoint, further discussion on this would surely be needed). Both say that traditions (with a lower case t) should bow to Tradition (with a capital T), and that traditions should never become petrified, but instead remain open for change and renewal. Finally, both say that episcopal succession is a sign but not a guarantee of the continuity and unity of the Church. The conclusion to all of the good work that led to these documents is immediate acknowledgement of the full authenticity of each other’s ordained ministries and an immediate move to full communion.

What Can We Learn? It is extraordinary that two communions with such differing theologies of ordination could enter into full communion. If this is possible and if, as argued above, ordination is at the heart of ecclesiology, which is at the heart of ecumenism, this means great things for other churches by way of orientation. This is not to say that theological impasses might easily be glossed over. But a change in emphasis is quite different than a change in theology. The documents referenced in this paper have creatively and humbly worked through many of the theological disunities on episcopacy to recognize, in each other, ways in which the Gospel is alive and thriving. It seems, then, that a great deal of hope exists for other Christian churches to approach each other in this way. If the Lutheran Church can accept the existence of bishops and the laying on of hands, and the Anglican Church can declare ways in which they can understand the Lutheran bishops to stand in apostolic succession, surely there is room in the discussion about ordination within all denominations to accommodate each other’s sometimes widely opposing 22

“Toward Full Communion,” 22.

508

Chapter Thirty Four

understandings, without compromising their own. Now, as a Catholic, I would be remiss if I did not point out that the way the Anglican Church has accepted the Lutheran ministers as belonging to apostolic succession — that is to say that apostolic succession is more than a succession of ordinations from bishops stemming from St. Peter, but also a standing in the succession of believers in the Bible, such that we are all standing in apostolic succession as Christians — perhaps paints with a broad brush. A Catholic and an Orthodox would press the discussion forward in a way that makes room for the specifically successive aspect of apostolic succession. Yet, the approach to the topic by both churches is an illuminating and encouraging example of the very caritas that needs to be at the heart of ecumenical dialogue if it is to bear any fruit. If the ordained ministry is one of the most significant questions facing ecumenism today, surely the dialogues between Episcopalians/Anglicans and Lutherans in the U.S., Canada, and Northern Europe are a case study in the kinds of theological and ecumenical gains that can be achieved from focused, charitable, and purposeful dialogue. We must not see the topic of episcopal succession solely in terms of technicalities and how to satisfy them, but rather in the true spirit of kenosis, charity, and koinonia that truly characterizes communion. For communion to be achieved, communion must be embodied. May God make it so. I am eager to see, in my own lifetime, the way the theologically central item of episcopal succession is creatively discussed and charitably approached on the avenue to welcome all people into the Christian Church in an era of unity. There is indeed room in ecumenical discourse for central ecclesiological elements such as ordination, and a legitimate plurality that does not undermine the essential unity of the Church. The current separation plaguing Christianity today is much more than a legitimate plurality. It is nothing less than a lifethreatening division. Ecumenism in general (and ecumenical discussions about ecclesiology) is thus one of the most important enterprises with which Christianity can currently involve itself.

Ordination, Apostolic Succession, and Ecumenism

509

For Further Reading Primary literature (Canada) Called to Full Communion: A Study Resource for Lutheran-Anglican Relations Including the Waterloo Declaration. The Joint Working Group of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Canada and the Anglican Church of Canada, December 1997. Toronto, Ontario: Anglican Book Centre, 1998. (Europe) The Meissen Agreement Texts: On the Way to Visible Unity. The Council for Christian Unity of the General Synod of the Church of England. Meissen, March 18, 1988. Occasional Paper No. 2. Together in Mission and Ministry: The Porvoo Common Statement with Essays on Church and Ministry in Northern Europe. Conversations between the British and Irish Anglican Churches and the Nordic and Baltic Lutheran Churches. London: Church House Publishing, 1993. (United States) “Toward Full Communion” And “Concordat of Agreement”: Lutheran Episcopal Dialogue Series III. Ed. William A. Norgren and William G. Rusch. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1991. Concordat of Agreement: Supporting Essays. Ed. Daniel F. Martensen. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1995. Called to Common Mission: A Lutheran Proposal for a Revision of the Concordat of Agreement. An Agreement of Full Communion with the Episcopal Church as amended and adopted by the Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, August 19, 1999. Chicago: Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, 1999. Lutheran – Episcopal Dialogue: Report and Recommendations. Second Series 1976-1980. Sponsored by the Division of Theological Studies, Lutheran Council in the U.S.A. and the Standing Commission on Ecumenical Relations of the Episcopal Church. Cincinnati, Forward Movement Publications, 1981.

510

Chapter Thirty Four

(International Texts) Growth in Communion: Report of the Anglican-Lutheran International Working Group 2000-2002. Geneva: The Lutheran World Federation, 2003. The Niagara Report: Report of the Anglican-Lutheran Consultation on Episcope 1987. By the Anglican Lutheran International Continuation Committee. London: Church House Publishing, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Lutheran World Federation, 1988.

Secondary Literature (The Anglican-Lutheran Dialogues) Baima, Thomas A. Lessons on the Way Toward Full Communion: A Critique of the Doctrinal Decision—. Making Processes of the 1997 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America as the Basis for an Inquiry Concerning the On-Going Opposition to the Theology of the Concordat of Agreement. Doctoral Dissertation, Apud Pontificiam Universitatem S. Thomae in Ubre. Rome: 2000. Boß, Gerhard. “Auf dem Weg zu sichtbarer Einheit--Die “Meissner Erklärung: Anmerkungen aus katholischer Sicht.” KNA Informationdienst (Sept 19, 1990): 12-15. Garijo-Guembe, Miguel Maria. “Unidad en una diversidad reconciliada. Reflexiones sobre modelos de unidad a la luz de recientes acuerdos ecuménicos.” Dialogo Ecuménico 30 (1995):67-81. Grassmann, Gunther. “Anglican-Lutheran Convergance and the Anticipation of Full Communion.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 34:1 (Jan 1997): 1-12. Loughran, James. “Response to William Rusch’s Sermon.” The Anglican 27 (Jan 1998) 8–9. Porvoo, see Michael Root & William Rusch, “Lutheran Reflections on the Porvoo Statement.” MidStream 33 (1994): 358-362. Puglisi, James F. & Dennis J. Billy, ed. Apostolic Continuity of the Church and Apostolic Succession. Louvain Studies 21.2 (1996). Radner, Ephraim, and R. R. Reno. Inhabiting Unity: Theological Perspectives on the Proposed Lutheran Episcopal Concordat. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995. Root, Michael, and Gabriel Fackre. Affirmations & Admonitions: Lutheran Decisions and Dialogue with Reformed, Episcopal, and Roman

Ordination, Apostolic Succession, and Ecumenism

511

Catholic Churches. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998. Root, Michael. “Ecumenical Theology.” —. “Porvoo in the Context of the Worldwide Anglican-Lutheran Dialogue.” Apostolicity and Unity: Essays on the Porvoo Common Statement. Ed. Ola Tjohom. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Roelvink, Henrik. “The Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Statement.” One in Christ 30 (1994): 344-54. Schlenker, Richard J. “A Roman Catholic Comment on the LutheranEpiscopal Concordat.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 31 (1994): 111121. Sullivan, Francis A. “Comments of a Roman Catholic on Called to Common Mission and the Porvoo Common Statement.” Lutheran Forum 40.1 (Spring 2006): 14–21. —. “Dialogues and Agreements Between Anglican and Lutheran Churches.” Sapere teologico e unità della fede: Studi in onore del Prof. Jared Wicks. Ed. Aparicio Valls, Carmen, Carmelo Dotolo, and Gianluigi Pasquale. Rome: Editrice Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 2004. 571–88. Tanner, Mary. “The Anglican Position on Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement.” Louvain Studies 21:2 (1996). 114-125. Tavard, George H. “A Catholic Reflection on the Porvoo Statement.” Midstream 33 (1994): 351–58. —. “Review of the Niagara Report.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 26 (1990): 568f. —. “The Reconciliation of Ministries.” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 18:2 (1981). 267-280. Tjorhom, Ola. “Apostolic Continuity and Apostolic Succession in the Porvoo Common Statement: A Challenge to the Nordic Lutheran Churches.” Louvain Studies 21:2 (1996). 126-137. Yarnold, Edward. “In line with the Apostles.” The Tablet (July 9, 1994): 878-879. (Ecumenism and Catholic Ecclesiology) Congar, Yves. Diversity and Communion. Mystic, CT: Twenty-third Publications, 1982. Congar, Yves. Divided Christendom. London: The Centenary Press, 1939. Fuchs, Lorelei. Koinonia and the Quest for an Ecumenical Theology: From Foundations Through Dialogue to Symbolic Competence for

512

Chapter Thirty Four

Communionality. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. Kasper, Walter. Harvesting the Fruits: Basic Aspects of Christian Faith in Ecumenical Dialogue. New York: Continuum, 2009. —. That They May All Be One: The Call to Unity Today. London: Burns & Oates, 2004. Meyer, Harding, and William G. Rusch. That All May Be One: Perceptions and Models of Ecumenicity. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999. Radner, Ephraim. A Brutal Unity: The Spiritual Politics of the Christian Church. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2012. Vatican II. Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium. 21 November, 1964. Vatican. The Holy See. Vatican II. Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio. 21 November, 1964. Vatican. The Holy See. Vatican II. Encyclical on commitment to Ecumenism Ut Unum Sint. 25 May, 1995. Vatican. The Holy See.

CHAPTER THIRTY FIVE THE ORDER OF DEACONESSES IN THE ANCIENT NON-CHALCEDONIAN ORTHODOX CHURCHES: SOURCES, HISTORICAL PROCESSES AND THE MODERN SITUATION NIKOLAOS KOUREMENOS

Abstract: The institution of deaconesses goes back to early Christian times. The information we gain from written sources about the institution and the role of deaconesses in the early Church is poor. Nevertheless, there is important, very early and pertinent evidence in the Didascalia Apostolorum, which survives mainly in Syriac translation. The purpose of this paper is to: (a) examine the institution of deaconesses in the early period (until the 5th century AD) within the framework of the evidence of the Syriac literature; (b) present and analyze the sources, as well as the historical development of the institution and role of deaconesses in the different traditions of the Oriental churches and, more specifically, in the Syrian Orthodox, Assyrian and Coptic traditions; (c) briefly present the modern practice of the institution of deaconesses in these religious communities.

ǼȚıĮȖȦȖȒ ǼȪȜȠȖĮ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȡȦIJȘșİȓ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘ ȤȡȘıȚȝȩIJȘIJĮ ȝȚĮȢ İȚıȒȖȘıȘȢ ʌȠȣ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȚȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȑȢ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȑȢ IJȦȞ ǹȡȤĮȓȦȞ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȚțȫȞ ǼțțȜȘıȚȫȞ ı’ ȑȞĮ ıȣȞȑįȡȚȠ ȝİ IJȓIJȜȠ ǻȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ, ȋİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ īȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ. Ǿ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ ı’ ĮȣIJȒ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠȡȓĮ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ įȠșİȓ Įʌȩ ȝȚĮ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩIJİȡİȢ țĮȚ ȝİ İȣȡİȓĮ ĮȞĮȖȞȫȡȚıȘ ijȣıȚȠȖȞȦȝȓİȢ IJȦȞ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ ȖȡĮȝȝȐIJȦȞ IJȠȣ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȠȣ țȩıȝȠȣ țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ 20Ƞ ĮȚ., IJȠȞ ʌ. ǿȦȐȞȞȘ Meyendorff. ȈȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȚȢ ǹȡȤĮȓİȢ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȚțȑȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓİȢ Ƞ ʌ. ǿȦȐȞȞȘȢ Meyendorff

514

Chapter Thirty Five

(1926-1992) ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes ȑȖȡĮijİ: «ȠȚ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ĮȞIJȚʌĮȡĮșȑıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ʌȑȝʌIJȠȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ ʌȡȠțȐȜİıĮȞ ȝȓĮ IJİȜȚțȒ ȡȒȟȘ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȘ ǺȣȗĮȞIJȚȞȒ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠıȪȞȘ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ȣʌȩȜȠȚʌİȢ ĮȡȤĮȓİȢ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȑȢ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚİȢ IJȘȢ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒȢ: IJȘȢ ȈȣȡȓĮȢ, IJȘȢ ǹȚȖȪʌIJȠȣ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ǹȡȝİȞȓĮȢ».1

KĮȚ ȜȓȖȠ ĮȡȖȩIJİȡĮ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the world today ıȣȝʌȜȒȡȦȞİ: «DzȞĮȢ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩȢ țĮȚ ȝĮțȡȠȤȡȩȞȚȠȢ ȤȦȡȚıȝȩȢ ȟİțȓȞȘıİ IJȠȞ 5Ƞ țĮȚ IJȠȞ 6Ƞ ĮȚ. ȖȪȡȦ Įʌȩ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJĮ, ȩIJĮȞ ȠȜȩțȜȘȡĮ ȑșȞȘ - Ș ǹȓȖȣʌIJȠȢ, Ș ǹȚșȚȠʌȓĮ, Ș ǹȡȝİȞȓĮ țĮȚ ȝİȖȐȜĮ IJȝȒȝĮIJĮ IJȠȣ ȈȣȡȚĮțȠȪ ʌȜȘșȣıȝȠȪ İȖțĮIJȑȜİȚȥĮȞ IJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ IJȘȢ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ «ȂİȖȐȜȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ», ıIJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȞ ʌİȡȚijȡȠȞȘIJȚțȐ ȝİ ȩȡȠȣȢ ȩʌȦȢ «ȂİȜȤȓIJİȢ» Ȓ «ǹȣIJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ». ȀĮIJȐ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ Ș įİȪIJİȡȘ ıIJİȡȒșȘțİ IJȘȞ İʌȚțȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ȝİ ʌȠȚțȓȜİȢ ʌȠȜȪIJȚȝİȢ țĮȚ ıİȕĮıIJȑȢ ȝȘ İȜȜȘȞȚțȑȢ ʌĮȡĮįȩıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȠȪ, țĮȚ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ İțİȓȞİȢ IJȦȞ ȀȠʌIJȫȞ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ȈȣȡȓȦȞ, țĮȚ ȕȡȑșȘțİ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȐ ıȣȡȡȚțȞȦȝȑȞȘ ıIJĮ İȜȜȘȞȚțȐ țĮȚ ȜĮIJȚȞȚțȐ IJȝȒȝĮIJĮ IJȘȢ ĮȣIJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȓĮȢ».2

ȂȚĮ įİȚȜȒ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘ ıIJȘ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ ı’ ĮȣIJȑȢ IJȚȢ ʌȠȚțȓȜİȢ ʌȠȜȪIJȚȝİȢ țĮȚ ıİȕĮıIJȑȢ ȝȘ İȜȜȘȞȚțȑȢ ʌĮȡĮįȩıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȠȪ șĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒıȠȣȝİ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ. ȈțȠʌȩȢ ȝĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȞĮ ijȦIJȓıȠȣȝİ ȝȚĮ ʌĮȡĮȖȞȦȡȚıȝȑȞȘ ʌȜİȣȡȐ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ țĮȚ ȞĮ țĮIJĮįİȓȟȠȣȝİ ȝȑıȦ IJȘȞ İȞĮıȤȩȜȘıȘȢ ȝİ IJȚȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȑȢ IJȦȞ ĮȡȤĮȓȦȞ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȫȞ ȠȚțȠȖİȞİȚȫȞ IJȘȢ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒȢ IJȩıȠ IJȠȞ İȞȚĮȓȠ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ʌȠȣ ĮȞȐȖİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤȑȖȠȞȘ ĮįȚĮȓȡİIJȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȩıȠ țĮȚ IJȘ įȚĮțȡȚIJȒ İȟȑȜȚȟȘ ʌȠȣ ĮȣIJȩȢ ȣʌȑıIJȘ țĮIJȐ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ ıİ țȐșİ ȝȚĮ ĮʌȠ IJȚȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJİȢ ʌȠȣ ĮʌĮȡIJȓȗȠȣȞ IJȠ ıȪȞȠȜȠ ĮȣIJȫȞ ʌȠȣ ıȒȝİȡĮ ĮʌȠțĮȜȠȪȝİ ǹȡȤĮȓİȢ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȚțȑȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓİȢ.

ǹ. ȈȣȡȚĮțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ȅ ȩȡȠȢ ȈȣȡȚĮțȒ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȦȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȫȞ țȠȚȞȠIJȒIJȦȞ ʌȠȣ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚȠȪȞ ȦȢ țȪȡȚĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ IJȠȣȢ ȖȜȫııĮ IJȘ ȈȣȡȚĮțȒ, IJȘ įȚȐȜİțIJȠ įȘȜĮįȒ İțİȓȞȘ IJȘȢ ǹȡĮȝĮȧțȒȢ ʌȠȣ 1 2

J. Meyendorff, Ǻyzantine Theology, 201. J. Meyendorff, The Orthodox Church, 57.

Order of Deaconesses in the Ancient Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches 515

ȠȝȚȜİȓIJȠ ıIJȘȞ ʌİȡȚȠȤȒ IJȘȢ DzįİııĮȢ țĮȚ țĮIJȑıIJȘ IJȠ ȩȤȘȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ įȚȐįȠıȘ IJȠȣ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚıȝȠȪ ıIJȘ ȂİıȠʌȠIJĮȝȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ İȣȡȪIJİȡȘ ʌİȡȚȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ȂȑıȘȢ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒȢ. ȈIJȘ ȈȣȡȚĮțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ĮȞȒțȠȣȞ įȣȠ ȝİȖȐȜİȢ țĮȚ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȚĮțȐ įȚĮțȡȚIJȑȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJİȢ, Ș ȈȪȡȠ-ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ (Ȓ ȂȠȞȠijȣıȚIJȚțȒ) ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ Ș ǹııȣȡȚĮȞȒ (Ȓ ȃİıIJȠȡȚĮȞȒ) ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ. ȅȚ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ȑȡȚįİȢ IJȠȣ 5Ƞȣ ĮȚ. İȓȤĮȞ ıĮȞ ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıȝĮ IJȘ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ ıȤȚıȝȐIJȦȞ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ĮįȚĮȓȡİIJȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ țĮȚ İʌȑijİȡĮȞ: i. ȝİ IJȘȞ țĮIJĮįȓțȘ IJȠȣ ȃİıIJȠȡȓȠȣ (431) IJȘȞ ĮʌȩıȤȚıȘ IJȦȞ ȣʌȠıIJȘȡȚțIJȫȞ IJȠȣ, IJȘȞ ĮʌȩıȣȡıȒ IJȠȣȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJĮ ĮȞĮIJȠȜȚțȐ İțIJȩȢ IJȘȢ ȇȦȝĮȧțȒȢ ǹȣIJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȓĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘ ıIJĮįȚĮțȒ įȚĮȝȩȡijȦıȘ ȝȚĮȢ ȟİȤȦȡȚıIJȒȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ ȝİ țȪȡȚȠ ȤȫȡȠ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȘȞ ȆİȡıȚțȒ ǹȣIJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȓĮ, ii. ȝİ IJȘȞ ȈȪȞȠįȠ IJȘȢ ȋĮȜțȘįȩȞĮȢ (451) IJȘȞ ĮʌȩıȤȚıȘ ȝİȖȐȜȠȣ ȝȑȡȠȣȢ IJȦȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȫȞ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ʌİȡȚȠȤȑȢ ȈȣȡȓĮȢ, ȆĮȜĮȚıIJȓȞȘȢ țĮȚ ǹȓȖȣʌIJȠȣ, ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓȠȚ ĮʌȑȡȡȚʌIJĮȞ IJȘȞ įȣȠ-ijȣıȚIJȚțȒ ȠȡȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ıȣȞȩįȠȣ țĮȚ ıIJĮįȚĮțȐ įȚĮȝȩȡijȦıĮȞ ȟİȤȦȡȚıIJȒ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ ȝİ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJĮ ıIJȘȞ ǼȖȖȪȢ țĮȚ IJȘ ȂȑıȘ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒ. ȍıIJȩıȠ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ įȩțȚȝȠ ȞĮ IJĮȣIJȓȗȠȣȝİ IJȘ ıȣȡȚĮțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȐ ȝ’ ĮȣIJȑȢ IJȚȢ įȣȠ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȑȢ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȓİȢ. ȈIJȘ ıȣȡȚĮțȒ ȖȜȫııĮ įȚĮıȫȗȠȞIJĮȚ țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJİȓĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȡȫȚȝȘ țȚȩȜĮȢ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ ʌȡȚȞ IJȠ įȚĮȤȦȡȚıȝȩ țĮȚ IJȘ įȚĮȝȩȡijȦıȘ IJȘȢ ȈȣȡȠ-ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȃİıIJȠȡȚĮȞȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ǹȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȝİIJȐ IJȚȢ ȤȡȚıIJȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ȑȡȚįİȢ ȣʌȒȡȟĮȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȠȓ ıȣȖȖȡĮijİȓȢ ʌȠȣ ȑȖȡĮȥĮȞ ıIJĮ ıȣȡȚĮțȐ İȞȫ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞĮ ĮʌȠįȑȤȠȞIJĮȞ IJȚȢ ĮʌȠijȐıİȚȢ IJȘȢ īǯ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ǻǯ ȅȚț. ȈȣȞȩįȠȣ țĮȚ įİȞ ĮʌȠıȤȓıșȘțĮȞ ʌȠIJȑ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ IJȘȢ ȀĮșȠȜȚțȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȈIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ șĮ İȟİIJȐıȠȣȝİ ĮȡȤȚțȐ IJȠ șİıȝȩ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ıȣȡȚĮțȑȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ IJȘȢ ʌȡȫȚȝȘȢ ʌİȡȚȩįȠȣ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ȣʌİȚıȑȜșȠȣȝİ ȑʌİȚIJĮ ıIJȘȞ įȚĮțȡȚIJȒ ȝİȜȑIJȘ IJȘȢ İȟȑȜȚȟȘȢ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ ıIJȘ ȈȣȡȠ-ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ǹııȣȡȚĮȞȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ.

Į) ȆȡȫȚȝȘ ʌİȡȓȠįȠȢ ȅȚ ĮȞĮijȠȡȑȢ ıIJȠ șİıȝȩ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ʌȡȫȚȝȘ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ İȓȞĮȚ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȑȞİȢ ȦıIJȩıȠ ȝȚĮ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩIJİȡİȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ IJȣȤĮȓȞİȚ ȞĮ įȚĮıȫȗİIJĮȚ țȣȡȓȦȢ ıIJĮ ıȣȡȚĮțȐ. ȆȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ ʌȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ ȖȞȦıIJȩ ȝİ IJȠȞ IJȓIJȜȠ Didascalia Apostolorum țĮȚ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ıȣȜȜȠȖȒ ȠįȘȖȚȫȞ ʌȠȣ ĮȞȐȖȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ʌȡȫIJȠ ȝȚıȩ IJȠȣ 3Ƞȣ ĮȚ.țĮȚ ĮijȠȡȠȪȞ IJȘȞ țĮșȘȝİȡȚȞȒ ȗȦȒ ȝȚĮȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ȈȣȡȓĮ. Ȉİ ȩIJȚ ĮijȠȡȐ

516

Chapter Thirty Five

IJȚȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ȖȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ įȣȠ ĮȞĮijȠȡȑȢ. ȈIJȘ ʌȡȫIJȘ Ƞ ıȣȞIJȐțIJȘȢ IJȠȣ țİȚȝȑȞȠȣ įȓȞİȚ ʌĮȡĮȚȞȑıİȚȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȣȢ ʌȚıIJȠȪȢ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ĮȞIJȚȝİIJȦʌȓȗȠȣȞ IJȠȣȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȠȪȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȠȪȢ: «ǹȜȜȐ Ƞ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ IJȚȝȐIJĮȚ Įʌȩ ıĮȢ ȩʌȦȢ Ƞ ĬİȩȢ, ȖȚĮIJȓ ĮȣIJȩȢ ıIJȑțİIJĮȚ İȞȫʌȚȩȞ ıĮȢ ıIJȘ șȑıȘ IJȠȣ ȆĮȞIJȠįȪȞĮȝȠȣ ĬİȠȪ. ȀĮȚ Ƞ įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ ıIJȑțİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ șȑıȘ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ țĮȚ ȖȚ’ ĮȣIJȩ ȠijİȓȜİIJİ ȞĮ IJȠȞ ĮȖĮʌȐIJİ. ȀȚ Ș įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ IJȚȝȐIJĮȚ Įʌȩ ıĮȢ ȖȚĮIJȓ ıIJȑțİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ șȑıȘ IJȠȣ ǹȖȓȠȣ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ».3

ǹȟȚȠıȘȝİȓȦIJȠȢ İȓȞĮȚ İįȫ Ƞ ʌĮȡĮȜȜȘȜȚıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ ʌȡȠıȫʌȦȞ IJȘȢ ǹȖȓĮȢ ȉȡȚȐįȠȢ ȝİ IJĮ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJĮ IJȠȣ İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ, IJȠȣ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ țĮȚ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȢ. Ǿ ıȪȞįİıȘ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȝİ IJȠ DZȖȚȠ ȆȞİȪȝĮ ıȤİIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮʌȩįȠıȘ IJȠȣ șȘȜȣțȠȪ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ ıIJȠ ǹȖ. ȆȞİȪȝĮ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞȘșȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ ıȣȡȚĮțȒ ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJİȓĮ (ȕȜ. ıȤİIJȚțȐ Harvey, “Feminine imagery,” Brock, “The Holy Spirit as Feminine in Early Syriac Literature”). Ǿ įİȪIJİȡȘ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȚȖȡĮijȒ IJȦȞ țĮșȘțȩȞIJȦȞ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ. ȅȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȠ țİȓȝİȞȠ ȕȡȓıțȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȣʌȘȡİıȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮIJȐ IJȘ įȚȐȡțİȚĮ IJȘȢ ȕȐʌIJȚıȘȢ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ ıIJȘȞ ȣʌȠįȠȤȒ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ IJȠȣȢ ȠȚțȠįȠȝȒ. ǼʌȓıȘȢ İȟȣʌȘȡİIJȠȪȞ ıIJȘȞ İʌȓıțİȥȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıİ ȝȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȑȢ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚİȢ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȣʌȘȡİıȓĮ IJȦȞ ĮȡȡȫıIJȦȞ. «ȀȚ ȩIJĮȞ Ș ȕĮʌIJȚȗȠȝȑȞȘ İȟȑȡȤİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȠ Ȟİȡȩ, IJȘȞ ʌĮȡĮȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ Ș įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ țĮȚ ĮȞĮȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ȞĮ IJȘȞ įȚįȐȟİȚ țĮȚ ȞĮ IJȘȞ țĮIJȘȤȒıİȚ ȫıIJİ Ș ĮʌĮȡĮȕȓĮıIJȘ ıijȡĮȖȓįĮ IJȠȣ ȕĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ ȞĮ įȚĮIJȘȡȘșİȓ ȝİ ĮȖȞȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ ĮȖȚȩIJȘIJĮ. ȈȤİIJȚțȐ ȝ’ ĮȣIJȩ Ȝȑȝİ ȩIJȚ IJȠ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȚįȚĮȚIJȑȡȦȢ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩ țĮȚ ȤȡȒıȚȝȠ. īȚĮIJȓ țĮȚ Ƞ ȀȪȡȚȠȢ ȝĮȢ ȣʌȘȡİIJȒșȘțİ Įʌȩ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ȩʌȦȢ ‘Ș ȂĮȡȓĮ Ș ȂĮȖįĮȜȘȞȒ, Ș ȂĮȡȓĮ IJȠȣ ǿĮțȫȕȠȣ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ǿȦıȒ țĮȚ Ș ȂĮȡȓĮ IJȦȞ ȣȚȫȞ IJȠȣ ǽİȕİįĮȓȠȣ’, țĮșȫȢ țȚ Įʌȩ ȐȜȜİȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ. ȀȚ ȖȚĮ ıĮȢ İʌȓıȘȢ Ș ȣʌȘȡİıȓĮ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ ĮʌĮȡĮȓIJȘIJȘ ȖȚĮ ʌȠȜȜȠȪȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ. ȆȡȐȖȝĮIJȚ Ș įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ İȞįİȓțȞȣIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ȠȓțȠȣȢ IJȦȞ İșȞȚțȫȞ ıIJȠȣȢ ȠʌȠȓȠȣȢ ȗȠȣȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȑȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, ȖȚĮ ȞĮ İʌȚıțȑʌIJİIJĮȚ ĮȡȡȫıIJȠȣȢ țĮȚ ȞĮ IJȠȣȢ ijȡȠȞIJȓȗİȚ ıİ ȩIJȚ ȑȤȠȣȞ ĮȞȐȖțȘ».4 3

“But let him be honored by you as God (is), because the bishop sits for you in the place of God Almighty. But the deacon stands in the place of Christ, and you should love him. The deaconess, however, shall be honored by you in the place of the Holy Spirit” ǺȜ. Vööbus, The Didascalia, I, 100 (ȈȣȡȚĮțȩ țİȓȝİȞȠ ıı. 103104). 4 “And when she who is being baptized has come up from the water, let the deaconess receive her, and teach and educate her in order that the unbreakable seal of baptism shall be (kept) in chastity and holiness. On this account, we say that the

Order of Deaconesses in the Ancient Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches 517

Ǿ İʌȓįȡĮıȘ IJȘȢ Didascalia Apostolorum țĮIJĮįİȚțȞȪİIJĮȚ țĮȚ ıIJȠ țİȓȝİȞȠ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȫȞ ǻȚĮIJĮȖȫȞ, IJȠȣ ȠʌȠȓȠȣ ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıİ ȝȚĮ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ȕĮıȚțȑȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ. ȅȚ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȑȢ ǻȚĮIJĮȖȑȢ İȓȞĮȚ țİȓȝİȞȠ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȠȪ țĮȚ țĮȞȠȞȚțȠȪ ʌİȡȚİȤȠȝȑȞȠȣ IJȦȞ IJİȜȫȞ IJȠȣ 4Ƞȣ ĮȚ. ıIJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ ȝĮȡIJȣȡİȓIJĮȚ Ș IJȐıȘ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȠȪ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ĮȡȝȠįȚȠIJȒIJȦȞ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıIJȠȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩ ȕȓȠ. ȍıIJȩıȠ, țĮȚ ı’ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ țİȓȝİȞȠ įȚĮIJȘȡİȓIJĮȚ Ƞ ʌĮȡĮȜȜȘȜȚıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȝİ IJȠ DZȖȚȠ ȆȞİȪȝĮ. (ǺȜ. ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȑȢ ǻȚĮIJĮȖȑȢ, II. 26.6). ȅȚ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȑȢ ǻȚĮIJĮȖȑȢ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪȞ İʌȓıȘȢ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ ʌȘȖȒ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ țĮșȫȢ įȚĮıȫȗȠȣȞ ĮȣIJȠȪıȚȠ IJȠ țİȓȝİȞȠ ȝİ IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ Ƞ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ țĮșȚıIJȠȪıİ ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ. ǹȟȚȠıȘȝİȓȦIJȠ İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ıȤİIJȚțȑȢ ȠįȘȖȓİȢ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȪȞIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤİȢ ʌȠȣ ĮijȠȡȠȪȞ IJȠȣȢ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣȢ ȣʌȠįȚĮțȩȞȠȣȢ. (ǺȜ. ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȑȢ ǻȚĮIJĮȖȑȢ, VIII. 19-20).

ȕ) ȈȣȡȠ-ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ (ȝȠȞȠijȣıȚIJȚțȒ) ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ Ȉİ ȩIJȚ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȘ ȈȣȡȠ-ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȠȚ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ șİıȝȩ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȑțIJĮıȘ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȠȣȢ įȚĮțȡȓȞȠȞIJĮȚ ıİ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ țĮȞȠȞȚțȠȪ țĮȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȠȪ ʌİȡȚİȤȠȝȑȞȠȣ. Ȉİ ȝȚĮ ıȣȜȜȠȖȒ țĮȞȩȞȦȞ IJȠȣ 6Ƞȣ ĮȚ. ıIJȘ ȈȣȡȚĮțȒ ȖȜȫııĮ ʌȠȣ ĮijȠȡȠȪȞ IJȠ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ, Ƞ 18ȠȢ țĮȞȩȞĮȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıIJȠȞ ȡȩȜȠ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ʌȡȠȕȜȑʌİȚ ȩIJȚ ĮȣIJȒ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ IJİȜİȓ IJȘȞ ȐȜİȚȥȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝİ ȜȐįȚ țĮIJȐ IJȘ įȚȐȡțİȚĮ IJȠȣ ȕĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ, ȞĮ ıIJȑțİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ șȪȡĮ IJȠȣ ȞĮȠȪ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȜİȣȡȐ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȑIJıȚ ȫıIJİ ȞĮ İȝʌȠįȓȗİȚ IJȘȞ İȓıȠįȠ IJȦȞ ȝȘ ȕĮʌIJȚıȝȑȞȦȞ țĮȚ ȞĮ țĮIJȘȤİȓ țĮȚ ȞĮ ȠȚțȠįȠȝİȓ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȐ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ.5 Ȉİ ȝȚĮ ȐȜȜȘ ıȣȜȜȠȖȒ țĮȞȩȞȦȞ ıIJȘ ıȣȡȚĮțȒ ȖȜȫııĮ ȖȞȦıIJȒ ȝİ IJȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ ǼȡȦIJȒıİȚȢ IJȦȞ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȚțȫȞ ȆĮIJȑȡȦȞ, o 9oȢ țĮȞȩȞĮȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ ȩIJȚ ıIJȚȢ ʌİȡȚȠȤȑȢ IJȘȢ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒȢ ȠȚ İʌȚțİijĮȜȒȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȦȞ ȝȠȞȫȞ ijȑȡȠȣȞ IJȠ ȕĮșȝȩ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȢ țĮȚ ȝİIJĮįȓįȠȣȞ IJĮ ȚİȡȐ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚĮ ıIJĮ ȝȑȜȘ IJȘȢ ĮįİȜijȩIJȘIJȐȢ IJȠȣȢ: ministry of a woman deacon is especially required and urgent. For our Lord and Savior also was ministered unto by deaconesses who were ‘Mary Magdalene and Mary the daughter of James and mother of Jose and the mother of the sons of Zebedee’, with other women as well. Also for you the ministry of a deaconess is necessary for many things. Indeed a deaconess is required for the houses of the pagans where there are believing women, that they enter and visit those who are sick, and to minister to them in something which is required for them, and to wash those who have begun to recover from sickness”. ǺȜ. Vööbus, The Didascalia, II, 157, (ȈȣȡȚĮțȩ țİȓȝİȞȠ ıı. 173-174). 5 ǺȜ. Vööbus, Syrische Kanonessammlugen I, 148.

518

Chapter Thirty Five «Ǿ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ ʌȠȣ ȚıȤȪİȚ ıIJȘȞ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒ, ȩʌȠȣ ȠȚ İʌȚțİijĮȜȒȢ IJȦȞ ȝȠȞĮıIJȘȡȚȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ, ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȝİIJĮįȓįȠȣȞ IJĮ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚĮ ı’ ĮȣIJȠȪȢ ʌȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ ȣʌȩ IJȘ țĮșȠįȒȖȘıȒ IJȠȣȢ, ȠijİȓȜİIJĮȚ ȞĮ IJȘȡȘșİȓ ȝȩȞȠ ȩʌȠȣ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ țĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȩIJĮȞ įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ İțİȓ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ ʌȡİıȕȪIJİȡȠȢ Ȓ įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ. ȍıIJȩıȠ ĮȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȑȞĮȢ ȚİȡȑĮȢ Ȓ įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌİȡȚȠȤȒ, ĮȣIJȑȢ įİȞ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ȝİIJĮįȓįȠȣȞ IJĮ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚĮ».6

ǼʌȓıȘȢ Ƞ 11ȠȢ țĮȞȩȞĮȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ ȩIJȚ Ș ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȠijİȓȜİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJĮ ȑșȚȝĮ țȐșİ IJȠʌȚțȒȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȈIJȘȞ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒ Ƞ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ șȑIJİȚ ȦȡȐȡȚȠ ıIJȠȞ ȫȝȠ IJȘȢ ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȠȣ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ: «Ǿ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȢ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȠ IJȠʌȚțȒ ıȣȞȒșİȚĮ. DzȤȠȣȝİ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡȒıİȚ ȩIJȚ ıIJȘȞ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒ Ƞ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ șȑIJİȚ İʌȓıȘȢ ȦȡȐȡȚȠ ıIJȠ ȫȝȠ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȢ ȩʌȦȢ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȠȣ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ».7

ȆİȡȚȖȡĮijȒ IJȦȞ țĮșȘțȩȞIJȦȞ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȀĮȞȩȞİȢ IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ IJȘȢ ȉȑȜȜĮȢ (483-538), Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ȣʌȒȡȟİ ȝȠȞĮȤȩȢ țĮȚ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ, İțʌȡȩıȦʌȠȢ IJȦȞ ȝİIJȡȚȠʌĮșȫȞ ȝȠȞȠijȣıȚIJȫȞ. ȅ 38ȠȢ ȀĮȞȩȞĮȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ ȩIJȚ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȡȓʌIJİȚ ȠȓȞȠ țĮȚ ȪįȦȡ ıIJȠ Țİȡȩ ʌȠIJȒȡȚȠ, Ƞ 42ȠȢ ȀĮȞȩȞĮȢ ȩIJȚ įȪȞĮIJĮȚ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȖȚȖȞȫıțİȚ IJȠ Țİȡȩ İȣĮȖȖȑȜȚȠ țĮȚ ȐȜȜĮ ȕȚȕȜȚțȐ țİȓȝİȞĮ ıİ ıȣȞȐȟİȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, Ƞ 35ȠȢ ȩIJȚ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȕȐȜİȚ IJȠ șȣȝȓĮȝĮ ıIJȠ șȣȝȚĮIJȒȡȚȠȞ ȤȦȡȓȢ ȞĮ ʌȡȠijȑȡİȚ İțijȫȞȦȢ IJȘȞ ıȤİIJȚțȒ İȣȤȒ, ıİ ĮȞIJȓșİıȘ ȦıIJȩıȠ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ İțijȑȡİȚ IJȘȞ İȣȤȒ ȝȣıIJȚțȫȢ țĮȚ ȠȚ 36ȠȢ, 37ȠȢ țĮȚ 40ȠȢ ȀĮȞȩȞİȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȣȞ ȩIJȚ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ İȣIJȡİʌȓȗİȚ IJĮ ȚİȡȐ ıțİȪȘ, ȞĮ ĮȞȐȕİȚ IJĮ țĮȞIJȒȜȚĮ țĮȚ ȞĮ țĮșĮȡȓȗİȚ IJȠ Țİȡȩ ȕȒȝĮ (ǺȜ. P. Hindo, Disciplina Antiochena Antica. Syri II, Les Personnes [Codificazione Canonica Orientale, Fonti II], Vatican 1951 ıı. 337-340). ȅ ǿȐțȦȕȠȢ ǼįȑııȘȢ (640-708) ıIJȚȢ ĮʌĮȞIJȒıİȚȢ IJȠȣ ıİ țĮȞȠȞȚțȑȢ ĮʌȠȡȓİȢ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijİȚ ȑȞĮ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ

6

“The practice that exists in the Orient, where the superiors of the monastery are deaconesses who distribute the mysteries to those who are under their authority, shall be retained where there are only deaconesses and where, in the place in which the mysteries are distributed, there is no presbyter or deacon. However, if there is to be found a pure priest or deacon in their neighborhood, they should not give (the mysteries)”. ǺȜ. Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition ǿ, 157 [ȈȣȡȚĮțȩ țİȓȝİȞȠ 163]. 7 “ȉhe ordination of a deaconess shall take place according to the custom of the land. We have observed that in the Orient, (the bishop) also puts a stole on her shoulder as in the case of a deacon.” ǺȜ. Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition, I, 159 [ȈȣȡȚĮțȩ țİȓȝİȞȠ ıİȜ. 165].

Order of Deaconesses in the Ancient Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches 519

ıIJȘ șİȓĮ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ, ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȩʌȦȢ İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȪȞIJĮȚ İțIJȩȢ ȚİȡȠȪ ȕȒȝĮIJȠȢ.8 ȄİȤȦȡȚıIJȒ șȑıȘ ıIJȚȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȑȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ ʌȠȣ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȚȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ țĮIJȑȤİȚ IJȠ ȈȣȡȚĮțȩ ǹȡȤȚİȡĮIJȚțȩ, ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ ȂȚȤĮȒȜ IJȠȣ ȂİȖȐȜȠȣ (1166-1199), ıȣȡȠ-ȠȡșȩįȠȟȠȣ ʌĮIJȡȚȐȡȤȘ ǹȞIJȚȠȤİȓĮȢ. ȈIJȠ țİȓȝİȞȠ ʌȠȣ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıIJȚȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ĮȟȚȠıȘȝİȓȦIJȘ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȠȞ ȩȡȠ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ țĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ, Ƞ ȕȠȘșȘIJȚțȩȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ ʌȠȣ ĮȣIJȑȢ įȚĮįȡĮȝȐIJȚȗĮȞ țĮIJȐ IJȘ ȕȐʌIJȚıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮȚ Ș ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ ȩIJȚ ȒįȘ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ IJȠȣ ȂȚȤĮȒȜ įİȞ ȣijȓıIJĮȞIJȠ ȠȚ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȑȢ ĮȞȐȖțİȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ. ȍıIJȩıȠ Ƞ ıȣȡȠȠȡșȩįȠȟȠȢ ʌĮIJȡȚȐȡȤȘȢ ȣʌȠįİȚțȞȪİȚ ȩIJȚ İȐȞ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ ȖȚĮ ȠʌȠȚȠįȒʌȠIJİ ĮȞȐȖțȘ șİȜȒıİȚ ȞĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȒıİȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ İʌȚȜȑȟİȚ ȝȚĮ ȐȖĮȝȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ʌȡȠȤȦȡȘȝȑȞȘȢ ȘȜȚțȓĮȢ ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȚȢ ȠįȘȖȓİȢ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ȆĮIJȑȡȦȞ. Ǿ ĮȤȡȘıȓĮ ıIJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ įȚĮijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ȑȤİȚ İțʌȑıİȚ Ƞ șİıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ İʌȚȕİȕĮȚȫȞİIJĮȚ țȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ʌȠȜȪ ǺĮȡ-ǼȕȡĮȓȠ (1225-1286), Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ȑȞĮ ĮȚȫȞĮ ȝİIJȐ IJȠȞ ȂȚȤĮȒȜ İʌȚȕİȕĮȚȫȞİȚ IJȘȞ İȟĮijȐȞȚıȘ IJȦȞ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȫȞ ĮȞĮȖțȫȞ ʌȠȣ İʌȚȕȐȜȜȠȣȞ IJȘȞ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ țĮȚ İʌȚʌȡȩıșİIJĮ ȣʌȠȖȡĮȝȝȓȗİȚ IJȘȞ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ȝİIJĮȟȪ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ țĮȚ ȣʌȠįȚĮțȩȞȦȞ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȝȚĮ țĮȚ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȐȜȜȘ ȝİ IJȠ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ įİȪIJİȡİȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȪȞIJĮȚ İțIJȩȢ ȚİȡȠȪ ȕȒȝĮIJȠȢ. ȈIJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȒ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ IJȫȡĮ Ș ȈȣȡȠ-ȠȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ ȝȚĮȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒȢ ĮȞĮȖȑȞȞȘıȘȢ țĮȚ İȞİȡȖȩIJİȡȘȢ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒȢ IJȠȣ ȜĮȧțȠȪ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠȣ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȠȣ ıIJȘ șİȓĮ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ ȑȤİȚ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒıİȚ ȝȚĮ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ, ȤȦȡȓȢ ȦıIJȩıȠ IJȘȞ İʌȚıIJȡȠijȒ ıIJȠ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȩ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ, ʌȠȣ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞĮ İȓȤİ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ. ȅȚ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞİȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ IJȘȢ ȈȣȡȠ-ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȤİȚȡȠșİIJȠȪȞIJĮȚ İțIJȩȢ ȚİȡȠȪ ȕȒȝĮIJȠȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ İʌȓıțȠʌȠ, įİȞ ȑȤȠȣȞ țȐʌȠȚȠȞ ȘȜȚțȚĮțȩ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȩ, ijȑȡȠȣȞ ȝʌȜİ ȑȞįȣȝĮ țĮȚ Ȝİȣțȩ țȐȜȣȝȝĮ țİijĮȜȒȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȠȠȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ȞĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȑıȠȣȞ ȝȑȜȘ IJȠȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠȣ ȤȠȡȠȪ, ȦȢ ȥȐȜIJȡȚİȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘ įȚȐȡțİȚĮ IJȦȞ ȚİȡȫȞ ĮțȠȜȠȣșȚȫȞ.

Ȗ) ǹııȣȡȚĮȞȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ H ǹııȣȡȚĮȞȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȩʌȦȢ İȓįĮȝİ, ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ İțİȓȞȘ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠțȩʌȘțİ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ȀĮșȠȜȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ȝİIJȐ IJȘȞ īǯ ȅȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȒ ȈȪȞȠįȠ țĮȚ ȒțȝĮıİ ʌȑȡĮ 8

Addai: Is it lawful for a deaconess to throw a piece of sacred body into the consecrated cup in the same way as a deacon (does)? Jacob: It is not lawful for her because she has not become a deaconess of the altar but of sick women. ǺȜ. Vööbus, The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition I, 202-204, ı. 242.

520

Chapter Thirty Five

Įʌȩ IJĮ ĮȞĮIJȠȜȚțȐ ıȪȞȠȡĮ IJȘȢ ȇȦȝĮȧțȒȢ ǹȣIJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȓĮȢ, țȣȡȓȦȢ İȞIJȩȢ IJȦȞ ȠȡȓȦȞ IJȘȢ ȆİȡıȚțȒȢ. ȅ İȣĮȖȖİȜȚıȝȩȢ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ʌİȡȚȠȤȫȞ ĮȣIJȫȞ ȟİțȓȞȘıİ ʌȠȜȪ ȞȦȡȓȢ ȒįȘ țĮIJȐ IJȠȣȢ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȠȪȢ ȤȡȩȞȠȣȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȩȜȘ IJȘȢ DzįİııĮȢ țĮȚ ıIJĮįȚĮțȐ İʌİțIJȐșȘțİ țĮȚ ıİ ȐȜȜİȢ ʌȩȜİȚȢ ȝİ țȪȡȚȠ ȩȤȘȝĮ IJȘ ıȣȡȚĮțȒ ȖȜȫııĮ, ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪıİ IJȠ țȪȡȚȠ ȝȑıȠȞ İʌȚțȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȜĮȫȞ ʌȠȣ țĮIJȠȚțȠȪıĮȞ ıIJȚȢ ʌİȡȚȠȤȑȢ ĮȣIJȑȢ. Ǿ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȠȡȖȐȞȦıȘ IJȘȢ ǹııȣȡȚĮȞȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ șİȝİȜȚȫșȘțİ țȐIJȦ Įʌȩ IJȘ įȚțĮȚȠįȠıȓĮ IJȠȣ «ȀĮșȠȜȚțȠȪ» ȈİȜİȪțİȚĮȢ-ȀIJȘıȚijȫȞȠȢ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪıİ IJȠȞ İʌȚțİijĮȜȒȢ IJȘȢ ȞİıIJȠȡȚĮȞȒȢ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȚĮțȒȢ ĮʌȩȤȡȦıȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȘȢ ȆİȡıȚțȒȢ ǹȣIJȠțȡĮIJȠȡȓĮȢ. ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ȝİȜȑIJȘ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJİȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞįȑİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȠȞ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȩ ȕȓȠ IJȘȢ ǹııȣȡȚĮȞȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ țĮIJȐ IJȠȣȢ ʌȡȫIJȠȣȢ ĮȚȫȞİȢ įİȞ ȣʌȒȡȤĮȞ ȠȚ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȑȢ İțİȓȞİȢ ĮȞȐȖțİȢ ʌȠȣ ȞĮ İʌȑȕĮȜȜĮȞ IJȘȞ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ IJȦȞ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ, įİįȠȝȑȞȠȣ ȩIJȚ įİȞ ıȣȞĮȞIJȐȝİ ȠȪIJİ ȝȚĮ ijȠȡȐ IJȠȞ ȩȡȠ shammoshto, ȩʌȦȢ ĮʌȠįȓįİIJĮȚ įȘȜĮįȒ ıIJĮ ıȣȡȚĮțȐ Ș ȜȑȟȘ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ. ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ ıȣȤȞȒ ıIJĮ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȐ țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȘȢ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȘȢ ʌİȡȚȩįȠȣ țĮȚ ȖİȦȖȡĮijȚțȒȢ ʌİȡȚȠȤȒȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ȤȡȒıȘ IJȠȣ ȩȡȠ bnat kyomo, įȘȜĮįȒ țȩȡİȢ IJȘȢ įȚĮșȒțȘȢ, ȩȡȠȢ ʌȠȣ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijİȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ Ȓ ȐȞįȡİȢ (bnay kyomo) ʌȠȣ İȓȤĮȞ įȫıİȚ, ʌȚșĮȞȩIJĮIJĮ țĮIJȐ IJȘ įȚȐȡțİȚĮ IJȠȣ ȕĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȩȢ IJȠȣȢ, ȩȡțȠȣȢ ĮıțȘIJȚțȒȢ ȕȚȦIJȒȢ țĮȚ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪıĮȞ țĮIJȐ țȐʌȠȚȠ IJȡȩʌȠ ȝȚĮ ʌȡȩįȡȠȝȘ ȝȠȡijȒ IJȠȣ ȝȠȞĮıIJȚțȠȪ țȚȞȒȝĮIJȠȢ. Ǿ ʌȡȫIJȘ ȖȡĮʌIJȒ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ ȤȡȒıȘȢ IJȠȣ ȩȡȠȣ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ ıIJĮ țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȘȢ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ IJȘȢ ǹııȣȡȚĮȞȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ĮʌĮȞIJȐIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ʌȠȜȪIJȚȝȠ ȑȡȖȠ ȖȞȦıIJȩ ȝİ IJȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ Synodicon Orientale ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȝȚĮ İȣȡİȓĮ ıȣȜȜȠȖȒ țİȚȝȑȞȦȞ țĮȞȠȞȚțȠȪ įȚțĮȓȠȣ IJȘȢ ȂİȖȐȜȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒȢ țĮȚ ȤȡȠȞȠȜȠȖİȓIJĮȚ ıIJĮ IJȑȜȘ IJȠȣ 7Ƞȣ ĮȚ. ȈIJȘȞ İȞ ȜȩȖȦ țĮȞȠȞȚțȒ ıȣȜȜȠȖȒ țĮȚ ʌȚȠ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ ıIJȠȞ 9Ƞ țĮȞȩȞĮ ȈȣȞȩįȠȣ ʌȠȣ ȑȜĮȕİ ȤȫȡĮ IJȠ 676, ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ ıİ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJİȢ ĮijȚİȡȦȝȑȞȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ (țĮIJĮ ȖȡȐȝȝĮ bnat quomo) ȠȚ ʌȚȠ İȞȐȡİIJİȢ Įʌȩ ĮȣIJȑȢ ȠijİȓȜȠȣȞ ȞĮ țĮIJİȣșȪȞȠȞIJĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ʌȜȘȡȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ țĮȚ ȞĮ țĮșȓıIJĮȞIJĮȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ. ǹȞȐȝİıĮ įİ ıIJĮ ȐȜȜĮ țĮșȒțȠȞIJȐ IJȠȣȢ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȘȞ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ıȣȝȕȠȜȒ IJȠȣȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȐȜİȚȥȘ İȞȘȜȓțȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮIJȐ IJȘ įȚȐȡțİȚĮ IJȠȣ ȕĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ. Ǿ ıȪȞįİıȘ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȝİ IJȠ ȕȐʌIJȚıȝĮ IJȦȞ İȞȘȜȓțȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İȝijĮȞȓȗİIJĮȚ țĮȚ ıİ ȐȜȜİȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ IJȠȣ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȠȪ ȕȓȠȣ IJȘȢ ǹııȣȡȚĮȞȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȩʌȦȢ Ƞ 41ȠȢ ȀĮȞȩȞĮȢ Įʌȩ 73 țĮȞȩȞİȢ ıȣȞȩįȠȣ ʌȠȣ ȑȜĮȕİ ȤȫȡĮ ıIJȘ ȈİȜİȪțİȚĮ-ȀIJȘıȚijȫȞĮ țĮȚ ĮʌȠįȓįȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȠȞ ȐȖȚȠ ȂĮȡȠȪșĮ IJȠȣ Maipherqat (ȂĮȡIJȣȡȠȪʌȠȜȚȢ) ȩʌȠȣ įȚĮȕȐȗȠȣȝİ:

Order of Deaconesses in the Ancient Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches 521 «ȈȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ țȩȡİȢ IJȘȢ įȚĮșȒțȘȢ țĮȚ IJȚȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ: ǼȓȞĮȚ ȕȠȪȜȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȒȢ ıȣȞȩįȠȣ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJİȢ ıİ ʌȩȜİȚȢ ȤȦȡȓȢ IJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȦȞ ĮįİȜijȫȞ. ȂİȖȐȜȘ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ȝȑȡȚȝȞĮ ʌȠȣ șĮ ȜȘijșİȓ, ȫıIJİ ĮȣIJȑȢ ȞĮ ȝĮșȘIJİȪıȠȣȞ ıIJȘȞ ĮȞȐȖȞȦıȘ IJȦȞ īȡĮijȫȞ țĮȚ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ ıIJȘȞ ĮțȠȜȠȣșȓĮ IJȦȞ ȌĮȜȝȫȞ. ǹʌȩ IJȚȢ ǹįİȜijȑȢ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ İʌȚȜȑȖȠȣȞ İțİȓȞİȢ ʌȠȣ ʌĮȡȑȝİȚȞĮȞ ĮȝȩȜȣȞIJİȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȞİȩIJȘIJȐ IJȠȣȢ țĮȚ țȠȞIJȐ ıIJȘȞ ȘȜȚțȓĮ IJȦȞ 60 ȤȡȩȞȦȞ, ȩʌȦȢ Ƞ ȝĮțȐȡȚȠȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ ȞȠȣșİIJȠȪıİ IJȠȞ ȝĮșȘIJȒ IJȠȣ, ȞĮ țĮIJĮıIJĮșȠȪȞ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ, ȑIJıȚ ȫıIJİ ȞĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȞ ȞĮ ijȑȡȠȣȞ İȚȢ ʌȑȡĮȢ IJȘȞ IJİȜİIJȒ IJȠȣ ȕĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ ȝȩȞİȢ IJȠȣȢ».

ȅ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡȠȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ țĮIJȐ IJȠ ȕȐʌIJȚıȝĮ IJȦȞ İȞȘȜȓțȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮIJĮįİȚțȞȪİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȑȢ ȠįȘȖȓİȢ IJȠȣ Isho’yahb ǹǯ (582-595), țĮșȠȜȚțȠȪ IJȘȢ ȈİȜİȪțİȚĮȢ-ȀIJȘıȚijȫȞIJȠȢ, IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ ȩʌȦȢ ĮȣIJȑȢ įȚĮıȫșȘțĮȞ ıIJȠ ȪıIJİȡȠ-ȝİıĮȚȦȞȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ Liber Patrum ȝİIJĮȟȪ 13Ƞȣ țĮȚ 14Ƞȣ ĮȚ. «…Ș įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ țĮșȠįȘȖİȓ IJĮ įȐțIJȣȜĮ IJȠȣ ȚİȡȑĮ ʌȠȣ İȝȕĮʌIJȚıȝȑȞĮ ıIJȠ ȑȜĮȚȠȞ IJȘȢ ȤȡȓıİȦȢ İȚıȑȡȤȠȞIJĮȚ ȝȑıȦ İȞȩȢ ȝȚțȡȠȪ ʌĮȡĮșȪȡȠȣ ıIJȠȞ IJȠȓȤȠ, ȫıIJİ ȞĮ țȐȞİȚ IJȠ ıȤȒȝĮ IJȠȣ ıIJĮȣȡȠȪ ıIJȠ ȝȑIJȦʌȠ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȞĮ ȕĮʌIJȚıșİȓ. ȀĮȚ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ ĮȣIJȒ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ șȑıȘ IJȠ ȤȑȡȚ IJȘȢ ıIJȠ țİijȐȜȚ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘ įȚȐȡțİȚĮ IJȘȢ țĮIJȐįȣıȘȢ İȞȫ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞĮ Ƞ ȚİȡȑĮȢ țȐȞİȚ IJȘȞ İʌȓțȜȘıȘ ıIJĮ șİȓĮ ȠȞȩȝĮIJĮ».

ǼȞIJȣʌȦıȚĮțȒ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ IJȑȜİıȘȢ IJȠȣ ȕĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ İȞȘȜȓțȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıİ ȟİȤȦȡȚıIJȩ țĮȚ ʌİȡȓțȜİȚıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ İȞIJȩȢ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ıIJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ Ƞ ȚİȡȑĮȢ ʌȠȣ IJİȜİȓ IJȘ ȕȐʌIJȚıȘ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ İȚıȑȜșİȚ, ʌĮȡȐ ȝȩȞȠ ȝȑıȦ İȞȩȢ ʌĮȡĮșȪȡȠȣ ȑȤİȚ IJȘ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ȞĮ ȤȡȓıİȚ IJȠ ȝȑIJȦʌȠ IJȘȢ ȕĮʌIJȚȗȠȝȑȞȘȢ ȝİ IJȠ ȐȖȚȠȞ ȑȜĮȚȠȞ. Ǿ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ıȣȝȕȠȜȒ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȠȜȠțȜȒȡȦıȘ IJȠȣ ȕĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ țĮIJĮįİȚțȞȪİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ, įİįȠȝȑȞȠȣ ȩIJȚ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȣIJȑȢ ʌȠȣ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȠʌȠȚȠȪȞ IJȘȞ țĮIJȐįȣıȘ IJȘȢ ȕĮʌIJȚȗȠȝȑȞȘȢ İȞIJȩȢ IJȠȣ ȪįĮIJȠȢ İȞȫ Ƞ ȚİȡȑĮȢ ʌİȡȚȠȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ İʌȓțȜȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȠȞȩȝĮIJȠȢ IJȘȢ ǹȖȓĮȢ ȉȡȚȐįĮȢ. ǹʌȩ IJĮ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȫȡĮ İțIJİșȑȞIJĮ ʌĮȡĮįİȓȖȝĮIJĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ ǹııȣȡȚĮȞȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ıĮijȑȢ ȩIJȚ Ƞ șİıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȣʌȒȡȟİ ȐȝİıĮ ıȣȞįİįİȝȑȞȠȢ ȝİ IJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ ȐıțȘıȘȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ĮijȚİȡȦȝĮIJȚțȒȢ ȗȦȒȢ țĮȚ Ƞ țȪȡȚȠȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒȢ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJȐȢ IJȠȣȢ ʌİȡȚıIJȡİijȩIJĮȞ ȖȪȡȦ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȕȐʌIJȚıȘ IJȦȞ İȞȘȜȓțȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. Ȉİ ȩIJȚ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ țĮșȓıIJĮȞIJȠ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ İʌȓıțȠʌȠ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ Ș ıȣȡȚĮțȒ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijȘ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ įȚĮıȫȗİȚ ȝȚĮ ȠȝȐįĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȫȞ ȤİȚȡȠȖȡȐijȦȞ, IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ ȤȡȠȞȠȜȠȖȠȪȞIJĮȚ ıIJĮ ȝȑıĮ IJȠȣ 16Ƞȣ ĮȚ. țĮȚ ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ IJȘȞ ĮțȠȜȠȣșȓĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȢ.

522

Chapter Thirty Five «ȀȪȡȚİ Ƞ ʌĮȞIJȠįȪȞĮȝȠȢ ĬİȩȢ, İıȪ ʌȠȣ ȑʌȜĮıİȢ IJĮ ʌȐȞIJĮ ȝİ IJȘ įȪȞĮȝȘ IJȠȣ ȁȩȖȠȣ ȈȠȣ țĮȚ ȝȑıȦ IJȘȢ ʌĮȞȓıȤȣȡȘȢ İȞIJȠȜȒȢ ȈȠȣ Ș ʌȡȠıIJĮȖȒ ıȠȣ įȘȝȚȠȪȡȖȘıİ ȩȜĮ ĮȣIJȐ ʌȠȣ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ, İıȪ ʌȠȣ İȣĮȡİıIJİȓıĮȚ ȝİ ȩȝȠȚȠ IJȡȩʌȠ ȝİ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ țĮȚ ȝİ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȑIJıȚ ȫıIJİ ȞĮ įȓȞİȚȢ țĮȚ ıIJȠȣȢ įȣȠ IJȠ įȫȡȠ IJȠȣ ǹȖȓȠȣ ȆȞİȪȝĮIJȠȢ, įİȓȟİ țĮȚ IJȫȡĮ ȀȪȡȚİ IJȠ ȑȜİȩȢ ȈȠȣ ʌȡȠȢ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ ĮįȪȞĮȝȠ ʌȜȐıȝĮ IJȦȞ ȤİȚȡȫȞ ıȠȣ ʌȠȣ İʌİȜȑȖȘ ȖȚĮ IJȠ İȟĮȓȡİIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ țĮȚ ʌĮȡĮȤȫȡȘıİ ı’ ĮȣIJȒȞ IJȘȞ ȋȐȡȘ ȈȠȣ, ȫıIJİ ȞĮ ȣʌȘȡİIJİȓ ȤȦȡȓȢ țĮIJȐțȡȚȝĮ İȞȫʌȚȠȞ ȈȠȣ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ ȝİȖȐȜȠ țĮȚ İʌĮȚȞİIJȩ ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ țĮȚ ȞĮ įȚĮIJȘȡȘșİȓ ĮȝȩȜȣȞIJȘ ıIJȠȞ İȞȐȡİIJȠ IJȡȩʌȠ ȗȦȒȢ. ȆĮȡĮȤȫȡȘıİ ı’ ĮȣIJȒȞ IJȘȞ ȋȐȡȘ ıȠȣ ȀȪȡȚİ, ȫıIJİ ȞĮ įȚįȐıțİȚ țĮȚ ȞĮ ȞȠȣșİIJİȓ ȝİ ıİȝȞȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ ȞĮ İȡȖȐȗİIJĮȚ ȑȡȖĮ įȚțĮȚȠıȪȞȘȢ țĮȚ İȣșȪIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȚ ȞĮ ıIJĮșİȓ ȐȟȚĮ, ȫıIJİ ȞĮ ȜȐȕİȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞIJĮȝȠȚȕȒ IJȦȞ țĮȜȫȞ ʌȡȐȟİȦȞ IJȘȞ ȝİȖȐȜȘ țĮȚ ȑȞįȠȟȘ ȘȝȑȡĮ IJȘȢ İȜİȪıİȦȢ IJȠȣ ȂȠȞȠȖİȞȠȪȢ ȈȠȣ ȊȚȠȪ. īȚĮIJȓ ıİ ıȑȞĮ țĮȚ ı’ ǼțİȓȞȠȞ țĮȚ ıIJȠ DZȖȚȠ ȆȞİȪȝĮ ĮȞȒțİȚ Ș IJȚȝȒ, Ș įȩȟĮ, Ș İȣȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮ țĮȚ Ș ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ IJȫȡĮ țĮȚ ʌȐȞIJȠIJİ. ǹȝȒȞ».

ȍıIJȩıȠ Ƞ ıȣȞIJȐțIJȘȢ IJȠȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȠȪ țİȚȝȑȞȠȣ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ țȐȞİȚ ȟİțȐșĮȡȘ IJȘ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ȝİ IJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȠȣ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ ıȘȝİȚȫȞİȚ ȩIJȚ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ Ƞ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ șȑIJİȚ IJȠ ȤȑȡȚ IJȠȣ ıIJȠ țİijȐȜȚ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȣȝȑȞȘȢ ȩȤȚ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȠȣ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ ĮȜȜȐ įȓįȠȞIJĮȢ IJȘȢ ĮʌȜȐ ȝȚĮ İȣȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ĮʌĮȖȖȑȜİȚ ȑʌİȚIJĮ ȝȚĮ ĮȣIJȠıȤȑįȚĮ İȣȤȒ. ǼʌȚȕİȕĮȚȫȞİIJĮȚ ȝİ ȐȜȜĮ ȜȩȖȚĮ Ș IJȐıȘ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȐȡȠįȠ IJȦȞ ĮȚȫȞȦȞ ȞĮ İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȝİ ıĮijȒȞİȚĮ țĮȚ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȘȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ Ș įȚĮijȠȡȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ Įʌȩ İțİȓȞȘ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ. ǼȓȞĮȚ ȐȖȞȦıIJȠ ȝȑȤȡȚ ʌȠȚȐ İʌȠȤȒ İȓȤİ įȚĮIJȘȡȘșİȓ Ș ıȣȞȒșİȚĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ǹııȣȡȚĮȞȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ, ȦıIJȩıȠ ʌȜȘȡȠijȠȡȠȪȝĮıIJİ ȩIJȚ IJȠ 1739 ıIJȘ ȝȠȞȒ Mar Awgen țȠȞIJȐ ıIJȘ ȃȓıȚȕȘ ȝȚĮ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ ȝİ IJȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ ȂĮȡȚȐȝ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȠʌȠȓȘıİ IJȘȞ ĮȞIJȚȖȡĮijȒ İȞȩȢ ȤİȚȡȠȖȡȐijȠȣ ʌȠȣ ʌİȡȚİȓȤİ IJȠ ȕȓȠ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠıIJȐIJȘ ǹȖȓȠȣ IJȘȢ ȂȠȞȒȢ. ǹʌȩ IJȘ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȫȡĮ ȑȡİȣȞȐ ȝĮȢ įİȞ țĮIJȑıIJȘ įȣȞĮIJȩ ȞĮ İȞIJȠʌȓıȠȣȝİ țȐʌȠȚİȢ ʌȜȘȡȠijȠȡȓİȢ ʌȠȣ ȞĮ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȠȪȞ IJȘȞ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıIJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ ǹııȣȡȚĮȞȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȈȣȞȠȥȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ İʌȚȖȡĮȝȝĮIJȚțȐ IJȚȢ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ʌȜȘȡȠijȠȡȓİȢ ʌȠȣ ĮijȠȡȠȪȞ IJȠ șİıȝȩ țĮȚ IJȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıIJȘ ıȣȡȚĮțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ ȞĮ İʌȚıȘȝȐȞȠȣȝİ: (i) IJȘȞ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ ȒįȘ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ʌȡȫȚȝȘ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ, ȩʌȠȣ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ Ș įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ IJȠȣȢ țĮIJİȓȤİ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȩ țĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȩ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ, (ii) IJȘ ıIJĮįȚĮțȒ ʌȡȠıʌȐșİȚĮ ȝİIJȡȚĮıȝȠȪ țĮȚ ȣʌȠȕȓȕĮıȘȢ IJȠȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒȝĮIJȠȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ țĮȚ IJȠȞ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȩ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ țĮȚ IJȦȞ țĮșȘțȩȞIJȦȞ IJȠȣȢ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȐȡȠįȠ IJȦȞ ĮȚȫȞȦȞ țĮȚ (iii) IJȘ ıȪȞįİıȘ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȝİ IJȘȞ ĮıțȘIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ țĮȚ IJȠ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ ȝȠȞĮȤȚıȝȩ.

Order of Deaconesses in the Ancient Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches 523

2. ȀȠʌIJȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ǿįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ ıİ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJȚȢ ȜȠȚʌȑȢ țĮȞȠȞȚțȑȢ țĮȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȑȢ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȑȢ IJȦȞ ȜȠȚʌȫȞ ĮȡȤĮȓȦȞ ĮȞĮIJȠȜȚțȫȞ İțțȜȘıȚȫȞ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİȚ Ș İȟȑIJĮıȘ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȠȣ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ȀȠʌIJȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ. Ȃİ IJȠȞ ȩȡȠ «ȀȠʌIJȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ» ĮȞĮijİȡȩȝĮıIJİ, ȦȢ ȖȞȦıIJȩȞ, ıIJȘ ȝȘ-ȤĮȜțȘįȩȞȚĮ İțİȓȞȘ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ, Ș ȠʌȠȓĮ ȝİ ȑįȡĮ ĮȡȤȚțȐ IJȘȞ ǹȜİȟȐȞįȡİȚĮ țĮȚ țȪȡȚȠ İțijȡĮıIJȒ IJȘȢ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJȐȢ IJȘȢ IJȚȢ ȝȠȞĮıIJȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJİȢ IJȘȢ ȀȐIJȦ țĮȚ DZȞȦ ǹȚȖȪʌIJȠȣ țĮIJȐijİȡİ ȞĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȑıİȚ ȝİIJȐ IJȘȞ ĮȡĮȕȚțȒ țĮIJȐțIJȘıȘ (642 ȝ.ȋ.) IJȘȞ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȒ ıȤİįȩȞ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ ıIJȘȞ ȤȫȡĮ IJȠȣ ȃİȓȜȠȣ țĮȚ ȞĮ țĮIJĮıIJȒıİȚ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȚȢ ȝȑȡİȢ ȝĮȢ IJȠ İʌȓșİIJȠ «țȠʌIJȚțȩȢ» ȦȢ ıȣȞȫȞȣȝȠ ȝİ țȐșİ IJȚ ʌȠȣ ıȤİIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȠȞ ĮȣIJȩȤșȠȞĮ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȩ ʌȜȘșȣıȝȩ IJȘȢ ǹȚȖȪʌIJȠȣ. Ȉİ ȩIJȚ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȫȡĮ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ IJȠ șȑȝĮ ȝĮȢ șĮ ȒIJĮȞ ȤȡȒıȚȝȘ ȝȚĮ ȝȚțȡȒ İʌȚıțȩʌȘıȘ IJȠȣ status quaestionis ıIJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ ȕȚȕȜȚȠȖȡĮijȓĮ. ȅ ȡȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȩȢ țȜȘȡȚțȩȢ Mgr Aimé-Georges Martimort (1911-2000) ȝİIJȐ Įʌȩ İȞįİȜİȤȒ ȑȡİȣȞĮ ıIJĮ țİȓȝİȞĮ IJȦȞ țĮȞȠȞȚțȫȞ ıȣȜȜȠȖȫȞ țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ ıIJȚȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȑȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ (İȣȤȠȜȩȖȚĮ, IJȣʌȚțȐ ț.Į.) IJȘȢ țȠʌIJȚțȒȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ ıIJȘ țȜĮııȚțȒ ʌȜȑȠȞ ȝİȜȑIJȘ IJȠȣ Les diaconesses: Essai historique İȓȤİ ıȘȝİȚȫıİȚ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ: «įİȞ ȕȡȒțĮȝİ țĮȞȑȞĮ ȓȤȞȠȢ ʌȠȣ ȞĮ ʌȚıIJȠʌȠȚİȓ IJȘȞ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıIJĮ țİȓȝİȞĮ țĮȚ IJĮ ȝȞȘȝİȓĮ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǹȚȖȪʌIJȠȣ».9

Ǿ įȚĮʌȓıIJȦıȘ ĮȣIJȒ, įȚĮIJȣʌȦȝȑȞȘ ȒįȘ IJȠ 1982, ʌĮȡȐ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ ȐıțȘıİ ȝİȖȐȜȘ İʌȓįȡĮıȘ ıIJȘ ȝİIJĮȖİȞȑıIJİȡȘ ȕȚȕȜȚȠȖȡĮijȓĮ, įİȞ ʌĮȡȑȝİȚȞİ ȖȚĮ ʌȠȜȪ țĮȚȡȩ ıIJȠ ĮʌȣȡȩȕȜȘIJȠ IJȘȢ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȒȢ ĮȝijȚıȕȒIJȘıȘȢ. O ǺİȞİįȚțIJȓȞȠȢ ȝȠȞĮȤȩȢ IJȘȢ ȝȠȞȒȢ IJȘȢ Chevetogne Ugo Zanetti ıİ ȑȞĮ ȐȡșȡȠ IJȠȣ ȝİ IJȓIJȜȠ «Y eut-il des diaconesses en Egypt?» įȘȝȠıȚİȣȝȑȞȠ IJȠ 1990 ıIJȠ ʌİȡȚȠįȚțȩ Vetera Christianorum ʌȡȠıʌȐșȘıİ ȞĮ ĮʌȠıĮijȘȞȓıİȚ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞĮ ıȘȝİȓĮ, IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ Ƞ Martimort İȓȤİ ʌĮȡİȡȝȘȞİȪıİȚ ȝİ ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıȝĮ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıįȫıİȚ ıIJĮ ıȣȝʌİȡȐıȝĮIJȐ IJȠȣ ĮʌȩȜȣIJȠ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ. Ǿ ıȣȝȕȠȜȒ IJȠȣ Zanetti įİȞ İȓȤİ ıțȠʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȜȒȡȘ ĮȞĮIJȡȠʌȒ IJȘȢ șȑıȘȢ IJȠȣ Martimort ĮȜȜȐ IJȘȞ ȠȡșȒ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ IJȦȞ ʌȘȖȫȞ, ıȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ Ƞ șİıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ĮȞ țĮȚ įİȞ ĮʌĮȞIJȐIJĮȚ ıȣȤȞȐ ıIJȚȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ İȞ IJȠȪIJȠȚȢ įİȞ ȒIJĮȞ İȞIJİȜȫȢ ĮʌȫȞ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȚȖȣʌIJȚĮțȒ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ. ȅȚ ȕĮıȚțȑȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ ȞĮ ĮȞIJȜȒıȠȣȝİ ʌȜȘȡȠijȠȡȓİȢ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ șȑȝĮ ȝĮȢ ȤȦȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ıİ țĮȞȠȞȚțȑȢ țĮȚ 9

Martimort, Les diaconesses, 73.

524

Chapter Thirty Five

ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȑȢ. ȈIJȘȞ ʌȡȫIJȘ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȓĮ ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȚ ȠȚ ĮȡȤĮȓİȢ țĮȞȠȞȚțȑȢ ıȣȜȜȠȖȑȢ (ʌ.Ȥ. ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȠȣ ȥİȣįȠ- ǿʌʌȠȜȪIJȠȣ, ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȑȢ ǻȚĮIJĮȖȑȢ, ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȠȓ țĮȞȩȞİȢ ț.Į.), ȩʌȦȢ ĮȣIJȑȢ ʌȡȠıȜȒijșȘțĮȞ, țĮIJĮȞȠȒșȘțĮȞ, ĮȟȚȠʌȠȚȒșȘțĮȞ țĮȚ İijĮȡȝȩıIJȘțĮȞ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȘȢ ǹȜİȟȐȞįȡİȚĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȚȩIJİȡȘ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ țĮȞȠȞȚțȑȢ ıȣȜȜȠȖȑȢ IJȘȢ ȝİ IJȓIJȜȠ ȈȪȞȠįȠȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ǹȜİȟȐȞįȡİȚĮȢ ʌȠȣ ıȫȗİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ țȠʌIJȚțȒ (ıĮȤȚįȚțȒ țĮȚ ȕȠȤĮȧȡȚțȒ įȚȐȜİțIJȠ), IJȘȞ ĮȡĮȕȚțȒ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȚșȚȠʌȚțȒ ȖȜȫııĮ.10 ȈIJȘ ıȣȜȜȠȖȒ ĮȣIJȒ ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞİIJĮȚ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ȐȜȜȦȞ IJȠ ȩȖįȠȠ (VIII) ȕȚȕȜȓȠ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȫȞ ǻȚĮIJĮȖȫȞ, IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ ıIJȘȞ ĮȣșİȞIJȚțȒ IJȠȣ İțįȠȤȒ țȐȞİȚ ȜȩȖȠ ȖȚĮ IJĮ țĮșȒțȠȞIJĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ. ǹȟȚȠıȘȝİȓȦIJȠ İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ IJȩıȠ ıIJȚȢ țȠʌIJȚțȑȢ, ȩıȠ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡĮȕȚțȒ țĮȚ ĮȚșȚȠʌȚțȒ İțįȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ıȣȜȜȠȖȒȢ ʌĮȡĮȜİȓʌȠȞIJĮȚ ĮȡțİIJȑȢ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ĮȞĮijȠȡȑȢ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣȢ. DzIJıȚ ıIJȠȞ țĮȞȩȞĮ IJȘȢ ıĮȤȚįȚțȒȢ ıȣȜȜȠȖȒȢ ȝİ IJȠȞ ĮȡȚș. 64 (ĮȡȚș. 52 ıIJĮ ĮȡĮȕȚțȐ țĮȚ ȝİ IJȠȞ ĮȡȚș. 53 ıIJĮ ĮȚșȚȠʌȚțȐ) ʌȡȠȕȜȑʌİIJĮȚ ȠȚ șȪȡİȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȜİȣȡȐ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȞĮ İʌȚIJȘȡȠȪȞIJĮȚ Įʌȩ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣȢ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ, ȩʌȦȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ Ș İȜȜȘȞȚțȒ țĮȚ Ș ıȣȡȚĮțȒ İțįȠȤȒ. ȅȝȠȓȦȢ țĮȚ Ƞ țĮȞȩȞĮȢ ȝİ Įȡ. 65 IJȘȢ ıĮȤȚįȚțȒȢ ıȣȜȜȠȖȒȢ (Įȡș. 53 IJȘȢ ĮȡĮȕȚțȒȢ țĮȚ ĮȡȚș. 54 IJȘȢ ĮȚșȚȠʌȚțȒȢ) ʌȠȣ ȠȡȓȗİȚ IJȘ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȝİIJȐįȠıȘ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ İȣȤĮȡȚıIJȓĮȢ ʌĮȡĮȜİȓʌİȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ. ǻİȞ ʌĮȡĮȜİȓʌȠȞIJĮȚ ȦıIJȩıȠ İțİȓȞȠȚ ȠȚ țĮȞȩȞİȢ ʌȠȣ ĮʌĮȖȠȡİȪȠȣȞ IJȘȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚȗȩȝİȞȠȚ ıIJȘ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ İȞȫ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞĮ ʌİȡȚȠȡȓȗȠȣȞ IJĮ țĮșȒțȠȞIJȐ IJȠȣȢ. DzIJıȚ ıIJȠȞ țĮȞȩȞĮ ȝİ Įȡș. 66 ıIJȘ ıĮȤȚįȚțȒ (ȝİ Įȡș.53 ıIJĮ ĮȡĮȕȚțȐ țĮȚ ȝİ Įȡș.544 ıIJĮ ĮȚșȚȠʌȚțȐ) įȚĮȕȐȗȠȣȝİ: «ȈȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȚİȡȑȦȞ țĮȚ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ. ǼıȪ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ İʌȓıțȠʌİ ȩIJĮȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞİȓȢ ȑȞĮȞ ȚİȡȑĮ ȞĮ șȑIJİȚȢ IJȠ ȤȑȡȚ ıȠȣ ıIJȠ țİijȐȜȚ IJȠȣ, ĮijȠȪ ȩȜȠȚ ȠȚ țȜȘȡȚțȠȓ ıIJȑțȠȞIJĮȚ ʌȜȘıȓȠȞ ıȠȣ ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ ȠȚ įȚȐțȠȞȠȚ, ʌȡȠıİȣȤȒıȠȣ țĮȚ ȤİȚȡȠIJȩȞȘıȑ IJȠȞ. ȉȠȞ įȚȐțȠȞȠ İʌȓıȘȢ ȠijİȓȜİȚȢ ȞĮ IJȠȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȒıİȚȢ țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ ȓįȚȠ IJȡȩʌȠ. ǹȜȜȐ ȠȚ ȣʌȠįȚȐțȠȞȠȚ, ȠȚ ĮȞĮȖȞȫıIJİȢ țĮȚ ȠȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ, ȩʌȦȢ ȒįȘ İȓʌĮȝİ įİȞ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȪȞIJĮȚ».

ȀĮȚ Ƞ țĮȞȩȞĮȢ 71 ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȝİIJȐijȡĮıȘ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȫȞ ǻȚĮIJĮȖȫȞ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ: «Ǿ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ įİȞ İȣȜȠȖİȓ ȠȪIJİ Įıțİȓ țȐʌȠȚĮ Įʌ’ IJȚȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓİȢ ʌȠȣ IJİȜȠȪȞ ȠȚ ȚİȡİȓȢ țĮȚ ȠȚ įȚȐțȠȞȠȚ, ĮȜȜȐ İʌȚIJȘȡİȓ ȝȩȞȠ IJȚȢ șȪȡİȢ țĮȚ ȕȠȘșȐ IJȠȣȢ ȚİȡİȓȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘ ıIJȚȖȝȒ IJȘȢ ȕȐʌIJȚıȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȖȚĮIJȓ ĮȣIJȩ İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ ĮȡȝȩȗȠȞ».

10

Freduille (İțį.), La documentation patristique: bilan et prospectives, 20-21.

Order of Deaconesses in the Ancient Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches 525

ǵʌȦȢ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ijĮȞİȡȩ IJȠ țİȓȝİȞȠ IJȘȢ ȈȣȞȩįȠȣ șȑIJİȚ IJȚȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ȝĮȗȓ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȣʌȩȜȠȚʌȠ țĮIJȫIJİȡȠ țȜȒȡȠ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ İʌȓıțȠʌȠ ȤİȚȡȠșİıȓĮ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ, țĮȚ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ȠȡȓȗİȚ IJĮ țĮșȒțȠȞIJȐ IJȠȣȢ ȦȢ șȣȡȦȡȫȞ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȜİȣȡȐ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ȕȠȘșȘIJȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȕȐʌIJȚıȘ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ȉȠ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓȠ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȠ ȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ȞĮ İʌȚȕİȕĮȚȫıİȚ ȝȚĮ İʌȚʌȜȑȠȞ țĮȞȠȞȚțȒ ʌȘȖȒ IJȘȢ ȀȠʌIJȚțȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȠȚ ȀĮȞȩȞİȢ IJȠȣ Ȃ. ǺĮıȚȜİȓȠȣ ʌȠȣ ıȫȗȠȞIJĮȚ ıİ țȠʌIJȚțȒ țĮȚ ĮȡĮȕȚțȒ İțįȠȤȒ țĮȚ ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ, İțIJȩȢ IJȦȞ 92 ȖȞȦıIJȫȞ İȜȜȘȞȚțȫȞ țĮȞȩȞȦȞ, ȐȜȜȠȣȢ 11 ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȠȪ ʌİȡȚİȤȠȝȑȞȠȣ. ȈIJȠȞ țĮȞȩȞĮ ȃȠ 105 ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijİIJĮȚ Ș ȕȐʌIJȚıȘ: «ȂİIJȐ Įʌ’ ĮȣIJȩ, ĮʌİțįȪȠȞIJĮȚ țĮȚ ıIJȡȑijȠȞIJĮȚ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒ, IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ ȠȚ ȐȞįȡİȢ, ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ȜȐȕȠȣȞ IJȠ ȕȐʌIJȚıȝĮ. Ȉİ ȩIJȚ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, ȠȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ IJȚȢ ĮʌİțįȪȠȣȞ ıİ ȑȞĮ ʌİȡȓțȜİȚıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ țĮȚ IJȚȢ țĮȜȪʌIJȠȣȞ ȝİ ȑȞĮ ȝĮțȡȪ ȪijĮıȝĮ».

Ȉİ ȩIJȚ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȚȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȑȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡȘ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ țĮIJȑȤİȚ Ș ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȂİȖȐȜȠ ǼȣȤȠȜȩȖȚȠ IJȘȢ ȁİȣțȒȢ ȂȠȞȒȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌİȡȚȠȤȒ Sohag, IJȠȣ ȠʌȠȓȠȣ IJȠ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȩ ıȦȗȩȝİȞȠ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijȠ ĮȞȐȖİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ 10Ƞ ĮȚ. ǻȣıIJȣȤȫȢ IJȠ ȝȑȡȠȢ İțİȓȞȠ IJȠȣ ǼȣȤȠȜȠȖȓȠȣ ʌȠȣ ıȤİIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȦȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȚȫȞ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ įȚĮıȦșİȓ ȦıIJȩıȠ țĮIJȐ IJȚȢ įİȒıİȚȢ ȝİIJȐ IJȘȞ İȣȤȒ IJȘȢ ĮȞĮijȠȡȐȢ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ İȚįȚțȒ ȝȞİȓĮ țĮȚ IJȚȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ. ȈȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ Ƞ ȚİȡȑĮȢ ĮijȠȪ ȝȞȘȝȠȞİȪıİȚ İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣȢ, ȚİȡİȓȢ, įȚĮțȩȞȠȣȢ, ȣʌȠįȚĮțȩȞȠȣȢ, ĮȞĮȖȞȫıIJİȢ, ȥȐȜIJİȢ, ȝȠȞĮȤȠȪȢ țĮȚ șȣȡȦȡȠȪȢ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ įȑİIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ: «…IJȠȣȢ İȟȠȡțȚıIJȑȢ, IJȠȣȢ İȖțȡĮIJİȪȠȞIJİȢ, IJȚȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ, IJȠȣȢ İȣȞȠȪȤȠȣȢ, IJȚȢ ʌĮȡșȑȞȠȣȢ, IJȚȢ ȤȒȡİȢ…».

ȆĮȡȐ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ Ș ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȚȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ įİȞ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ĮȝȑıȦȢ ȝİIJȐ IJȠȣȢ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȚȞ IJȠȣȢ ȣʌȠįȚĮțȩȞȠȣȢ, ȩʌȦȢ ıȣȝȕĮȓȞİȚ ıİ ȐȜȜİȢ ĮȡȤĮȚȩIJİȡİȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ, ȦıIJȩıȠ Ș ĮȞĮijȠȡȐ ı’ ĮȣIJȑȢ ȑıIJȦ țĮȚ ı’ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ ıȘȝİȓȠ ijĮȞİȡȫȞİȚ ȩIJȚ įİȞ ȒIJĮȞ ʌĮȞIJİȜȫȢ ȐȖȞȦıIJİȢ ıIJȘȞ țȠʌIJȚțȒ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ. ȍıIJȩıȠ ȝİIJĮȖİȞȑıIJİȡĮ ȑȡȖĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȠȪ țĮȚ țĮȞȠȞȚțȠȪ ʌİȡȚİȤȠȝȑȞȠȣ, ȩʌȦȢ ȖȚĮ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ Ǿ IJȐȟȚȢ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȦıȪȞȘȢ IJȠȣ 13Ƞȣ ĮȚ., țĮȚ Ƞ ȆȠȜȪIJȚȝȠȢ ȝĮȡȖĮȡȓIJȘȢ ĮȞĮijȠȡȚțȐ ȝİ IJȚȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȑȢ İʌȚıIJȒȝİȢ IJȠȣ ǿȦȐȞȞȘ ibn abi Zakaria ibn Sibah IJȠȣ 14Ƞȣ ĮȚ., țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ Ș ȁİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ IJȐȟȚȢ IJȠȣ ʌĮIJȡȚȐȡȤȘ īĮȕȡȚȒȜ IJȠȣ Ǽǯ (1409-1427), ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ĮȖȞȠȠȪȞ ʌĮȞIJİȜȫȢ IJȠ șİıȝȩ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ. ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ʌĮȡȐșİıȘ IJȦȞ ʌȘȖȫȞ IJȠȣ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȠȪ ȕȓȠȣ IJȘȢ țȠʌIJȚțȒȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ ȞĮ İȟĮȖȐȖȠȣȝİ ȝİ ȕİȕĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȞ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȘȢ ǹȚȖȪʌIJȠȣ. ȉĮ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡĮ țİȓȝİȞĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪȞ ȝİIJĮijȡȐıİȚȢ țĮȞȠȞȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȫȞ ʌȘȖȫȞ ʌȠȣ ĮȞIJȚȖȡȐijȠȞIJĮȞ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȑȞĮ

526

Chapter Thirty Five

ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijȠ ıIJȠ ȐȜȜȠ țĮȚ IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ijȠȡȑȢ ĮʌȘȤȠȪȞ ĮȡȤĮȓİȢ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȑȢ, İȞȫ įİȞ ʌȡȠıijȑȡȠȣȞ ıĮijİȓȢ İȞįİȓȟİȚȢ ȖȚĮ İȞİȡȖȩ ȡȩȜȠ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ȀȠʌIJȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ. ȆȠȚĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȩȝȦȢ Ș ıIJȐıȘ ʌȠȣ țȡĮIJȐ Ș ȀȠʌIJȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ıIJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıIJȚȢ ȝȑȡİȢ ȝĮȢ; ĭĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ Ș țȚȞȘIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȠȣ țĮIJĮȖȡȐijȘțİ Įʌȩ IJĮ ȝȑıĮ IJȠȣ 20Ƞȣ ĮȚ. ıİ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩ İʌȓʌİįȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ įİȞ ȐijȘıİ ĮȞİʌȘȡȑĮıIJȘ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ ȀȠʌIJȚțȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. Ǿ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ʌȚıIJȫȞİIJĮȚ ĮȞĮȝijȓȕȠȜĮ ıIJȠȞ ʌȡȠ įȚİIJȓĮȢ țȠȚȝȘșȑȞIJĮ ʌĮIJȡȚȐȡȤȘ ȈİȞȠȪȞIJĮ īǯ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ Įʌȩ IJȠ 1981 țĮȚ İȟȒȢ ȤİȚȡȠșȑIJȘıİ ȝİȖȐȜȠ ĮȡȚșȝȩ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ, ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ ʌȠȣ ȣȚȠșİIJȒșȘțİ ȝİ İȞșȠȣıȚĮıȝȩ țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ȐȜȜȠȣȢ İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣȢ IJȘȞ ȀȠʌIJȚțȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, IJȩıȠ ıIJȘȞ ǹȓȖȣʌIJȠ ȩıȠ țĮȚ ıIJȘ įȚĮıʌȠȡȐ. ȅ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıIJȘ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ ȀȠʌIJȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȑȞĮ ıȣȞįȣĮıȝȩ IJȘȢ ĮijȚȑȡȦıȘȢ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠıijȠȡȐ ıIJȘ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ, ıİ ĮȞIJȚįȚĮıIJȠȜȒ ȝİ IJȠ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ ȝȠȞĮȤȚıȝȩ, ȩʌȠȣ Ș ĮijȚȑȡȦıȘ ıȣȞįȣȐȗİIJĮȚ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠıİȣȤȒ țĮȚ IJȘ ȞȓȥȘ. ȆȡȩIJȣʌȠ IJȘȢ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘȢ ȣʌȒȡȟĮȞ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ IJĮ ȡȦȝĮȚȠțĮșȠȜȚțȐ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȐ IJȐȖȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȠʌȠȚȠȪȞIJĮȞ ıIJȘȞ ǹȓȖȣʌIJȠ, ʌĮȡȐ Ș ĮȡȤĮȓĮ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ıȣȞȒșİȚĮ. Ǿ ȠȜȠțȜȘȡȦIJȚțȒ ĮijȚȑȡȦıȘ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȢ İʌȚȕȐȜȜİȚ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȐȖĮȝȘ Ȓ ȤȒȡĮ İȞȫ ȑȤİȚ IJȘ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ȞĮ įȚĮȝȑȞİȚ ıİ ȝȚțȡȩ įȚĮȝȑȡȚıȝĮ ıIJȠ ȓįȚȠ ȤȫȡȠ ȝİ ȐȜȜİȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ IJȘȢ ʌİȡȚȠȤȒȢ IJȘȢ. Ǿ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȒ ıȣȝȕȠȣȜİȣIJȚțȒ ıİ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡİȢ ʌȜȘșȣıȝȚĮțȑȢ ȠȝȐįİȢ, ȩʌȦȢ İȡȖĮȗȩȝİȞİȢ ȝȘIJȑȡİȢ, ȞȑİȢ țȠʌȑȜİȢ, ijȠȚIJȒIJȡȚİȢ, Ș ıȣȞİȚıijȠȡȐ ıIJȠ țĮIJȘȤȘIJȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ IJȦȞ İȞȠȡȚȫȞ țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ Ș İțįȠIJȚțȒ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJĮ ȝİ ıȣȖȖȡĮijȒ, ȝİIJȐijȡĮıȘ țĮȚ İțIJȪʌȦıȘ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȠȪ ȣȜȚțȠȪ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪȞ țȐʌȠȚȠȣȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ IJȠȝİȓȢ ıIJȠȣȢ ȠʌȠȓȠȣȢ ȠȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ȑȤȠȣȞ ĮijȚİȡȫıİȚ IJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȠȣȢ. Ǿ İȞįȣȝĮıȓĮ IJȠȣȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȠȝȠȚȩȝȠȡijȘ țĮȚ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ ıȣȞIJȘȡȘIJȚțȒ, țĮșȫȢ ijȠȡȠȪȞ İȓįȠȢ ȡȐıȠȣ ıİ ĮȞȠȚȤIJȩ ȖțȡȚ ȤȡȫȝĮ, țĮȜȪʌIJȠȣȞ IJĮ ȝĮȜȜȚȐ IJȠȣȢ ȝİ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤȠȣ ȤȡȫȝĮIJȠȢ ȝĮȞIJȒȜȚ țĮȚ ijȑȡȠȣȞ ıIJȠ ıIJȒșȠȢ ȝȚțȡȩ ȟȪȜȚȞȠ ıIJĮȣȡȩ. ȈȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ İȓȞĮȚ Ș İʌȚȝȑȜİȚĮ IJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ İʌȑįİȚȟİ Ș įȚȠȓțȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȀȠʌIJȚțȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ țĮȞȠȞȚțȒ İȟȐȡIJȘıȘ țĮȚ IJȠȞ ȑȜİȖȤȠ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȠȚțİȓȠ İʌȓıțȠʌȠ. Ȃİ IJȠȞ ȀȫįȚțĮ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ȋİȚȡȠșİIJȘȝȑȞİȢ ǻȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ IJȠȣ 1992 Ƞ ȈİȞȠȪȞIJĮ īǯ ʌİȡȚȑȖȡĮȥİ IJȠ țĮȞȠȞȚıIJȚțȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ ȪʌĮȡȟȘȢ țĮȚ įȡȐıȘȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ İȞIJȩȢ IJȘȢ ȀȠʌIJȚțȒȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ȈȪȝijȦȞĮ ȝ’ ĮȣIJȩȞ Ș ȣʌȠȥȒijȚĮ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȝİIJĮȟȪ 25 țĮȚ 30 ȤȡȩȞȦȞ, ȞĮ ȑȤİȚ ʌIJȣȤȓȠ ĮȞȫIJĮIJȘȢ ıȤȠȜȒȢ țĮȚ ȞĮ ʌİȡȐıİȚ ȑȞĮ ıIJȐįȚȠ įȠțȚȝĮıȓĮȢ 3 ȑȦȢ 5 ȤȡȩȞȦȞ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȘȞ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȒ ȑȞIJĮȟȒ IJȘȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮįİȜijȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ, ʌȠȣ įȚĮIJȘȡİȓ țȐșİ ȀȠʌIJȚțȒ İʌȚıțȠʌȒ. ȅ ĮȡȚșȝȩȢ IJȦȞ

Order of Deaconesses in the Ancient Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches 527

įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ȀȠʌIJȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ĮȞȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ ʌİȡȓʌȠȣ ıIJȚȢ 400.

ȈȣȝʌİȡȐıȝĮIJĮ ǹʌȩ IJȘ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȫȡĮ İȟȑIJĮıȘ IJȠȣ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ ȞĮ ıȣȞȠȥȓıȠȣȝİ İʌȚȖȡĮȝȝĮIJȚțȐ IJȚȢ ĮțȩȜȠȣșİȢ İʌȚıȘȝȐȞıİȚȢ: (Į) Ǿ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȑȞĮ ʌĮȞȐȡȤĮȚȠ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩ șİıȝȩ ʌȠȣ ȝĮȡIJȣȡİȓIJĮȚ ıİ ȩȜİȢ ıȤİįȩȞ IJȚȢ țĮIJȐ IJȩʌȠȣȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJİȢ, țĮȚ țĮIJ’ İʌȑțIJĮıȘ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȟȑȞȠȢ ȠȪIJİ ıIJȘȞ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȦȞ ǹȡȤĮȓȦȞ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȚțȫȞ ǼțțȜȘıȚȫȞ. (ȕ) ȅ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıȤİIJȓıIJȘțİ Įʌȩ ʌȠȜȪ ȞȦȡȓȢ ȝİ İȚįȚțȑȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȑȢ țĮȚ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȑȢ ĮȞȐȖțİȢ, ȩʌȦȢ Ș IJȑȜİıȘ ȕĮʌIJȓıȝĮIJȠȢ İȞȘȜȓțȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, Ș țĮIJȒȤȘıȘ țĮȚ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ İȞ ȖȑȞİȚ ȠȚțȠįȠȝȒ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, Ș țĮIJ’ ȠȓțȠȞ İʌȓıțİȥȘ țĮȚ Ș ʌĮȡȘȖȠȡȚȐ IJȦȞ ĮıșİȞȫȞ ț.Į. (Ȗ) ǼȞȫ ȠȚ ʌȡȫIJİȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ ʌȚıIJȠʌȠȚȠȪȞ ȑȞĮȞ İȞİȡȖȩ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȩ țĮȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȩ ȡȩȜȠ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ʌȡȫȚȝȘ ʌİȡȓȠįȠ, İʌȚțȡĮIJİȓ ıIJĮįȚĮțȐ Ș IJȐıȘ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ țĮșȘțȩȞIJȦȞ țĮȚ ȣʌȠȕȐșȝȚıȘȢ IJȠȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒȝĮIJȩȢ IJȠȣȢ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ İțİȓȞȠȣ IJȠȣ ȐȡȡİȞȠȢ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ, ĮȞĮijȠȡȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȝİ İʌȓijĮıȘ Ƞ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȩȢ IJȠȣ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮȢ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȠȣ İȚįȚțȠȪ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȠȪ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮ IJȠȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒȝĮIJȠȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ. (į) Ȉİ ʌĮȡȐȜȜȘȜȠ İʌȓʌİįȠ, Ƞ șİıȝȩȢ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıȣȞįȑİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȠȞ ĮıțȘIJȚțȩ IJȡȩʌȠ ȗȦȒȢ țĮȚ İȞIJȐııİIJĮȚ ıIJȠȞ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȩ ȕȓȠ IJȠȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠȣ ȝȠȞĮȤȚıȝȠȪ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȠȣ ıȘȝİȓȠȣ ıİ țȐʌȠȚİȢ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ ȞĮ IJĮȣIJȚıIJİȓ IJȠ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ IJȘȢ ȘȖȠȣȝȑȞȘȢ ȝİ IJȠ șİıȝȩ țĮȚ IJȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȢ. (İ) Ȃİ IJȘȞ ȠȡȚıIJȚțȒ İȟȐȜİȚȥȘ IJȦȞ İȚįȚțȫȞ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȫȞ ĮȞĮȖțȫȞ – ʌ.Ȥ. ȕȐʌIJȚıȝĮ İȞȒȜȚțȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡİȓIJĮȚ țĮȚ Ș ıIJĮįȚĮțȒ İȟĮijȐȞȚıȘ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ʌİȡȓ IJĮ IJȑȜȘ 10Ƞȣ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ĮȡȤȑȢ 11Ƞȣ ĮȚ., ʌĮȡȐ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ ĮȞĮȤȡȠȞȚıIJȚțȑȢ ĮȞĮijȠȡȑȢ ı’ ĮȣIJȑȢ ĮʌĮȞIJȫȞIJĮȚ țĮȚ ıİ ȝİIJĮȖİȞȑıIJİȡİȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ țĮȞȠȞȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȫȞ țİȚȝȑȞȦȞ. (ıIJ) Ǿ ıȪȖȤȡȠȞȘ țȚȞȘIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ İȞİȡȖȠʌȠȓȘıȘ IJȠȣ șİıȝȠȪ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ʌȠȣ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡȒșȘțİ ıİ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩ İʌȓʌİįȠ Įʌȩ IJĮ ȝȑıĮ IJȠȣ 20Ƞȣ ĮȚ. țĮȚ İȟȒȢ İʌȘȡȑĮıİ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ IJȦȞ ǹȡȤĮȓȦȞ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȚțȫȞ ǼțțȜȘıȚȫȞ, ȩȤȚ IJȩıȠ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȞĮȕȓȦıȘȢ IJȠȣ ĮȡȤĮȓȠȣ ĮȣIJȠȪ șİıȝȠȪ, ĮȜȜȐ IJȘȢ İȞİȡȖȩIJİȡȘȢ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒȢ IJȠȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠȣ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȠȣ ıIJȘ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ IJȦȞ įȚĮijȩȡȦȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȫȞ țȠȚȞȠIJȒIJȦȞ. (ȗ) Ǿ ıȪȞįİıȘ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ ȝȠȞĮȤȚıȝȩ İʌȚȕȚȫȞİȚ ȝȑȤȡȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ ıİ įȣȠ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJİȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮ IJȦȞ ǹȡȤĮȓȦȞ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȚțȫȞ ǼțțȜȘıȚȫȞ, IJȠȣȢ ȂĮȡȦȞȓIJİȢ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ǹȡȝİȞȚțȒ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ.

528

Chapter Thirty Five

ȆȡȐȖȝĮIJȚ țĮȚ ıIJȚȢ įȣȠ ĮȣIJȑȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJİȢ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡİȓIJĮȚ ȝȑȤȡȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ IJȠ ijĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠ Ș ȘȖȠȣȝȑȞȘ ȞĮ ijȑȡİȚ țĮȚ IJȠ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȢ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ İȟȣʌȘȡİIJİȓ IJȚȢ ĮȞȐȖțİȢ IJȘȢ ĮįİȜijȩIJȘIJȐȢ IJȘȢ.

ǼȞįİȚțIJȚțȒ ǺȚȕȜȚȠȖȡĮijȓĮ Armanios F., “The ‘Virtuous Woman’: Images of Gender in Modern Coptic Society,” Middle Eastern Studies 38 (2002), 110-130. Ashbook Harvey S., “Women’s Service in Ancient Syriac Christianity,” Kanon XVI: Mutter, Nonne, Diakonin: Frauenbilder im Recht der Ostkirchen, Egling 2000, 226-241. Brock S., “The Holy Spirit as Feminine in Early Syriac Literature,” ıIJȠ J. M. Soskice (İʌȚȝ.), After Eve: Women, Theology and the Christian Tradition, London 1990, 249-257. Brock S., “Deaconesses in the Syriac Tradition,” ıIJȠ P. Vazheeparampil (İʌȚȝ.), Woman in Prism and Focus: Her Profile in Major World Religions and in Christian Traditions, Rome 1996, 205-217. Doorn Van-Harder P., Contemporary Coptic Nuns, Columbia 1995. Ervine R.R., “The Armenian Church’s Women Deacons,” St. Nersess Theological Review 12 (2007), 17-56. Fredouille J-C. - Roberge R.-M. (İțį.), La documentation patristique: bilan et prospective, Quebeque-Paris 1995. Harvey S.A., “Feminine ǿmagery for the Divine: The Holy Spirit, the Odes of Solomon and Early Syriac Tradition,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 37 (1993) 111-139. —. “Women’s service in ancient syriac christianity,” Kanon: Jahrbuch der Gesellschaft für das Recht des Ostkirchen, 16 (2000) 226-241. Helou CL., “Les diaconesses moniales dans la tradition syriaque,” ıIJȠ Le monachisme syriaque aux premieres siècles de l’Eglise: IIe - debut VIIe siecle. ǿ: Textes français, Patrimoine Syriaque, Actes du Colloque V. Antelias, Liban 1998, 167-190. Martimort A.G., Les diaconesses: essai historique, [Bibliotheca Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia 24], Rome 1982. Meyendorff J., The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the World Today, New York 1981. —. Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Themes, New York 1983. Tadros M., “The Non-Muslim ‘Other’: Gender and Contestations of Hierarchy of Rights,” Hawwa 7 (2009), 111-143. Vööbus A., Syrische Kanonessammlungen I. Westesyrische Originalurkunden 1, A, CSCO 307, Louvain 1970.

Order of Deaconesses in the Ancient Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches 529

—. The Synodicon in the West Syrian Tradition, I, CSOC 367/Syr. 161, Louvain 1975. —. The Didascalia Apostolorum in Syriac, CSCO 401-402/Syr. 175-176, 407-408/Syr. 178, Louvain 1979. Zanetti U., «Y eut-il des diaconesses en Egypt», Vetera Christianorum 27 (1990), 369-373.

CHAPTER THIRTY SIX THE ORDINATION OF WOMEN IN THE ANGLICAN COMMUNITY AND THE OFFICIAL THEOLOGICAL DEBATE WITHIN IT: A CRITICAL EVALUATION FROM AN ORTHODOX VIEWPOINT VASSILIKI STATHOKOSTA

Abstract: The issue of the ordination of women firstly as deaconesses and secondly as priests and bishops has troubled the Anglican communion since the last century. Developments in England, Asia, the U.S. and elsewhere have provoked serious reactions. It is worthwhile to recall the reactions that came to light during the 1990s, when groups of people who were opposed to the ordination of women started leaving their membership of the Anglican Church. Studying official statements of the Anglican communion, Ass. Prof. Dr V. Stathokosta, the Scientific Advisor on Ecumenical Affairs of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and All Africa, examined the different levels on which the official discussion has taken place inside the Anglican communion. There is no doubt that the whole issue is a theological one and is greatly linked to Anglican theology and ecclesiology. The discussion has an impact on: a) inter-Anglican relations and; b) inter-Christian dialogues. This paper moves on with a critical evaluation of the debate itself and its impact on the bilateral Anglican-Orthodox theological dialogue, from an Orthodox viewpoint. If during the 1970s, developments in the Anglican communion caused the Orthodox to doubt whether this “genuine dialogue” should go on, today there is no such issue. The dialogue is continuing with extremely significant achievements, from a theological perspective. The paper concludes with an evaluation of the whole discussion from an Orthodox viewpoint, taking the opportunity to pose critical questions for the Orthodox concerning previous decisions on encouraging the ordination of deaconesses, and reopens these issues in terms of the needs of the Orthodoxy in places of mission and Orthodoxy in diaspora today.

532

Chapter Thirty Six

Firstly, I would like to express heartfelt thanks to the organizers of the Conference, the Theological School of Thessaloniki, the Theological School of the Holy Cross in Boston and the Center of Ecumenical, Missiological and Environmental Studies, “Metropolitan Panteleimon Papageorgiou”. I would like to express my deep gratitude to the former Rector and current Emeritus Prof. of the Faculty of Theology of the University of Athens, Evangelos Theodorou, for his valuable contribution to the discipline of theology and his diakonia in the Orthodox Church. The emergence of the issue of the position of women in the Church is largely due to his persistent and strenuous efforts and erudite studies; it is important that this conference is held in his honor.

I. Introduction The topic of my paper is “The Ordination of women in the Anglican Community and the Official Theological Debate within it: A critical evaluation from an Orthodox viewpoint.” Orthodox theology and the ecumenical movement is my specialization and my discipline in the Department of Theology at the University of Athens, where I serve and research within this theoretical framework. These developments in the Anglican communion are a subject of interest from an Orthodox viewpoint, as it is part of the broader family of Christianity, counting more than 85 million believers. This interest is related to the bilateral theological dialogue between Orthodox and Anglican and its future prospects. It is a genuine theological dialogue, the roots of which date back to the 17th century, and it has had a brilliant course of discussion at a high theological level. Prominent Greek theologians have been involved and have participated as representatives of the Orthodox Church, such as the deceased professors Alivizatos, Karmiris, Trempelas, Fathers Romanidis and Skouteris. Emeritus Prof. Galitis has also been involved. Since 2010, the representative of the Church of Greece in the bilateral theological dialogue between the Orthodox and Anglicans has been Prof. Dr. Miltiadis Konstantinou, Dean of the Theology School at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. My interest in the theological debate within the Anglican Church on the ordination of women and its consequences for ecumenical relations dates back to the early 1990s. At that time, a brief study of mine, named, “The ordination of women: a unity factor of the Churches?” had been published in the periodical “Kath' Odon” (en route). Since then, many things have changed as the ordination of women at all levels of priesthood has been largely accepted within the Anglican Community. At that time

The Ordination of Women in the Anglican Community

533

however, groups of dissident Anglican faithful, clergy and laity: a) abandoned their churches; b) joined mainly the Roman Catholic Church rather than the Orthodox Church. The following paradox was happening: the ordination of women was working in two contradictory ways, as a dividing factor in the first case and as a peculiar factor of unity in the second case. To date, the ordination of women remains a thorny issue within all the Anglican churches, as well as in relations between Orthodox and Anglicans and, more widely, in the ecumenical movement. The following clarifications are necessary: x Usually, when we talk about the Anglican Church, we refer not only to the Church of England but to all churches that belong to the Anglican ecclesiastical tradition, located throughout the world. Some of them, in fact, are named episcopal churches. Together, they make up the Anglican communion and are in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. The term “Anglican communion” began to be used in the mid-19th century, when the believers had spread beyond the boundaries of the United Kingdom, around the world. x The Lambeth Conference, about which we speak, is the deliberative body of all churches that belong to the Anglican communion, that is, the Pan-Anglican congress, with representatives of the bishops, priests and laity. The first conference was held in 1867 and has taken place every ten years since.

ǿǿ. The beginnings of women’s involvement in the Anglican Church and the reactions The involvement of women in the ecclesiastical life of the Anglican Church is originally connected to a) the establishment of sisterhoods in the Church of England and b) the desire of women to offer themselves as deaconesses to the Church. The establishment of the Community of St. Mary the Virgin1 in 1848 and the Community of St. Andrew in 1861, in London, drew attention to the feminine dynamic and what this could offer parish work in terms of care for women, children and sufferers, as well as to preaching and teaching.2 Spiritually related to the Oxford movement and originating from 1

See, Community of St. Mary the Virgin. Cf. J. Field-Bibb, Women Towards Priesthood: Ministerial Politics and Feminist Praxis, pp.67-75. 2

534

Chapter Thirty Six

the Anglo-Catholic tradition, the sororities were regarded with disbelief. Despite the objection that their actions bore features originating from Roman Catholic orders, their work continued and was officially recognized by the Lambeth Conference and the Anglican communion (1897).3 At the same time, there was a request for the revival of the order of the deaconesses, as a return to the tradition of the period of the New Testament and the early Church. This was not just a female request but a desire of the Anglican communion which, despite the initial reaction, was positively expressed at the Conference of Lambeth in 1920. It is recorded in the minutes that “the time has come when, in the interests of the Church at large, and in particular of the development of the ministry of women, the diaconate of women should be restored formally and canonically, and should be recognized throughout the Anglican Communion.”4 In the following years, however, bewilderment prevailed, as male officers faced particular difficulties in understanding how deaconesses could be integrated within the broader framework of the liturgical life of the Church and how they, themselves, could consort with them. Still, there were questions about whether the role and duties of deaconesses would be like those of deacons, that is, whether they would belong to the ranks of the clergy or not5. Ten years later (1930), the next Lambeth conference replied that the ministry of deaconesses was different from that of the deacons. The institution of deaconesses was designated as one of its kind and it was clarified that it should not be linked to the ordination of priests or deacons. However it is integrated within the Church6, which means that it is a sui generis7 office. Other questions remained unanswered, such as, for example, what exactly were the liturgical duties of deaconesses and were they required to be unmarried? Eventually, it is officially recorded that the first deaconesses began in the Church of England in 19358. 3

See, Community of St. Andrew. See, Resolution 47 of the Lambeth Conference 1920. See also, Roger Coleman (ed.), Resolutions of the Twelve Lambeth Conferences 1867-1988, Anglican Book Centre, Ontario 1992, pp.59-60. 5 Mary Tanner, “Il Movimento Per I diritti delle donne nella Chiesa d’ Inghilterra,” at Marinella Perroni e Hervé Legrand (eds.), Avendo qualcosa da dire, Teologhe e teologi rileggono il Vaticano II,” Paoline Editoriale Libri, 2014, pp.159-177. 6 See Resolution 68 of the Lambeth Conference 1930. 7 See Mary Tanner, “Il Movimento Per I diritti delle donne nella Chiesa d’ Inghilterra» 8 See indicatively, Mary Tanner, “Il Movimento Per I diritti delle donne nella Chiesa d’Inghilterra,” ibid. 4

The Ordination of Women in the Anglican Community

535

In fact, women had developed an active role in liturgical life since the First World War9, ministering even as readers. At this point, we should make it clear that women, in fact, had to assume the service of liturgical needs and preaching because of the absence of men due to their participation in the two world wars. Inevitably, women were found to be deaconesses and readers, engaging in missionary work and coordinating parish work in general.10 At the same time, changes in English society signaled the changing role of women in general. These developments had an impact on the Church which, gradually, “recognized that the Holy Spirit has endowed women with charisma, to use it in officially recognized offices of the laity in the Church of England.”11 However, official recognition of women in the position of reader in the same way as men was not made by the Church of England until 196912.

III: The ordination of women as priests in the Anglican Communion in the 20th and 21st centuries More rapid were the developments in churches of the wider Anglican Communion beyond the boundaries of Great Britain. These developments were not simply about the ordination of women as deaconesses, but also as priests. The Church of England was negative and its reactions were intense. In 1944, the first woman was ordained as a priest in Hong Kong by the Anglican bishop, Ronald Hall.13 This happened during the Japanese occupation so that the faithful would not be deprived of the liturgical life and the mysteries of the Church due to an absence of priests. But that was not the only reason. Ronald Hall himself believed in the charisma and abilities of Florence Li Tim Oi, and that her contribution would be better exploited in a position of responsibility, such as the one of the priest. The reaction of the Church of England was initially expressed by the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, but the outcry was general. In fact, 9

See indicatively, Women bishops in the Church of England? A report of the House of Bishops’ Working Party on Women in the Episcopate, Church House Publishing, London 2004. 10 See indicatively, Women bishops in the Church of England? pp.116-117. 11 Mary Tanner, “Il Movimento Per I diritti delle donne nella Chiesa d’ Inghilterra,” ibid. 12 See indicatively, Women bishops in the Church of England? ibid, p.122. 13 See Edmund B. Der, Florence Tim Oi Li: Pioneer & Mentor of the Women Priests’ Movement at http://www.anglican.ca/faith/worship/resources/li-tim-oi/litim-oi-der/

536

Chapter Thirty Six

the ordination of Florence Li Tim Oi was described as ultravires, an excess of power.14 The first female priest retired from her office after the War, in order to avoid tension and confrontations, but without losing her ordination.15 Officially, the eighth Pan-Anglican Lambeth Conference (1948) declared that the ordination of women was contrary to the Anglican tradition and order, and warned that it “could gravely affect the internal and external relations of the Anglican Communion,”16 which means that it would be detrimental to the unity of the Anglican Communion as well as to its relations with the churches participating in the ecumenical movement. However, despite the reactions, the request for the ordination of women gained even more ground, especially in the 1960s, peaking when the tenth consecutive Lambeth Conference (1968) recognized that the arguments against the ordination of women were “inconclusive.”17 Under the pressure of national and local churches, the Conference decided to hold a consultation among Anglicans. For that purpose, it set up the “Anglican Consultative Council,”18 which the churches were required to address before deciding to ordain women.19 The “Anglican Consultative Council,” with the participation of bishops, clergy and laity from all over the Anglican Communion, gathered relevant studies from each province. At its first meeting in 1971, it decided that if Hong Kong proceeded with ordinations of women, the Council would accept them and that this “will use its good offices to encourage all Provinces of the Anglican Communion to continue in communion with these dioceses.”20 That was the time when Florence Li Tim Oi was officially recognized as the first woman priest, while two more female priests were ordained in Hong Kong (1971). Soon, despite the reactions, the practice of ordaining women was followed by other churches of the Anglican Communion. In 1974, eleven women were ordained in the U.S. (Philadelphia/Pennsylvania), followed 14

See analytically, Mary Tanner, “Il Movimento Per I diritti delle donne nella Chiesa d’ Inghilterra,” ibid. 15 See indicatively, Mary Frances Schjonberg, Communion to celebrate first woman priest Li Tim-Oi on anniversary of birth, at http://archive.episcopalchurch.org/79425_85617_ENG_HTM.htm 16 See, Resolution 113 of the Lambeth Conference of 1948 at http://www.lambethconference.org/ 17 See, Resolution 34 of the Lambeth Conference 1968. 18 See, Resolution 35 of the Lambeth Conference 1968. 19 See, Resolution 37 of the Lambeth Conference 1968. 20 See, http://www.aco.org/communion/acc/meetings/acc1/resolutions.cfm#s28

The Ordination of Women in the Anglican Community

537

by another four in 1975 (Washington). They did not have the official approval of the Episcopal Church but it was soon released. A year later (1976), the Episcopal Church approved the ordination of women not only as priests but as bishops too.21 At around the same time, in 1975, the Anglican Church of Canada approved the ordination of women and, in 1976, proceeded to carry out the first ordination. The Anglican Church of New Zealand (1977), Kenya, Uganda (1983) and Australia (1992) followed. These developments were consistent with the 11th Lambeth Conference (1978) which was positive to the ordination of women and resulted in the recognition of the right of each province to follow its own practice either for or against ordination.22 More general, however, was a concern about a possible schism in the body of the Anglican Communion. For this reason, the Conference hastened to explain that “the holding together of diversity within a unity of faith and worship is part of the Anglican heritage.”23 In other words, the decision is based on the theology and ecclesiology of Anglicanism. That means that the various differences on the issue of the ordination of women were officially recognized, that it was considered possible to preserve the unity of faith and worship, and that communion among the faithful and the churches of the Anglican communion might not be disturbed.24 This statement, however, was understood differently by the bishops, as others had the impression that the problem was solved and others that it was not.25 At the same time, fears about the consequences of this decision for relations with the Orthodox Church, Roman Catholic Church and the Old Catholics, were expressed.26 Further, and rather unexpectedly for European standards, let alone for those of the Orthodox Church, the first enthronement of a female bishop took place: Barbara Harris, in 1989, in Boston. This cleared the way for the enthronement of other female bishops in New Zealand (1991) and in other Anglican churches of the U.S. (1992).27 21

In this Church, the previous ordinations were recognized. However, the first ordination took place on January 1, 1977. 22 See, Resolution 21 of the Lambeth Conference, 1978. 23 See, Resolution 21 of the Lambeth Conference, 1978. 24 See, Resolution 21 of the Lambeth Conference, 1978. 25 See the relevant assessment of Mary Tanner, “Il Movimento Per I diritti delle donne nella Chiesa d’ Inghilterra,” ibid. 26 See Resolution 21 of the Lambeth Conference, 1978. 27 In the Anglican Church of America, the ordination of women was accepted by The Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. but was denied by the following: • Anglican Catholic Church.

538

Chapter Thirty Six

*** Returning to Old Albion, the Church of England remained an observer of developments and ordinations of women which occurred in the Anglican communion. During the 1970s and 1980s, while the Anglican Church outside of Great Britain continued to ordain women, in the Church of England women were mainly active in the field of theological education. Until the 1970s, the theological education of women did not differ at all from that of men who were about to be ordained as priests, meaning that a great success was achieved. The request for ordination continued, along with books, articles and studies inside the broader framework of the “Movement for the Ordination of Women,” which was established in 1975. The issue of the ordination of women was developed not individually but as a function and part of a broader theme concerning the position of women in the Church, the participation of women in the priesthood, ordination in relation to the gender of Christ, women in the Bible and Church tradition, gender stereotypes in Church and society, and the role of the clergy and laity, etc. Inevitably, there were references in the discussion to the Trinitarian doctrine, as well as anthropological issues in relation to the Creation and the Fall (particularly in Christology), and questions regarding soteriology and ecclesiology. In other words, the issue of the ordination of women raised a number of theological and (particularly) ecclesiological issues that churches were called on to respond to and communicate with each other about, which was not easy. It is understandable that this theme occupied the member-Churches of the WCC in an attempt to overturn stereotypes and restore the position of women in church life28. Finally, in 1987, after many discussions at an ecumenical and local level, the General Synod of the Church of England accepted the ordination of women to the first degree of priesthood, the deaconate, just as it applies to men. Many years of discussions, disagreements and confrontations followed, until the Church of England approved the ordination of women to the order of priest. The decision was made on November 11, 1992, but remained on paper for two more years before it was ratified by the head of • Anglican Province of Christ the King. • Christian Episcopal Church. • Southern Episcopal Church. • United Episcopal Church. 28 See the relevant study of Constance Parvey (ed.), The Community of Women and Men in the Church: The Sheffield Report, WCC, Geneva 1983.

The Ordination of Women in the Anglican Community

539

the Anglican Church, Queen Elizabeth (February 24, 1994), and applied in practice.29 The year 2014 was the 20th anniversary of the first woman to be ordained in the Church of England.30 The procedures for the acceptance of women to the rank of bishop were slower, mainly in the Church of England. The first female bishop in the U.S. assumed office in 1989 but, in the Church of England, the century had to change to create the appropriate conditions. ***

IV: Management of the crisis in the Anglican Communion It is certain that the issue of the ordination of women caused tremors both within the Anglican Church and in ecumenical dialogues. To treat this problem, the Anglican Church moved on two levels:

a) Within the Anglican Communion (inter-Anglican relations) The need for an assessment of the experience of the ordination of women in the wider Anglican communion was expressed. The 1988 Lambeth Conference introduced a specific method for the acceptance of the new practice of ordaining women on behalf of believers. This method was the introduction of an open and continuous dialogue, 1) among the members of the Anglican Communion, 2) between the Anglican faithful who had opposing views while receiving parallel pastoral care, and 3) between the Anglican Communion and the other churches.31 In other words, an “open process of reception”32 was launched to achieve the highest possible degree of communion with those who had a different 29 A few days later, on March 13, 1994, the decision materialized, and 32 women were ordained in Bristol Cathedral in the presence of an audience, leaders of the ecumenical movement of the W.C.C, and the media. See, V. Stathokosta The Ordination of Women as a unity factor of the Churches? The case of England, in “Kath' Odon” 6 (Sept-Dec. 1993), pp.147-149. 30 The legitimacy of the ordination of women was questioned in a court of law by the Anglican priest, Paul Williamson. His obsession with seeking justice led to him being declared vexatious litigant, and he was no longer allowed to litigate in the U.K. 31 See Resolution 1 of the Lambeth Conference, 1988. 32 See, Mary Tanner, «Il Movimento Per I diritti delle donne nella Chiesa d’ Inghilterra».

540

Chapter Thirty Six

view.33 The Conference established a committee to prepare a pastoral directive in order to avoid tensions or breakaways of believers from the Church. The next step was the formal acceptance of the different practices that applied to the ordination of women. The goal was always to avoid schisms and to ensure the unity and communion.34 In an ultimate effort, the 1988 Lambeth Conference was led to the following decision: “each province should respect the decision and the attitudes of other provinces” regarding the ordination of women as priests and bishops “without such respect necessarily indicating acceptance of the principles involved.”35 There is no doubt that the acceptance of this novel practice of the ordination of women has not been easy. This was found by the next Lambeth Conference in 1998, where patience was recommended, because the acceptance of the practice of the ordination of women is a “long and spiritual process.” The need for unity had to be emphasized, but also confirmation that both sides — the proponents and opponents of the ordination of women — should be regarded as equally good faithful Anglicans. For pastoral reasons, a fairly original solution was adopted: the institution of the Provincial Episcopal Visitor, also known as the “flying bishop,” to minister wherever female priests were not accepted. These are assistant bishops who are determined by the bishops. What this might mean in terms of ecclesiology, at least from an Orthodox viewpoint, is rather obvious. It certainly fits the ecclesiology of Anglicanism which, according to the principle of “comprehensiveness,” can accept and absorb a variety of outlooks and attitudes in ecclesiastical life, but is unacceptable in Orthodox ecclesiology. Of course, if one considers that in Orthodoxy, in the countries of diaspora, there might be more than one bishop in the same area in order to serve different national groups of Orthodox believers, we should not be surprised.

b) In the inter-Christian dialogues The 11th Lambeth Conference (1978)36 expressed the fear that the decision to ordain women would have negative consequences in terms of relations with the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the 33

See Resolution 1 of the Lambeth Conference, 1988 as follows: “maintaining the highest possible degree of communion with the provinces which differ.” 34 See Resolution 1 of the Lambeth Conference, 1988. See also, The Ordination of Women to the Priesthood: A Second Report by the House of Bishops of the General Synod of the Church of England, GS 829, 1988. 35 See Resolution 1 of the Lambeth Conference, 1988. 36 See Resolution 21 of the Lambeth Conference, 1978.

The Ordination of Women in the Anglican Community

541

Old Catholics. These fears were very quickly confirmed and, especially in respect to the Orthodox, the reaction was intense. It is sufficient to note that the bilateral dialogue between Orthodox and Anglicans is a representative example that the ordination of women is an ecumenical problem. It officially began in 1973 and suffered a heavy blow in 1978 when the Lambeth Conference decided on the admission of women to the clergy in the Anglican Church. In the same year, the issue of the ordination of women was officially raised during a meeting of the Joint Doctrinal Commission at the Monastery of Pendeli, Athens. The Orthodox representatives stated that they could not regard it as an internal issue of the Anglican Communion and addressed a dramatic call to the Anglicans not to proceed with the implementation of the decision to ordain women, in order to avoid putting obstacles in the theological dialogue between them.37 But this was not all. It was preceded by the reaction of Father Alexander Schmemann, stating that the ordination of women for the priesthood is “a threat of an irreversible and irreparable act, which, if it is realized, will result in a new division among Christians, which I am convinced that it would be final, and it will mean, at least for the Orthodox, the end of the dialogues.”38 In 1987, to deal with all these situations during the “process of reception” (which means the procedure of acceptance) the Anglican Church introduced a working group with representatives from all over the Anglican communion and launched an evaluation of the concerns39 that had been expressed about the ordination of women. The Metropolitan of Pergamos, Ioannis Zizioulas, from the Orthodox Church, and the Roman Catholic Bishop, Pierre Duprey, participated in the discussion.40 ***

37

See, V. Stathokosta, Relations between the Orthodox and the Anglicans in the Twentieth Century: A Reason to Consider the Present and the Future of the Theological Dialogue in “Ecclesiology” 8 (2012) 350–374 (369-370). 38 Alexander Schmemann, Concerning Women's Ordination. A Letter to an Episcopal Friend, in “St.Vladimir's Theological Quarterly” 3(1973), pp.239-243. 39 A report was published and filed at the Lambeth Conference. See, Women and the Episcopate: Report of the Working Party Appointed by the Primates of the Anglican Communion, ACC, London, 1987. 40 The Truth Shall Set You Free: Report of the 1988 Lambeth Conference, Anglican Consultative Council, 1988.

542

Chapter Thirty Six

Despite all the efforts to accept the new practice and facilitate unity and abidance of balance in inter-Anglican relations and interchurch dialogues, the problems did not end. No matter what, when considering the issue within the Anglican Communion, we realize that it required years of discussions, confrontations and tensions, to crystallize and finally establish a wide range of concepts, ranging from complete denial to the complete acceptance of the ordination of women in the various local churches throughout the world. So, today, in the 21st century, certain churches of the Anglican Community fully accept the ordination of women as deaconesses, priests and bishops (e.g. the Episcopal Church in the U.S., Anglicans in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, etc.). Others accept the ordination of deaconesses and priests but not bishops, and others, while they have lifted the relevant prohibitions, have not yet proceeded to ordain women. What is certain is that, in the 21st century, the Church of England is divided about the issue of acceptance of women to the order of bishop. I will not discuss it any further. Besides, these facts are very recent and we all, more or less, have read about them in the Church or civic press. Newspapers and blogs have regularly informed us about the developments in the Church of England over the last decade, culminating in the events of 2012, 2013 and 2014. It is worth noting that, in November 2012, while the general climate in the General Synod of the Church of England was in favor of the acceptance of women to the episcopal throne, the decision that was taken was negative. The following year, however, the decision was overturned by another one, voted for by the General Meeting, approving the ordination of women as bishops. The decision was finally validated in 2014, and what applies to the other Anglican churches was applied to England. Since 17 December, 2014,41 and after almost a century of consultations and 40 years of canonical regulations, the issue is considered closed.

V. Evaluations During the 1970s, developments in the Anglican communion created doubts on the Orthodox side, concerning whether or not the “genuine theological dialogue” that had existed with the Anglicans until that time, had any real significance. Today, the bilateral theological dialogue 41

See, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30510137, http://ikypros.com/?p=68280 and http://lotsiosioannis.blogspot.gr/2014/12/church-of-englands-first-womanbishop.html.

The Ordination of Women in the Anglican Community

543

continues and proceeds normally. Complaints are heard from individual circles, either due to ignorance or for other reasons, and do not take into account the point that the ordination of women has come out of the list of issues that transpired from the bilateral theological dialogue between Orthodox and Anglicans. It cannot, therefore, be an obstacle to the dialogue. As research shows, the treatment of this issue by the Anglican Church has been on a theological basis. Certainly, social developments and general structures of Western societies favored and accelerated developments. But they did not set them. From the first statements of Ronald Hall in Hong Kong, to those of the Lambeth Conference, the arguments raised have not lacked theological content. What is particularly interesting for the Orthodox Church is the development of the official theological debate in the Anglican Communion, and it ending in the acceptance of both the ordination of deaconesses and the ordination of women as priests and bishops. Amongst other things, we have to consider this: the issue of acceptance or, more accurately, restoration of an ancient practice (the institution of deaconesses) in contemporary ecclesiastical life. As the case of the Anglican Church shows, it is not easy. From the Orthodox point of view, only one more concern can be expressed: the fact that, while the InterOrthodox Theological Conference in Rhodes (1988) decided that preparations should be made for the revival of the institution of deaconesses, there has not been any progress so far.42 Some possible answers could either be that “things are still fresh for such a decision” or that it did not eventually emerge as such a necessity in the life of the Orthodox Church. This would mean that the living conditions of the late 20th century and the early 21st century canceled both the desire of some Orthodox women and the need to restore the institution of deaconesses. However, the issue is not so simple. An indication of its complexity is that there are Orthodox churches that see the need for deaconesses, and this is something that cannot be disregarded in the discussions. For example, the Patriarchate of Alexandria has expressed its intention to again raise the issue of deaconesses due to pastoral needs in the area of mission, the work of catechesis and the baptism of adult women. That means that today, the institution of deaconesses is “necessary and imperative” once again.43 The 42 Archimandrite Genadios Lymouris, “The position of women in the Orthodox Church and the ordination of women” (Rhodes, October 30 - November 7, 1988), ed. Tertios. Katerini 1994. 43 Is about a request which is expressed by the current Metropolitan of Zimbabwe, Seraphim (Kykkotis), that the Orthodox Church should consider “the restoration of

Chapter Thirty Six

544

issue was not of concern to the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church held in 2016. However, the possibility is not excluded that, in the near future, it may concern some patriarchates or autocephalous churches, in the Orthodoxy of mission or diaspora, where a strong desire to revive the institution is recorded and, at that point, developments may be rapid. Certainly, the theology and ecclesiology of the Anglican Church allows the practice of the ordination of women at all levels of priesthood. Whether or not the Anglican case may be a miniature version of what will happen in the Orthodox Church is a big question and should be answered in a following study of ours.



the institution of deaconesses with the well-documented and responsible biblical and theological outlook of our dear professor Mr. Evangelos Theodorou, which was applied as much by Apostles as the Fathers of the Church and the contemporary top Orthodox Hierarchs, and even Primates.” See, A letter of the Metropolitan of Johannesburg Seraphim at Romfea.gr on the Ordination of Women, at http://www.romfea.gr/ieres-mitropoleis/8955-5920 and http://www.tovima.gr/politics/article/?aid=280498

CHAPTER THIRTY SEVEN SEX AND THE DIVINE PERSONS: PROBLEMATIC ENGLISH LANGUAGE IN THE CHURCH OF THE TRIUNE GOD STUART GEORGE HALL

Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to consider some important words used in The Church of the Triune God: Cyprus Agreed Statement of the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological dialogue 2008. The Statement argues that the Church reflects in its life and worship the communion which is the life of the Holy Trinity. Two English terms used in the Statement, “gender” and “iconic,” have developed new meanings recently, potentially causing confusion. In particular, “iconic” in the meaning given, might be better not applied to the names “father” and “son” in the Trinity. These terms are, for good historic reasons, invariable, but they are “iconic” only in expressing mutual relations in the consubstantial Trinity, as St. Gregory of Nyssa perceived. The Statement is wrong to deny that they are metaphorical. As an excellent metaphor of supremacy and liberation, “father” and “son” need the historical context of male supremacy, which no longer always applies. “Iconic” is also used for priest and Christ in the holy liturgy. The Orthodox express reasonable reservations about whether this implies that the male sex is essential to the glorified human nature of the Lord Jesus Christ and thus necessary in the Eucharistic president. The terminology of “icon” and “gender” is hazardous and should be clarified in future discussions.

The document we are to consider is the third agreed statement of the International Commission for the Anglican-Orthodox Dialogue, completed at Kyykos, Cyprus, in 2005, and published in January 2007, when the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Ecumenical Patriarch together attended a thanksgiving service at Westminster Abbey. Copies (both electronic and bound) are available from the Anglican Communion Office. A valuable briefing paper is available, prepared for the General Synod of the Church of England (GS 1706): “Anglican-Orthodox Theological dialogue, The Church of the Triune God. Briefing paper by the Faith and Order Advisory Group of the Council for Christian Unity on the Cyprus Agreed Statement

546

Chapter Thirty Seven

of the International Commission for Anglican-Orthodox Theological Dialogue” (2008). This briefing paper includes a short description and history of the Orthodox Church, a history of Anglican-Orthodox discussions, a commentary on the Statement, and a brief assessment and critique. The Anglican briefing paper summarizes the achievement of the Statement as follows: At the heart of the document is the belief that what is most characteristic of the church is that it participates in the life of the divine Trinity and indeed that it is only in virtue of this participation that we can speak of the Trinity at all. The word that most centrally describes the nature of the divine life is communion. The Trinity is not the manifestation in three different forms of some underlying divine essence or substance; nor is it a fellowship of three independent individuals; the Trinity is the communion of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, whose very existence cannot be thought apart from their interrelationships.

It is fair to see this as an advance in theological understanding, not merely in Anglican-Orthodox relations. The Church reflects, in its life and worship, the communion which is the life of the Holy Trinity. Two English terms are used in the Statement, which have very recently come into widespread use in ways that were not previously regular. They are “gender” and “iconic.” “Gender” now commonly occurs where “sex” was previously used. This is, in part, a consequence of the popular use of “sex” to refer to sexual activity, especially physical intercourse. The change may also be due to sociologists expanding the meaning of “gender” to apply to sexually-oriented groups and attitudes. The use of “gender” to refer to the sex of a person or other organism is now widespread, even in academic and official documents. It is not surprising to find this use in the Statement. However, in correct old-fashioned English (American as well as British English) there are two sexes (= Latin sexus) of persons, male and female, and four genders or classes (Latin genera) of nouns and pronouns: masculine (usually associated with males), feminine (usually associated with females), neuter, and common. Care is needed with this language. VII 28 of the Statement says that “the language of ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ in Christian theology is not gendered: it refers only to the relations of these two Persons of the Trinity and to the derivation according to existence of the one from the other.” This is difficult to understand: linguistically, “father” and “son” are both unambiguously masculine in gender. What the writers mean, and should have said, is that the masculine gender of the words does not imply that the persons of the Godhead are sexually male.

Sex and the Divine Persons

547

Where the matter is more fully discussed in IV 2-14, the Statement affirms that “God is beyond gender and sexuality” (IV 4). This applies even in the incarnation of Christ as a male person (IV 6-7). Patristic quotations in support of these propositions are helpful, including a typical defence by St. Gregory of Nyssa, being of the view that every description of God is a hazardous human invention (İʌȓȞȠȚĮ); a view which he and St. Basil developed against Eunomius’s assertion that God is by definition “not begotten,” and thus his (begotten) son cannot be, in essence, God. God beyond sexuality and gender is, however, barely compatible with the claim of “iconic” status for the names of Father and Son (and Spirit) in the Trinity (I 36-41 and often in the Statement). It is specifically argued that “these words are not metaphorical, but express the ontological derivation of the Three Persons and the total personal mutuality thus designated […] they are transparent to the reality of God” (I 39). Unfortunately, “iconic” has, in the past decade, become very popular in English to mean something different: a great footballer, for instance, or sports ground, building, or author, are all spoken of as “iconic,” just because each is a famous example of its kind. The authors of the Statement could not know that this change in English usage would happen: we mention it because it might add to the confusion of present-day readers. The authors clearly adopt the word in their own definition. Note the words which we now italicize: “another kind of language which we may call iconic” (I 36); “these words may be called iconic: they are transparent to the reality of God” (I 39). It is well said that this argument operates “within the mutual communion of the Church.” It is the further statement about this “iconic” language which might be challenged. It is that, while God as Trinity may be understood by the scriptures and the Fathers of the Church in a number of metaphors from the natural world and from human relations, “Christian theology is not using an illustrative metaphor” when it speaks of father and son, but refers to “the ontological derivation of the Three Persons and the total personal mutuality thus designated” (I 39). This seems to mean that the terms are iconic because they imply (a) that the son and Spirit derive their being from the father, and (b) the persons interpenetrate, exist, “in” each other. Against his opponent Eunomius, Gregory of Nyssa rightly emphasizes the scriptural use of the terms father and son, precisely because of this mutuality: they are preferred by the scriptures and the Church just because they express the consubstantiality. The question remains, does this mean that the words are not metaphorical? Could not the same mutuality of being be equally well expressed as mother and daughter? Two reasons may be suggested

548

Chapter Thirty Seven

regarding why the masculine terms are preferred in the Bible and by the Fathers: (a) The second person is the subject of the incarnation in the male human being, Jesus. On this more will be said; (b) The precedence of male over female in ancient society was absolute: empire and family alike needed a male superior. This male superiority has prevailed in almost all human societies throughout history. But it has come to be questioned in modern Europe and America because scientific advances have liberated women from the bondage of child-rearing, and enabled them to take leadership roles in science, education, medicine, law and government. This raises the question of whether male precedence is necessary, either in thinking about God or in thinking about the governance of the Church. Consequently, while the terms are for believers, inescapable, because the New Testament constantly uses “father” and “son”, as does the baptismal formula and Trinitarian theology, they may also carry important metaphorical force derived from the patriarchal relationships of ancient societies. The supremacy of the father means that to acknowledge another as son and heir and give all authority to him is to bestow the greatest possible privilege. All things that are the father’s belong also to the son. St. Paul argues that exactly this same privilege, of son and heir, is bestowed on believers by the Spirit (Gal 4.6); male and female are all one son in Christ Jesus (Gal 3.28). This is why “father” and “son” are totally liberating to men and women alike, in a way that “mother” and “daughter” could never be. The liberation, however, all depends on a social metaphor, that of the supreme father and the only son and heir, a model which no longer applies in the modern West. To make these terms “iconic” could be taken to fix male supremacy into the dogma. It is better seen as a metaphor fixed in ancient society, wonderfully liberating to us if understood within its ancient context, and giving supreme insight into the causal relations and bonding within the Holy Trinity. This question is near to something taught by St. Gregory of Nyssa. He argues that the title “son of God” applies to the second person of the Trinity in a non-metaphorical way, referring to his nature, not in the same way that the title “son of God” is acquired by other human beings (c. Eun. III,1 113-125 [GNO II 42-46; PG XLV 605-609]). This might seem to confirm the claim that the father-son relationship in the Godhead is “iconic.” In a later passage, however, Gregory contends with Eunomius’s argument that to take “begetting” literally imports notions of passion into God, since all conception and birth implies passion. Gregory fixes on the one vital point, that the son is called son because he derives his being from the father (c. Eun. III,2 11-17 [GNO II 55-57; PG XLV 620-624]). He

Sex and the Divine Persons

549

goes on to praise the evangelist, John, for beginning with other terminology before introducing “father” and “son”: ȍȢ ȖĮȡ ĮȞ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ʌȩȡȡȦ ʌȐșȠȣȢ ĮʌĮȖȐȖȠȚ IJȘȞ ĮȖȪȝȞĮıIJȠȞ ĮțȠȒȞ, ȠȣȤ ȣȚȩȞ İȓʌİȞ İȞ ʌȡȠȠȚȝȓȠȚȢ, Ƞȣ ʌĮIJȑȡĮ, Ƞȣ ȖȑȞȞȘıȚȞ, ȓȞĮ ȝȘ IJȚȢ İȞ ʌȡȫIJȠȚȢ Ȓ ʌĮIJȡȩȢ ĮțȠȪıĮȢ țĮIJĮıȣȡȒ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ʌȡȩȤİȚȡȠȞ ȑȝijĮıȚȞ IJȠȣ ȠȞȩȝĮIJȠȢ, Ȓ ȣȚȩȞ ȝĮșȫȞ țȘȡȣııȩȝİȞȠȞ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȫįİ ıȣȞȒșİȚĮȞ ȞȠȒıȘ IJȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ, Ȓ ʌȡȠıʌIJĮȓıȘ IJȦȞ ȡȒȝĮIJȠ IJȘȢ ȖİȞȞȒıİȦȢ ȦȢ ȜȓșȦ ʌȡȠıțȩȝȝĮIJȠȢ. ĮȜȜ’ ĮȞIJȓ ȝİȞ ʌĮIJȡȩȢ ĮȡȤȒȞ ȠȞȠȝȐȗİȚ, ĮȞIJȓ įİ IJȠȣ İȖİȞȞȒșȘ IJȠ ȒȞ, ĮȞIJȓ įİ IJȠȣ ȣȚȠȪ IJȠȞ ȜȩȖȠȞ, țĮȚ ijȘıȓȞ, ǼȞ ĮȡȤȒ ȒȞ Ƞ ȜȩȖȠȢ. (c.Eun. III,2 17 [GNO II 57; PG XLV 624]). To keep the uneducated hearer as far away as possible from passion, he did not in his prologue refer to Son, nor to Father, nor to begetting. This would prevent any one, hearing of the Father, being drawn down to the literal meaning of the term, or responding to the proclamation of the Son by taking it in its terrestrial sense, or tripping over the word “begetting” like a stumbling-block. Instead of “Father”, he names the “Beginning”, instead of “was begotten”, simply “was”, and instead of “Son”, “the Word”; and he says, “In a Beginning was the Word” (Jn 1.1).

“Beginning” and “word” are duly supplemented, Gregory argues, in the Gospel to express the intimacy of the relationship of nature by expressions such as “the word was with God” and “the word was God.” Only later (Jn 1.14) do we find the full statement: he manifested his glory, glory as of the only-begotten son of the Father. If Gregory is followed, the Cyprus Statement is right to fix on “father” and “son” as vital expressions of the originating relation and consubstantiality in the Holy Trinity, but wrong to deny that it is a metaphor. So, while we need not dissent from the attempts both to immunize God from sexuality and to affirm that some symbols or models are invariable, the Statement has ambiguities which could lead to misunderstanding. This is all the more unfortunate when the Eucharistic priest is also said to be iconic of Christ, feeding the argument that only a male can represent him (VI 19; VII 37/i). So, we turn finally to the fact that the Lord Jesus is sexually male, and then to the matter of priesthood. On the matter of Christ’s humanity, the Statement makes it clear that it is as human that we confess him rather than as male, in keeping with the arguments of the Fathers of the Church (IV [2] 10-11). In order to be fully human, he had to be fully sexed, either male or female, and he was in fact, male. Nevertheless, the humanity which he assumes includes both sexes, male and female. It could even be argued that, being born of the Blessed Virgin, he inherited the whole of his human nature from the female and

550

Chapter Thirty Seven

nothing genetic from an earthly father. He “became human”, as the creed puts it, İȞȘȞșȡȫʌȘıİ. This consideration, which is fully worked out in the Statement, has consequences when we consider the priestly work of presbyters and bishops. The presiding minister at the Eucharistic celebration is presented as “iconic” of Christ, notably in an important paragraph (VI 19): The priestly president of the Eucharistic assembly exercises an iconic ministry. As the Dublin Agreed Statement made plain, “In the Eucharist the eternal priesthood of Christ is constantly manifested in time. The celebrant, in the liturgical action, has a twofold ministry: as an icon of Christ, acting in the name of Christ towards the community and also as a representative of the community expressing the priesthood of the faithful” (DAS p.56). In the context of the Eucharist, the bishop or presbyter stands for Christ in a particular way. In taking bread and wine, giving thanks, breaking, and giving, the priest is configured to Christ at the Last Supper. The president draws together the life and prayer of the baptised, and offers them to the Father with the bread and wine. In the Eucharistic prayer, the offering of praise and thanksgiving for the mighty deeds of God, culminating in the sacrifice of the paschal mystery, is offered for all creation. Received by the Father, the gifts of bread and wine are returned in the Holy Spirit as Christ’s risen life, his body and blood, the bread of heaven and the cup of salvation.

In this strong and illuminating agreement, “iconic” seems to be used in a more general way, and not as in the case of the persons of the Holy Trinity. It appears to mean that the Eucharistic president functions just like our Lord Jesus Christ in his Last Supper and in the paschal sacrifice. One is the image or model (İȚțȫȞ) of the other. This is confirmed in the Statement by the language of the first reservation of the Orthodox, which concerns what they see as the hasty movement of the Anglican churches in ordaining women as bishops and presbyters. In this reservation the Eucharistic president is said to impersonate Christ: VII 37 (i) The Eucharistic president acts in persona Christi. Although the Christ in whose person the Eucharistic president acts is the eschatological Christ, we are not allowed to conclude from this, without a deeper examination of the matter, that maleness is not his specific human nature, and thus part of his identity. In stating that “in Christ there is neither male nor female” Paul, as the context clearly shows, was referring to the situation which results from baptism, while Maximus the Confessor speaks of the overcoming of the division and conflict between the sexes and not of the ultimate elimination of their difference. This matter, the Orthodox feel, ought to have been taken into deeper consideration before

Sex and the Divine Persons

551

any decision to ordain women was taken and acted on, particularly in the context of ecumenical dialogue.

This irenic approach, which seeks to base the consideration of contentious issues in theology, is typical of the Statement, and points in a direction which both Anglicans and Orthodox might profitably pursue. The purpose of this present contribution is to urge that care be taken in such discussions, in terms of the terminology used, especially “gender” and “iconic”, where confusion and misunderstanding might easily arise, both from changes in current English usage, and from new uses adopted in the Statement.

CHAPTER THIRTY EIGHT THE THEOLOGICAL PROBLEMATIC IN THE VARIOUS PROTESTANT DENOMINATIONS SOTIRIOS BOUKIS

Abstract: This paper examines the theological argumentation on the issue of the ordination of women in the Protestant world. The first section underlines the methodological differences between the Orthodox and Protestant approach to the topic and explains why they have arrived at such different conclusions. The second section outlines the main arguments that are usually used by Protestant theologians for and against the ordination of women. These arguments focus mainly on the interpretation of the order of creation, the presence of women in leadership positions in the Bible, the role of women in the 1st century Church, and the apostle Paul’s prohibition on women teaching in the Church. Some secondary arguments from nature, history and tradition are also discussed. Finally, these arguments are evaluated and some new questions are raised for both the Protestant and Orthodox churches, inviting both to consider the implications for their theology and practice.

ǼȚıĮȖȦȖȒ ȉȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠȞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȩ ȤȫȡȠ İȓȞĮȚ ȝȚĮ įȚĮȡțȒȢ ʌȠȡİȓĮ țĮȚ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞĮȗȒIJȘıȘ. dz ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮțȡȓȕİȚĮ, İȓȞĮȚ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ʌȠȡİȓİȢ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ĮȞĮȗȘIJȒıİȚȢ ıİ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ, Ș țȐșİ ȝȓĮ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȑȤİȚ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ țĮȚ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, Ș ȓįȚĮ Ș ijȪıȘ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ʌȡȩțȜȘıȘ țĮșȩIJȚ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȐ įİȞ ȣʌȒȡȟİ ʌȠIJȑ «ȝȓĮ» ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ʌİȡȓ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ ʌȠIJȑ įİȞ ȣʌȒȡȟİ ȝȩȞȠ «ȑȞĮȢ» ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚıȝȩȢ. ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ, IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ İȝijĮȞȓıIJȘțİ țĮȚ İȟİȜȓȤșȘțİ ȝİ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ ȑȞIJĮıȘ ıİ țȐșİ IJȩʌȠ, İʌȠȤȒ țĮȚ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ȝİ ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıȝĮ ıİ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞİȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȪȞIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȠ 19Ƞ ĮȚȫȞĮ, İȞȫ ıİ ȐȜȜİȢ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ ȑȤİȚ țĮȞ ĮȞȠȓȟİȚ ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ ıȒȝİȡĮ. DzIJıȚ, IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ țĮIJĮȜȒȖİȚ ȞĮ ȣʌİȡȕĮȓȞİȚ IJĮ ȩȡȚĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮijȩȡȦȞ

Chapter Thirty Eight

554

ȠȝȠȜȠȖȚȫȞ, ĮijȠȪ ȝȑıĮ ıİ țȐșİ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȚĮțȒ ʌĮȡȐįȠıȘ IJȠȣ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚıȝȠȪ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȕȡİȚ țĮȞİȓȢ țĮȚ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ-ȣʌȑȡȝĮȤȠȣȢ țĮȚ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ-ʌȠȜȑȝȚȠȣȢ IJȘȢ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ. ȉȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ĮțȩȝĮ ʌȚȠ ʌİȡȓʌȜȠțȠ ȩIJĮȞ İȚıȑȡȤİIJĮȚ țĮȚ Ƞ ȖİȦȖȡĮijȚțȩȢ ʌĮȡȐȖȠȞIJĮȢ, ĮijȠȪ İȓȞĮȚ ıȪȞȘșİȢ ijĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ İȞIJȩȢ IJȘȢ ȓįȚĮȢ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ȞĮ ȑȤȠȣȞ IJİȜİȓȦȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ ȐʌȠȥȘ İʌȓ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ ıİ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȑȢ ȤȫȡİȢ (ʌ.Ȥ. ȠȚ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡİȢ ȂİIJĮȡȡȣșȝȚıȝȑȞİȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ ıIJȘȞ ǻȣIJȚțȒ ǼȣȡȫʌȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȪȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, İȞȫ ıIJȘ ȂİIJĮȡȡȣșȝȚıȝȑȞȘ İțțȜȘıȓĮ ıIJȘȞ ǼȜȜȐįĮ IJȠ șȑȝĮ İȓȞĮȚ İțIJȩȢ ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘȢ). ȉĮ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ĮȞĮįİȚțȞȪȠȣȞ, ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ IJȘȞ ʌȠȜȣʌȜȠțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠȣ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȘ įȣıțȠȜȓĮ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȚȠʌȠȓȘıȘȢ IJȦȞ İțțȜȘıȚȫȞ ʌȠȣ IJȓșİȞIJĮȚ ȣʌȑȡ țĮȚ țĮIJȐ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȚĮțȐ (ʌ.Ȥ. ȁȠȣșȘȡĮȞȠȓ, ȂİșȠįȚıIJȑȢ țȜʌ.) Ȓ ȖİȦȖȡĮijȚțȐ țȡȚIJȒȡȚĮ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, Ƞ ʌȜȑȠȞ İȞįİįİȚȖȝȑȞȠȢ IJȡȩʌȠȢ įȚȐțȡȚıȘȢ IJȦȞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȫȞ İțțȜȘıȚȫȞ ıIJȠ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ șȑȝĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȑııİȡȚȢ țȪȡȚİȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ IJȐıİȚȢ, Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȚȠ ıȣȞIJȘȡȘIJȚțȒ ıIJȘȞ ʌȚȠ ijȚȜİȜİȪșİȡȘ: ƒ ƒ ƒ ƒ

ȆĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ıȣȝʌȜȘȡȦȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ1 ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮȢ ĭİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ

ǵʌȦȢ ȝʌȠȡİȓ țĮȞİȓȢ ȞĮ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡȒıİȚ, ıIJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ Ș įȚĮȓȡİıȘ ıIJȚȢ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȓİȢ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ șȑıȘȢ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ, țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ. Ǿ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ĮȣIJȒ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȠȜȪ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ, ĮijȠȪ ȑIJıȚ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ įİȞ ĮȞIJȚȝİIJȦʌȓȗİIJĮȚ ıĮȞ ĮȣIJȩȞȠȝȠ șȑȝĮ, ȠȪIJİ ʌİȡȚȠȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ıİ ȝȚĮ ĮȞĮȗȒIJȘıȘ IJȠȣ «ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ» (ıĮȞ Ƞ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȠȣ ȐȞįȡĮ ȞĮ șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ įİįȠȝȑȞȠȢ). ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ, IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ĮȞȐȖİIJĮȚ ıIJȠ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩ IJȠȣ İȣȡȪIJİȡȠ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ, ĮȣIJȩ IJȘȢ ıȤȑıȘȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ șȑıȘȢ țĮȚ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ. DzIJıȚ, ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ĮȞĮȗȒIJȘıȘȢ, Ș ʌĮȡȠȪıĮ İȚıȒȖȘıȘ șĮ țȚȞȘșİȓ ıİ IJȡİȚȢ ȐȟȠȞİȢ. ȈIJȠȞ ʌȡȫIJȠ ȐȟȠȞĮ, șĮ ĮȞĮįİȚȤșİȓ Ș įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȓĮ ʌȠȣ ĮțȠȜȠȣșİȓ Ș ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ıİ 1 Ǿ «șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ıȣȝʌȜȘȡȦȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ» (complementarianism) țĮȚ Ș «șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮȢ» (egalitarianism) įȑȤȠȞIJĮȚ ĮȝijȩIJİȡİȢ IJȘȞ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ, ȦıIJȩıȠ Ș įİȪIJİȡȘ ȣʌȠıIJȘȡȓȗİȚ IJȘȞ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ ıIJȠȣȢ ȡȩȜȠȣȢ ʌȠȣ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȑȤȠȣȞ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ, İȞȫ Ș ʌȡȫIJȘ șİȦȡİȓ ȩIJȚ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ țȐʌȠȚȠȚ ȡȩȜȠȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȖȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ, țĮșȩIJȚ IJĮ įȪȠ ijȪȜĮ İȓȞĮȚ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȐ țĮȚ «ıȣȝʌȜȘȡȫȞȠȣȞ» IJȠ ȑȞĮ IJȠ ȐȜȜȠ (İȟȠȪ țĮȚ Ƞ ȩȡȠȢ «ıȣȝʌȜȘȡȦȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ»).

The Theological Problematic in the Various Protestant Denominations

555

ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ. ǹȣIJȩ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ șĮ țĮIJĮıIJȒıİȚ ıĮijȑȢ, ȖȚĮIJȓ Ƞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚıȝȩȢ İıIJȚȐȗİȚ ıİ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ, țĮȚ ȖȚĮIJȓ IJİȜȚțȐ țĮIJĮȜȒȖİȚ ıİ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȐ ıȣȝʌİȡȐıȝĮIJĮ. ȈIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ, șĮ İțIJİșȠȪȞ IJĮ ȕĮıȚțȩIJİȡĮ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞȒșȦȢ įȚĮIJȣʌȫȞȠȞIJĮȚ İȓIJİ ȣʌȑȡ İȓIJİ țĮIJȐ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠȞ İȣȡȪIJİȡȠ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȩ țȩıȝȠ, ȝİ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡȘ ȑȝijĮıȘ ıIJĮ ǺȚȕȜȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ. ȉȑȜȠȢ, șĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȘșİȓ Ș ĮʌȠIJȓȝȘıȘ țĮȚ ĮȟȚȠȜȩȖȘıȘ IJȦȞ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ șȑıİȦȞ. Ǿ ĮʌȠIJȓȝȘıȘ ĮȣIJȒ ʌȡȠijĮȞȫȢ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ ıțȠʌȩ ȞĮ įȫıİȚ IJȘȞ IJİȜȚțȒ «ȜȪıȘ» ıIJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ, ĮijȠȪ įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȝȓĮ «ȜȪıȘ» țȠȚȞȐ ĮʌȠįİțIJȒ Įʌȩ ȩȜİȢ IJȚȢ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȑȢ ȠȝȠȜȠȖȓİȢ. Ǿ ȑȡİȣȞĮ ĮȣIJȒ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ įİȞ ĮʌȠıțȠʌİȓ ıIJȠ ȞĮ įȫıİȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ, ĮȜȜȐ ȞĮ șȑıİȚ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞĮ ȞȑĮ İȡȦIJȒȝĮIJĮ - țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ǻȚĮȝĮȡIJȣȡȩȝİȞȘ ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ. ǺĮıȚțȒ șȑıȘ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ İȚıȒȖȘıȘȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ Ș ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ ʌİȡȓ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȝȚĮ İȣțĮȚȡȓĮ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȠȣȢ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ ǻȚĮȝĮȡIJȣȡȩȝİȞȠȣȢ ȞĮ ȟĮȞĮıțİijIJȠȪȞ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȚțȐ IJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘ șȑıȘ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ IJȠȣȢ, IJȩıȠ ıIJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ, ȩıȠ țĮȚ ıİ İțİȓȞȠ IJȘȢ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒȢ IJȦȞ ȜĮȧțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ.

I. ǻȚĮijȠȡȑȢ IJȘȢ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȒȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ DzȞĮȢ șİȝİȜȚȫįȘȢ ȜȩȖȠȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ ıȣȤȞȐ Ș ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ țĮȚ Ș ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮIJĮȜȒȖȠȣȞ ıİ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȐ ıȣȝʌİȡȐıȝĮIJĮ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ Ș țȐșİ ȝȓĮ IJȠȣȢ ȟİțȚȞȐ ȝİ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȑȢ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑıİȚȢ țĮȚ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȓĮ. ȀĮIJĮȡȤȐȢ, IJȠ țȪȡȚȠ (țĮȚ ıȣȤȞȐ IJȠ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȩ) țȡȚIJȒȡȚȠ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ įȚĮȝȠȡijȫȞİIJĮȚ Ș ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ İʌȓ IJȠȣ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ǺȚȕȜȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȒ, țĮȚ ȩȤȚ Ș ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ Ȓ IJȠ ȀĮȞȠȞȚțȩ ǻȓțĮȚȠ (ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȩ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ İijĮȡȝȠȖȒȢ IJȘȢ ĮȡȤȒȢ IJȠȣ Sola Scriptura). ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, Ș ʌȜİȚȠȥȘijȓĮ IJȦȞ İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝȐIJȦȞ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞĮȞIJȐ țĮȞİȓȢ ıİ ȆȡȠIJİıIJȐȞIJİȢ șİȠȜȩȖȠȣȢ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓIJĮȚ Įʌȩ ǺȚȕȜȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ, IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ țȚȞȠȪȞIJĮȚ İȓIJİ ʌĮȡĮȖȦȖȚțȐ (ȟİțȚȞȠȪȞ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡȠ ʌȞİȪȝĮ IJȘȢ ǺȓȕȜȠȣ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ȣʌȩ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ ʌȡȓıȝĮ İȡȝȘȞİȪȠȣȞ IJĮ İʌȚȝȑȡȠȣȢ ȤȦȡȓĮ) İȓIJİ İʌĮȖȦȖȚțȐ (İȡȝȘȞİȪȠȣȞ ʌȡȫIJĮ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞĮ ȤȦȡȓĮ-țȜİȚįȚȐ ȩʌȦȢ IJĮ ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠ 2,8-15, ǹ’ ȀȠȡȚȞșȓȠȣȢ 11,2-16 țĮȚ 14,34-35, īĮȜȐIJĮȢ 3,28, țĮȚ ĮȞȐȜȠȖĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ IJȠȣȢ İȟȐȖȠȣȞ IJȘ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣȢ). ȂȚĮ įİȪIJİȡȘ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩIJĮIJȘ ʌĮȡȐȝİIJȡȠ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ Ș įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘȢ țĮȚ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȚȢ įȪȠ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ. ȈIJȘȞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȒ İțțȜȘıȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ, Ș ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ įİȞ șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ

556

Chapter Thirty Eight

ȝȣıIJȒȡȚȠ, ȠȪIJİ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ȖİȞȚțȒȢ țĮȚ İȚįȚțȒȢ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘȢ, ĮijȠȪ șİȝİȜȚȫįİȢ ʌȚıIJİȪȦ IJȘȢ ǻȚĮȝĮȡIJȪȡȘıȘȢ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ IJȠ įȩȖȝĮ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘȢ ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ ʌȚıIJȫȞ.2 ǹȣIJȩȢ İȓȞĮȚ țĮȚ Ƞ ȜȩȖȠȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ ȠȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȠȓ IJȦȞ ǻȚĮȝĮȡIJȣȡȠȝȑȞȦȞ İțțȜȘıȚȫȞ įİȞ ȠȞȠȝȐȗȠȞIJĮȚ «ȚİȡİȓȢ» ĮȜȜȐ «ʌȠȚȝȑȞİȢ». ȀȠȚȞȫȢ ʌȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ ȝȚĮ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘȢ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȒ, ȩȤȚ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȒ, țĮȚ ȝȚĮ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ ȦȢ ıȘȝİȓȠȣ ʌȠȣ İʌȚijȑȡİȚ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ, ȩȤȚ ȠȞIJȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȜȜĮȖȒ ıIJȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ IJȦȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȪȝİȞȦȞ. ȀĮIJ’ İʌȑțIJĮıȘ, ȠȚ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓȠȚ ȞȠȠȪȞIJĮȚ, ȩȤȚ «İȚȢ IJȪʌȠȞ țĮȚ IJȩʌȠȞ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ», ȠȪIJİ ȦȢ ıȣȞİȤȚıIJȑȢ IJȘȢ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒȢ ǻȚĮįȠȤȒȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ȦȢ șİȝĮIJȠijȪȜĮțİȢ IJȘȢ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒȢ įȚįĮȤȒȢ (ȩʌȦȢ ĮȣIJȒ įȚĮIJȣʌȫȞİIJĮȚ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ ǹȖȓĮ īȡĮijȒ) țĮȚ ȦȢ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȠȓ ȘȖȑIJİȢ IJȠȣ ʌȠȚȝȞȓȠȣ. ǹȣIJȩ İȟȘȖİȓ ȖȚĮIJȓ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJĮ ȩʌȦȢ IJȠ ijȪȜȠ IJȠȣ ıĮȡțȦșȑȞIJȠȢ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ǻȫįİțĮ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ įİȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪȞ IJȩıȠ țȡȓıȚȝĮ țȡȚIJȒȡȚĮ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ijȪȜȠ IJȦȞ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȫȞ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȩʌȦȢ ıȣȝȕĮȓȞİȚ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, ȩIJĮȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞİȓIJĮȚ țȐʌȠȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȘȞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȒ İțțȜȘıȓĮ, Ș ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȘȢ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȩIJȚ Ș İțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȘȢ ĮȞĮșȑIJİȚ IJȘȞ ʌȠȓȝĮȞıȘ IJȦȞ ȝİȜȫȞ IJȘȢ țĮȚ ȩIJȚ Ș ʌȓıIJȘ IJȘȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȓįȚĮ ȝİ ĮȣIJȒ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ - ȩȤȚ ȩIJȚ Ș ȓįȚĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ įȚȐįȠȤȩ IJȠȣȢ, Ȓ ȩIJȚ Ș ȓįȚĮ ȑȤİȚ ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒ ĮȣșİȞIJȓĮ țĮȚ İȟȠȣıȓĮ. ȅȣıȚĮıIJȚțȐ įȘȜĮįȒ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȠȚ țĮȚ ǻȚĮȝĮȡIJȣȡȩȝİȞȠȚ, İȞȫ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚȠȪȞ IJȠȞ ȓįȚȠ ȩȡȠ («ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ»), ıIJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȠ ʌİȡȚİȤȩȝİȞȠ ĮȣIJȠȪ IJȠȣ ȩȡȠȣ ıİ țȐșİ İțțȜȘıȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȐ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩ, ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ʌȠȣ ıȣȤȞȐ ȠįȘȖİȓ ıİ ʌĮȡİȡȝȘȞİȓİȢ ıIJȠȞ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȩ įȚȐȜȠȖȠ İȐȞ įİȞ ȑȤȠȣȞ ʌȡȠȘȖȘșİȓ ȠȚ ĮȞĮȖțĮȓİȢ įȚİȣțȡȚȞȓıİȚȢ.3 ȉȑȜȠȢ, ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ İʌȚıȘȝĮȞșİȓ ȩIJȚ IJȚȢ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡİȢ ijȠȡȑȢ IJȠ țȡȓıȚȝȠ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ǻȚĮȝĮȡIJȣȡȩȝİȞȠȣȢ șİȠȜȩȖȠȣȢ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ İȐȞ İʌȚIJȡȑʌİIJĮȚ ȝȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȞĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȘșİȓ, ĮȜȜȐ İȐȞ İʌȚIJȡȑʌİIJĮȚ ȞĮ țȘȡȪȟİȚ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ Ȓ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȜȐȕİȚ șȑıȘ ȘȖİıȓĮȢ (ȑıIJȦ țĮȚ ȦȢ ȜĮȧțȒ) ıİ ĮȣIJȒȞ. ǹȣIJȩ ĮʌȠȡȡȑİȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ IJȘȢ ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ 2:12, «įȚį੺ıțİȚȞ į੻ ȖȣȞĮȚț੿ Ƞ੝ț ਥʌȚIJȡ੼ʌȦ Ƞ੝į੻ Į੝șİȞIJİ૙Ȟ ਕȞįȡંȢ», țȚ ȑIJıȚ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡİȢ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȑȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ Ș «ȖȡĮȝȝȒ» IJȓșİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ, ȩȤȚ ıIJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ. ȆȡȠijĮȞȫȢ İijȩıȠȞ ĮʌĮȖȠȡİȪİIJĮȚ IJȠ ʌȡȫIJȠ, İȟȣʌĮțȠȪİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ ĮʌĮȖȠȡİȪİIJĮȚ țĮȚ IJȠ įİȪIJİȡȠ – ȦıIJȩıȠ İȓȞĮȚ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩ ȞĮ ȣʌȠȖȡĮȝȝȚıIJİȓ Ș ıİȚȡȐ: ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮʌĮȖȠȡİȪİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȪȞIJĮȚ İʌİȚįȒ ĮʌĮȖȠȡİȪİIJĮȚ ȞĮ įȚįȐıțȠȣȞ, ȩȤȚ IJȠ ĮȞIJȓıIJȡȠijȠ. 2

Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, Ecclesiology and Eschatology. ȈȘȝİȚȫıİȚȢ ıIJȠ ȝȐșȘȝĮ ST503 (Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, Winter 2011), 63. 3 ǹȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤȘ ʌĮȡİȡȝȘȞİȓĮ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȣʌȐȡȟİȚ țĮȚ ȝİ ȐȜȜȠȣȢ țȠȚȞȠȪȢ ȩȡȠȣȢ, ȩʌȦȢ «ʌȡİıȕȪIJİȡȠȚ», «įȚȐțȠȞȠȚ» țĮȚ «įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ», ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓȠȚ ıIJȠȞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚıȝȩ įİȞ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ ıİ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȘȝȑȞȠȣȢ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȠȪȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ıİ ȜĮȧțȠȪȢ ȝİ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ įȚȠȚțȘIJȚțȐ țĮȚ ȠȡȖĮȞȦIJȚțȐ țĮșȒțȠȞIJĮ.

The Theological Problematic in the Various Protestant Denominations

557

Iǿ. ǼʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ ȣʌȑȡ țĮȚ țĮIJȐ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȒ ĬİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ǹ. ǼʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ țĮIJȐ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ 1. ǺȚȕȜȚțȐ ǼʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ (i) Ǿ IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ ȉȠ ʌȡȫIJȠ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ ʌȠȣ ıȣȤȞȐ ʌȡȠȕȐȜȜİIJĮȚ țĮIJȐ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ĮȡȤȒ ȩIJȚ Ș IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ ȠȡȓȗİȚ ȩIJȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȠijİȓȜİȚ ȞĮ ȣʌȠIJȐııİIJĮȚ ıIJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ, țĮșȩIJȚ Ƞ ȐȞįȡĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ș țİijĮȜȒ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ (īİȞ 3,16, ǹ’ ȀȠȡ 11,3, Ǽij 5,22-24). ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, İȐȞ ĮȣIJȩ ȚıȤȪİȚ ıIJȘȞ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚĮ, ȚıȤȪİȚ ĮțȩȝĮ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ: įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ «țİijĮȜȒ» ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ.4 Ȋʌȩ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ ıțİʌIJȚțȩ, ǺȚȕȜȚțȐ ȤȦȡȓĮ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠȕȐȜȜȠȣȞ IJȘȞ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ (ʌ.Ȥ. īĮȜ 3,28) İȡȝȘȞİȪȠȞIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ ȩIJȚ IJĮ įȪȠ ijȪȜĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȓıĮ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮ, ȩȤȚ ȩȝȦȢ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠȣȢ ȡȩȜȠȣȢ ʌȠȣ ȑȤȠȣȞ țȜȘșİȓ ȞĮ İʌȚIJİȜȠȪȞ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ. (ii) Ǿ ĮʌȠȣıȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ Įʌȩ șȑıİȚȢ ȘȖİıȓĮȢ țĮȚ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ ıIJȘ ǺȓȕȜȠ DzȞĮ įİȪIJİȡȠ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ʌȡȠȑțIJĮıȘ IJȦȞ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ ıİ ȩȜȘ IJȘ ǺȓȕȜȠ Ș įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ țĮȚ Ș ȘȖİıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȜĮȠȪ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ (ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȒ țĮȚ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȒ) ĮȞȑțĮșİȞ ĮȞİIJȓșİIJȠ ıİ ȐȞįȡİȢ: ȩȜȠȚ ȠȚ ȆĮIJȡȚȐȡȤİȢ, ȀȡȚIJȑȢ, ǺĮıȚȜİȓȢ IJȠȣ ǿıȡĮȒȜ, ǿİȡİȓȢ, ȆȡȠijȒIJİȢ, țĮȚ ijȣıȚțȐ ȠȚ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ, ȒIJĮȞ ȐȞįȡİȢ. ȅȚ İȜȐȤȚıIJİȢ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ țĮIJȐ IJȚȢ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȣʌȒȡȟĮȞ ȀȡȚIJȑȢ, ȩʌȦȢ Ș ǻİȕȕȫȡĮ (ȀȡȚIJ 4-5) țĮȚ ʌȡȠijȒIJȚııİȢ ȩʌȦȢ Ș ǵȜįĮ (Ǻ’ ǺĮı 22,14-20) șİȦȡȠȪȞIJĮȚ ıʌȐȞȚİȢ İȟĮȚȡȑıİȚȢ ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ ȤȫȡĮ ıİ ĮıȣȞȒșȚıIJİȢ țĮIJĮıIJȐıİȚȢ, țĮȚ ȦȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ įİȞ ĮȞĮȚȡȠȪȞ ĮȜȜȐ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ İʌȚȕİȕĮȚȫȞȠȣȞ IJȠȞ țĮȞȩȞĮ IJȘȢ ȘȖİıȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ.5 (iii) Ǿ İȞIJȠȜȒ IJȘȢ «ıȚȦʌȒȢ» (ǹ’ ȀȠȡȚȞșȓȠȣȢ 14,33-36) ȈIJȠ 14Ƞ țİijȐȜĮȚȠ IJȘȢ ǹ’ ʌȡȠȢ ȀȠȡȚȞșȓȠȣȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒȢ Ƞ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ įȚĮIJȐȗİȚ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ ıȚȦʌȠȪȞ («ıȚȖȐIJȦıĮȞ») ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ, țĮșȩIJȚ «Ƞ੝ Ȗ੹ȡ ਥʌȚIJȡ੼ʌİIJĮȚ Į੝IJĮ૙Ȣ ȜĮȜİ૙Ȟ, ਕȜȜ੹ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮıı੼ıșȦıĮȞ, țĮșઅȢ țĮ੿ ੒ ȞંȝȠȢ Ȝ੼ȖİȚ» (ǹ’ ȀȠȡ 14,34). ĬİȠȜȩȖȠȚ ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ ĮʌȩȥİȦȞ ıȣȝijȦȞȠȪȞ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ ȩIJȚ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ 4

Wayne A. Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 2004), 940. 5 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, 941.

558

Chapter Thirty Eight

ȞĮ İȞȞȠİȓIJĮȚ İįȫ Ș ʌȜȒȡȘȢ ıȚȦʌȒ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ, țĮșȩIJȚ ıIJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒ, IJȡȓĮ țİijȐȜĮȚĮ ȞȦȡȓIJİȡĮ (ǹ’ ȀȠȡ 11,2-16) Ƞ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ İȝijĮȞȫȢ İʌȚIJȡȑʌİȚ ıİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıİȪȤȠȞIJĮȚ țĮȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȠijȘIJİȪȠȣȞ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, ȠȚ ȣʌȠıIJȘȡȚțIJȑȢ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ıȣȝʌȜȘȡȦȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ ȣʌȠıIJȘȡȓȗȠȣȞ ȩIJȚ Ș İȞ ȜȩȖȦ ʌİȡȚțȠʌȒ ĮʌĮȖȠȡİȪİȚ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ ȝȚȜȠȪȞ İȡȝȘȞİȪȠȞIJĮȢ ʌȡȠijȘIJİȓİȢ,6 țĮȚ IJĮȣIJȩȤȡȠȞĮ IJȚȢ țĮȜİȓ ȞĮ ȣʌȠIJȐııȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ ʌȠȣ įȓȞȠȣȞ ȠȚ ȐȞįȡİȢ.7 (iv) Ǿ ǺȓȕȜȠȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȐȞįȡİȢ ȆȡİıȕȪIJİȡȠȣȢ (ǹ’ ȉȚȝ 3,1-7 țĮȚ ȉȚIJ 1,5-9) DzȞĮ Įʌȩ IJĮ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩIJİȡĮ ǺȚȕȜȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ıȣȝʌȜȘȡȦȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȆȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȑȢ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȑȢ ȩIJĮȞ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ ıİ ȆȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȠȣȢ (ǹ’ ȉȚȝ 3,1-7, ȉȚIJ 1,5-9) ȝȚȜȠȪȞ ȝȩȞȠ ȖȚĮ ȐȞįȡİȢ, țĮȚ ȐȡĮ ȝȩȞȠ ȐȞįȡİȢ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȞ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȡİıȕȪIJİȡȠȚ, ʌȠȚȝȑȞİȢ Ȓ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȚ.8 ȍȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ, ȠȚ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡİȢ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȑȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ (ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ ȠȚ ıȣȞIJȘȡȘIJȚțȑȢ) ĮȞĮȖȞȦȡȓȗȠȣȞ ȩIJȚ Ș ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ 3,11 țȐȞİȚ ȩȞIJȦȢ ȜȩȖȠ ȖȚĮ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ, țĮȚ ȦȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ ȑȤȠȣȞ ıȒȝİȡĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȘ șȑıȘ ĮȣIJȒ. ȍıIJȩıȠ, ȠȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ ıIJȚȢ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡİȢ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȑȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȘȝȑȞİȢ, ȠȪIJİ șİȦȡȠȪȞIJĮȚ ȝȑȡȠȢ IJȠȣ țȜȒȡȠȣ: ĮȞIJȓșİIJĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȜĮȧțȑȢ ʌȠȣ įİȞ ȑȤȠȣȞ ȠȪIJİ ȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȐ ȠȪIJİ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȐ țĮșȒțȠȞIJĮ, ʌĮȡȐ ȝȩȞȠ ȠȡȖĮȞȦIJȚțȐ (ʌ.Ȥ. ijȚȜĮȞșȡȦʌȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ, ȠȡȖȐȞȦıȘ İțįȘȜȫıİȦȞ țȜʌ). (v) Ǿ ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ įȚįȐıțȠȣȞ Ȓ ȞĮ ȘȖȠȪȞIJĮȚ (ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ 2,8-15) TȠ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩIJİȡȠ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ țĮIJȐ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ Ș ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ IJȘȢ ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ 2,11-12: «īȣȞ੽ ਥȞ ਲıȣȤ઀઺ ȝĮȞșĮȞ੼IJȦ ਥȞ ʌ੺ıૉ ਫ਼ʌȠIJĮȖૌ12 įȚį੺ıțİȚȞ į੻ ȖȣȞĮȚț੿ Ƞ੝ț ਥʌȚIJȡ੼ʌȦ Ƞ੝į੻ Į੝șİȞIJİ૙Ȟ ਕȞįȡંȢ, ਕȜȜૃ İੇȞĮȚ ਥȞ ਲıȣȤ઀઺». īȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ȣʌȠıIJȘȡȚțIJȑȢ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ıȣȝʌȜȘȡȦȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ, IJȠ ȤȦȡȓȠ ĮȣIJȩ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ IJȘȞ ʌȜȑȠȞ ȟİțȐșĮȡȘ ǺȚȕȜȚțȒ İȞIJȠȜȒ İʌȐȞȦ ıIJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ, ĮijȠȪ șȑIJİȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ İȣșȑȦȢ țĮȚ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ.9 ȈȣȤȞȐ ĮȞIJȚIJİȓȞİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ Ș ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ ĮȣIJȒ IJȓșİIJĮȚ İʌİȚįȒ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ İțİȓȞȘ IJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ įİȞ ȒIJĮȞ ȝȠȡijȦȝȑȞİȢ țĮȚ ȦȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȞ

6

ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, 939. Thomas Schreiner, “The Complementarian View: Women in Ministry,” Two Views on Women in Ministry, eds. J.Beck and C.Blomberg (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001), 232. 8 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 940. 9 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, 937. 7

The Theological Problematic in the Various Protestant Denominations

559

ȞĮ İȡȝȘȞİȪıȠȣȞ ȠȡșȐ IJȚȢ īȡĮijȑȢ.10 ȍıIJȩıȠ, İȐȞ ĮȣIJȩ ȒIJĮȞ ȩȞIJȦȢ IJȠ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ, IJȩIJİ Ș ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ șĮ ȑʌȡİʌİ ȞĮ ĮʌİȣșȣȞȩIJĮȞ ıİ ȩȜȠȣȢ IJȠȣȢ ȝȘ-ȝȠȡijȦȝȑȞȠȣȢ țĮȚ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ. Ǽįȫ ȩȝȦȢ ȝȠȚȐȗİȚ ȞĮ ĮʌİȣșȪȞİIJĮȚ ıİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, ȝȩȞȠ țĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ İʌİȚįȒ İȓȞĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ.11 DZȜȜȠȚ İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȠȪȞ ȩIJȚ İijȩıȠȞ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȝijȓȕȠȜȠ IJȠ İȐȞ Ƞ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ ȩȞIJȦȢ ȑȖȡĮȥİ IJȘ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȘ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒ, IJȩIJİ įİ șĮ ȑʌȡİʌİ IJȠ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ ȤȦȡȓȠ ȞĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖİȓ țĮȞȠȞȚıIJȚțȐ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ ıȒȝİȡĮ. ȍıIJȩıȠ Ș İʌȚıIJȠȜȒ ĮȣIJȒ ĮȞIJȜİȓ IJȠ țȪȡȠȢ IJȘȢ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȘȞ ȑȤİȚ ĮȞĮȖȞȦȡȓıİȚ ȦȢ ȝȑȡȠȢ IJȠȣ ȀĮȞȩȞĮ IJȘȢ, ȩȤȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȆĮȪȜİȚĮ ʌȡȠȑȜİȣıȒ IJȘȢ. ǼʌȓıȘȢ ʌȠȜȪ ıȣȤȞȐ ĮȞIJȚIJİȓȞİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ Ș ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ ĮȣIJȒ ȑȤİȚ ȞĮ țȐȞİȚ ȝİ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠȪȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ, țĮșȫȢ IJȠȞ ʌȡȫIJȠ ĮȚȫȞĮ Ș įȘȝȩıȚĮ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ȒIJĮȞ ȑȞĮȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ ʌȠȣ țĮIJİȓȤĮȞ ȝȩȞȠ ȠȚ ȐȞįȡİȢ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, Ș İțțȜȘıȓĮ įİ șĮ ȑʌȡİʌİ ȞĮ İʌȚIJȡȑȥİȚ ıİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ įȚįȐȟȠȣȞ țĮȚ ȞĮ ȘȖȘșȠȪȞ, İijȩıȠȞ ĮȣIJȩ șĮ ȒIJĮȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȐ ȝȘ ĮʌȠįİțIJȩ țĮȚ șĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪıİ ʌȡȩıțȠȝȝĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ʌȡȩȠįȠ IJȠȣ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ.12 ȆĮȡȩIJȚ ĮȣIJȒ Ș İȟȒȖȘıȘ İȓȞĮȚ ȩȞIJȦȢ ʌȚșĮȞȒ, İȞIJȠȪIJȠȚȢ ʌȡȠıțȡȠȪİȚ ıIJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ Ș ĮȚIJȚȠȜȩȖȘıȘ IJȘȢ ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘȢ ʌȠȣ İțIJȓșİIJĮȚ ıIJȠȣȢ ĮȝȑıȦȢ İʌȩȝİȞȠȣȢ ıIJȓȤȠȣȢ (13-14) įİȞ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ IJȓʌȠIJĮ ıȤİIJȚțȩ ȝİ IJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ IJȠȣ ʌȡȫIJȠȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ, ĮȞIJȓșİIJĮ ʌȘȖĮȓȞİȚ ʌȓıȦ ıIJȘ īȑȞİıȘ. ȈȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ, ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮʌĮȖȠȡİȪİIJĮȚ ȞĮ įȚįȐıțȠȣȞ țĮȚ ȞĮ ȘȖȠȪȞIJĮȚ, ʌȡȫIJȠȞ, İʌİȚįȒ Ƞ ȐȞįȡĮȢ ʌȜȐıIJȘțİ ʌȡȫIJȠȢ (ıIJ. 13), țĮȚ ȦȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ Ș IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ ȠȡȓȗİȚ ȩIJȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ȣʌȠIJȐııİIJĮȚ ıIJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ, țĮȚ įİȪIJİȡȠȞ, İʌİȚįȒ İțİȓȞȘ ʌȠȣ İȟĮʌĮIJȒșȘțİ ıIJȘȞ ȆIJȫıȘ ȒIJĮȞ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ Ƞ ȐȞįȡĮȢ (ıIJ. 14).13 ȉȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ ȩIJȚ Ș ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ įİȞ ȕĮıȓȗİIJĮȚ ıİ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȐ-țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ ȞĮ İijĮȡȝȩȗȠȞIJĮȚ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȐ ıİ țȐșİ İʌȠȤȒ, ĮȜȜȐ ıİ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ, IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ ʌȐȞİ ʌȓıȦ ıIJȘ ǻȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮ, ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȚıȤȣȡȒ ȑȞįİȚȟȘ ȩIJȚ Ș ȚıȤȪȢ IJȦȞ İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝȐIJȦȞ ĮȣIJȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ įȚĮȤȡȠȞȚțȒ țĮȚ įİȞ ʌİȡȚȠȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ ıIJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ IJȠȣ ʌȡȫIJȠȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ. ȉȠ ıȣȝʌȑȡĮıȝĮ Įʌȩ ȩȜĮ IJĮ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ įİȞ İʌȚIJȡȑʌİIJĮȚ ȞĮ țĮIJĮȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ șȑıİȚȢ ȘȖİıȓĮȢ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ, Ȓ ȞĮ įȚįȐıțȠȣȞ ȩIJĮȞ ȕȡȓıțȠȞIJĮȚ ȐȞįȡİȢ ȝʌȡȠıIJȐ (ʌȠȜȜȫ įİ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ ȞĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȪȞIJĮȚ). ȂʌȠȡȠȪȞ, ȦıIJȩıȠ, ȞĮ ȣʌȘȡİIJȠȪȞ Įʌȩ ȠʌȠȚĮįȒʌȠIJİ ȐȜȜȘ 10

Craig Keener, Paul, women and wives: marriage and women's ministry in the letters of Paul (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992), 111-12. 11 James R. Beck and Craig Blomberg, “Reflections on Egalitarian Essays,” Two Views on Women in Ministry (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001), 165. 12 Robert Wall, “1 Timothy 2:9-15 Reconsidered (Again)”. Bulletin for Biblical Research 14.1 (2004):89. 13 Schreiner, “Complementarian View”, 203.

560

Chapter Thirty Eight

șȑıȘ ȜĮȧțȠȪ, țȚ ȑIJıȚ ıİ ȩȜİȢ IJȚȢ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȑȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ (ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ʌȚȠ ıȣȞIJȘȡȘIJȚțȑȢ) ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȝȚĮ ʌȜȘșȫȡĮ įȚĮțȠȞȚȫȞ ȜĮȧțȫȞ ıIJȚȢ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ ıȣȝȝİIJȑȤȠȣȞ, ĮȜȜȐ ıȣȤȞȐ ȑȤȠȣȞ țĮȚ ʌȡȦIJĮȖȦȞȚıIJȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ (ʌ.Ȥ. ȀĮIJȘȤȘIJȚțȐ ȈȤȠȜİȓĮ, İʌȚıțȑȥİȚȢ ıİ ĮȡȡȫıIJȠȣȢ, ijȚȜĮȞșȡȦʌȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ, ȠȡȖȐȞȦıȘ İțįȘȜȫıİȦȞ, ȚİȡĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȩ ȑȡȖȠ, İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȝȠȣıȚțȒ, ȩȝȚȜȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ țȜʌ). 2. ǼʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ Įʌȩ IJȘ ijȪıȘ, IJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ ȆĮȡȩIJȚ IJĮ ǺȚȕȜȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ İȓȞĮȚ IJĮ țĮșȠȡȚıIJȚțȐ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ȠȡȚıȝȑȞİȢ ijȠȡȑȢ Ș ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ İʌİțIJİȓȞİIJĮȚ țĮȚ ıİ ȐȜȜĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ, IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ ʌȐȞIJȦȢ ȑȤȠȣȞ ıĮijȫȢ ȝȚțȡȩIJİȡȘ ȕĮȡȪIJȘIJĮ: īȚĮ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ, ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠȚ șİȠȜȩȖȠȚ İȞȓȠIJİ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚȠȪȞ IJȠ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ İȓȞĮȚ İț ijȪıİȦȢ IJȠ «ĮıșİȞȑȢ» ijȪȜȠ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ IJȘȢ ıȣȞĮȚıșȘȝĮIJȚțȒȢ ĮıIJȐșİȚĮȢ Ȓ IJȘȢ ȑȜȜİȚȥȘȢ įȣȞĮȝȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȚ İʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȞ ȞĮ ȘȖȘșȠȪȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜİıȝĮIJȚțȐ.14 ȍıIJȩıȠ, İȓȞĮȚ ʌȡȠijĮȞȑȢ ȩIJȚ ȑȞĮȢ IJȑIJȠȚȠȢ ıȣȜȜȠȖȚıȝȩȢ ȕĮıȓȗİIJĮȚ ıİ ȣʌȠțİȚȝİȞȚțȒ țȡȓıȘ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ıİ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȒ ȑȡİȣȞĮ (ʌȠȜȜȫ įİ ȝȐȜȜȠȞ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ) țĮȚ ȦȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ įİȞ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚİȓIJĮȚ ʌĮȡȐ ȝȩȞȠ Įʌȩ ȝȚĮ ȝİȚȠȥȘijȓĮ ȣʌİȡıȣȞIJȘȡȘIJȚțȫȞ șİȠȜȩȖȦȞ. ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ, ʌȠȜȪ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘ ȕĮȡȪIJȘIJĮ ȑȤȠȣȞ IJĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ, IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞȠȣȞ ȩIJȚ Ș ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ įİțĮİȞȞȚȐ ĮȚȫȞȦȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ įİȓȤȞİȚ ȩIJȚ, ıIJȘȞ ıȣȞIJȡȚʌIJȚțȒ ʌȜİȚȠȥȘijȓĮ IJȦȞ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȦȞ, Ș ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȒIJĮȞ ʌȐȞIJĮ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȐȞįȡİȢ ȩıȠȚ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȪȞIJĮȚ ȦȢ ʌȡİıȕȪIJİȡȠȚ, ʌȠȚȝȑȞİȢ Ȓ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȚ.15 ǼʌȚʌȜȑȠȞ, Ș ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ įȚįȐıțİȚ țĮȚ țȐIJȚ ȐȜȜȠ: IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıȤİįȩȞ ʌȐȞIJĮ İȖİȓȡİȚ ĮȞIJȚįȡȐıİȚȢ, įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİȓ ʌȡȠıțȩȝȝĮIJĮ ıİ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȠȪȢ įȚĮȜȩȖȠȣȢ, țĮȚ ıȣȤȞȐ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ ĮȚIJȓĮ ıȤȚıȝȐIJȦȞ. ǹȡțİIJȠȓ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȠȪȞ ȩIJȚ Ș İȞȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȠȑȤİȚ ȦȢ ʌȡȠIJİȡĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ ıİ İțİȓȞİȢ IJȚȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ Ƞ įȚȐȜȠȖȠȢ İʌȓ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ ıȣȤȞȐ ĮȞĮȕȐȜȜİIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȝȑȜȜȠȞ, țĮȚ ıȣȤȞȐ İʌ’ ĮȩȡȚıIJȠȞ. ȉȑȜȠȢ, ıİ ĮȡțİIJȑȢ ʌİȡȚȠȤȑȢ IJȠȣ țȩıȝȠȣ ȩʌȠȣ Ƞ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ IJĮ ȓįȚĮ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠȞ ǻȣIJȚțȩ țȩıȝȠ (ʌ.Ȥ. ıİ ȚıȜĮȝȚțȑȢ ȤȫȡİȢ) įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȜȓȖȠȚ ȠȚ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠȓ ʌȠȣ İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞȠȣȞ IJȠȞ țȓȞįȣȞȠ ȝȚĮ İȞȑȡȖİȚĮ ȩʌȦȢ Ș ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȞĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȑıİȚ 14

Thomas Schreiner, “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, eds. T. Schreiner, A. Köstenberger, and S. Baldwin (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1995), 145. 15 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 942.

The Theological Problematic in the Various Protestant Denominations

561

ıțȐȞįĮȜȠ Ȓ țĮȚ ʌȡȩıțȠȝȝĮ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȩȠįȠ IJȠȣ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, İțțȜȘıȓİȢ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȖȞȦȡȓȗȠȣȞ IJȠ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȣʌȩȕĮșȡȠ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, İȞIJȠȪIJȠȚȢ įİȞ ʌȡȠȕĮȓȞȠȣȞ ʌȠIJȑ ıİ țȐIJȚ IJȑIJȠȚȠ ȖȚĮ ȤȐȡȘ IJȘȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮȢ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ıIJȠȞ ȑȟȦ țȩıȝȠ.

Ǻ. ǼʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ ȣʌȑȡ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȆİȡȞȫȞIJĮȢ IJȫȡĮ ıIJĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ ȣʌȑȡ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, Ƞ ĮȞIJȓȜȠȖȠȢ țĮȜȪʌIJİȚ țĮșȑȞĮ Įʌȩ IJĮ ʌȡȠĮȞĮijİȡșȑȞIJĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ: 1. ǺȚȕȜȚțȐ ǼʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ (i) Ǿ IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ țĮȚȞȒȢ țIJȓıİȦȢ: ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ ȅȚ ȣʌȠıIJȘȡȚțIJȑȢ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıȣȤȞȐ ȟİțȚȞȠȪȞ IJȘȞ İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠȣȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤȒ ȩIJȚ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ «Ƞ੝ț ਩ȞȚ ਙȡıİȞ țĮ੿ șોȜȣ» (īĮȜ 3,28) țĮȚ ȦȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ Ș ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ İȓȞĮȚ țĮșȠȜȚțȒ. ȂȐȜȚıIJĮ İʌȚıȘȝĮȓȞȠȣȞ ȩIJȚ ȒįȘ Įʌȩ IJȘ īȑȞİıȘ, Ș IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ ʌȡȠȕȜȑʌİȚ ȐȞįȡĮ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȚıȩIJȚȝĮ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȘȝȑȞȠȣȢ țĮIJ’ İȚțȩȞĮ ĬİȠȪ, țĮȚ İȓȞĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ ȆIJȫıİȦȢ ʌȠȣ Ƞ ȐȞįȡĮȢ ʌȜȑȠȞ ĮȡȤȓȗİȚ ȞĮ İȟȠȣıȚȐȗİȚ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ (īİȞ 3,16). ȍıIJȩıȠ, Ș ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ įİȞ ȠȡȓȗİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ ȆIJȫıİȦȢ, ĮȜȜȐ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȞȑĮ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ ȆİȞIJȘțȠıIJȒȢ: ıİ ĮȣIJȒȞ IJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ țĮȚȞȒȢ țIJȓıİȦȢ, IJȠ DZȖȚȠ ȆȞİȪȝĮ İțȤȪȞİIJĮȚ țĮȚ įȓȞİȚ ȤĮȡȓıȝĮIJĮ țĮȚ ıIJĮ įȪȠ ijȪȜĮ, țĮȚ ȐȡĮ Ș İțțȜȘıȓĮ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ įİȤșİȓ IJȠȣȢ ĮȞșȡȫʌȠȣȢ ʌȠȣ ȑȤȠȣȞ IJĮ ȤĮȡȓıȝĮIJĮ ĮȣIJȐ.16 (ii) Ǿ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıİ șȑıİȚȢ ȘȖİıȓĮȢ țĮȚ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ ıIJȘ ǺȓȕȜȠ ǵʌȦȢ ʌȡȠĮȞĮijȑȡșȘțİ, ıIJȘ ǺȓȕȜȠ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ ĮȡțİIJȐ ʌĮȡĮįİȓȖȝĮIJĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıİ șȑıİȚȢ ʌȞİȣȝĮIJȚțȒȢ ȘȖİıȓĮȢ IJȠȣ ȜĮȠȪ IJȠȣ ĬİȠȪ. Ǿ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮȢ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡİȓ ȩIJȚ IJĮ ʌİȡȚıIJĮIJȚțȐ ĮȣIJȐ İȓȞĮȚ IJȩıȠ ʌȠȜȜȐ (İȚįȚțȐ ıIJȚȢ ȆȡȐȟİȚȢ țĮȚ ıIJȚȢ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȑȢ IJȠȣ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ), țĮȚ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijȠȞIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȑIJȠȚȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ, ʌȠȣ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ ĮijȒȞȠȣȞ țĮȝȓĮ ĮȝijȚȕȠȜȓĮ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȠȣ İȓȤĮȞ ĮȣIJȠȪȢ IJȠȣȢ ȡȩȜȠȣȢ, IJȠ ȑțĮȞĮȞ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȜȒȡȘ ȑȖțȡȚıȘ IJȦȞ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ, țĮȚ ȦȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȞ ȞĮ șİȦȡȘșȠȪȞ İʌ’ ȠȣįİȞȓ ȦȢ «İȟĮȚȡȑıİȚȢ». ȅ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ șİȦȡİȓ įİįȠȝȑȞȠ IJȠ įȚțĮȓȦȝĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȞĮ ʌȡȠijȘIJİȪȠȣȞ ıIJȘ įȚȐȡțİȚĮ IJȘȢ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȒȢ ıȪȞĮȟȘȢ (ǹ’ ȀȠȡ 11,2-16). 16 Ǿ țİȞIJȡȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ ıȘȝĮıȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȤĮȡȚıȝȐIJȦȞ ıİ ĮȡțİIJȑȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ (ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ ıİ ȆİȞIJȘțȠıIJȚĮȞȑȢ) İȓȞĮȚ IJȩıȠ ȚıȤȣȡȒ, ȫıIJİ ıİ ĮȡțİIJȑȢ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ IJĮ ȤĮȡȓıȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ ȑȤİȚ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ ȞĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪȞ IJȠ ıȘȝİȓȠ ĮijİIJȘȡȓĮȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠ IJȚ șȑıİȚȢ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȑȤİȚ IJȠ ȐIJȠȝȠ ĮȣIJȩ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ. ȆȡȕȜ. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 942.

562

Chapter Thirty Eight

ȂȐȜȚıIJĮ ȖȚĮ ʌȠȜȜȠȪȢ ȣʌȠıIJȘȡȚțIJȑȢ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮȢ, Ș ȪʌĮȡȟȘ ʌȡȠijȘIJȚııȫȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ Įʌȩ ȝȩȞȘ IJȘȢ ĮʌȩįİȚȟȘ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ İʌȚIJȡȑʌİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ țĮȚ ȡȩȜȠȣȢ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮȢ țĮȚ ȘȖİıȓĮȢ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ, țĮșȩIJȚ IJȠȞ ʌȡȫIJȠ ĮȚȫȞĮ ȠȚ «ʌȡȠijȒIJİȢ țĮȚ įȚįȐıțĮȜȠȚ» (Ȇȡȟ 13:1) İʌȓ IJȘȢ ȠȣıȓĮȢ ȒIJĮȞ ȠȚ ĮȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤȠȚ ıȘȝİȡȚȞȠȓ ʌȠȚȝȑȞİȢ.17 ǼʌȚʌȜȑȠȞ, ıIJȘȞ ȀĮȚȞȒ ǻȚĮșȒțȘ ĮȞĮijȑȡȠȞIJĮȚ ȠȞȠȝĮıIJȚțȐ įȫįİțĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ (ȁȣįȓĮ, ȋȜȩȘ, ȆȡȓıțȚȜȜĮ, ǼȣȠįȓĮ, ȈȣȞIJȪȤȘ țȜʌ.) ʌȠȣ įȚİIJȑȜİıĮȞ ıȣȞİȡȖȐIJİȢ IJȠȣ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ, țĮȚ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ıȣȤȞȐ İțİȓȞȠȢ IJȚȢ İʌĮȚȞİȓ ȑȞșİȡȝĮ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijİȚ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚȫȞIJĮȢ IJȠȣȢ ȓįȚȠȣȢ ȩȡȠȣȢ ȝİ IJȠȣȢ ȠʌȠȓȠȣȢ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijİȚ ȐȞįȡİȢ ıȣȞİȡȖȐIJİȢ IJȠȣ.18 ǹȜȜȐ ȓıȦȢ IJȠ ĮʌȠțȠȡȪijȦȝĮ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ İȞșȐȡȡȣȞıȘȢ ȞĮ ȕȡȓıțİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ǹ’ ʌȡȠȢ ȀȠȡȚȞșȓȠȣȢ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȒ (7,32-34) ȩʌȠȣ Ƞ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ İȞșĮȡȡȪȞİȚ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ ʌĮȡĮȝİȓȞȠȣȞ ĮȞȪʌĮȞIJȡİȢ țĮȚ ȞĮ ĮijȚİȡȦșȠȪȞ ıIJȘȞ ȣʌȘȡİıȓĮ IJȠȣ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ (ʌȡȠIJȡȠʌȒ ȡȚȗȠıʌĮıIJȚțȒ ȖȚĮ ȝȚĮ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ ȩʌȠȣ Ƞ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȩȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȒIJĮȞ ȞĮ ʌĮȞIJȡİȪȠȞIJĮȚ țĮȚ ȞĮ țȐȞȠȣȞ ʌĮȚįȚȐ, țĮȚ ʌȠȣ țĮȜİȓ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıİ ȑȞĮ ȞȑȠ ȡȩȜȠ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ȣʌİȡȕĮȓȞİȚ IJĮ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮțȐ ȩȡȚĮ IJȠȣ ıʌȚIJȚȠȪ țĮȚ İʌİțIJİȓȞİIJĮȚ țĮȚ ıIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ).19 (iii) Ǿ İȞIJȠȜȒ IJȘȢ IJȐȟȘȢ, ȩȤȚ IJȘȢ «ıȚȦʌȒȢ» (ǹ’ ȀȠȡȚȞșȓȠȣȢ 14,33-36) ǵʌȦȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡșȘțİ țĮȚ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ, Ș İȞIJȠȜȒ IJȘȢ ǹ’ ȀȠȡȚȞșȓȠȣȢ 14,3336 ȝȠȚȐȗİȚ ȞĮ ȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ıİ İȣșİȓĮ ĮȞIJȓșİıȘ ȝİ İțİȓȞȘ IJȘȢ ǹ’ ȀȠȡȚȞșȓȠȣȢ 11,2-16. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, ĮȡțİIJȠȓ șİȠȜȩȖȠȚ ĮȝijȚıȕȘIJȠȪȞ IJȘȞ ȆĮȪȜİȚĮ ʌȡȠȑȜİȣıȘ IJȘȢ İȞ ȜȩȖȦ ʌİȡȚțȠʌȒȢ. ȉȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ıIJȓȤȠȚ 33-36 ȕȡȓıțȠȞIJĮȚ ıİ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȑȢ șȑıİȚȢ ıİ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȐ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ȤİȚȡȩȖȡĮijĮ, ıİ ıȣȞįȣĮıȝȩ ȝİ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ IJȠ ȜİȟȚȜȩȖȚȩ IJȠȣȢ įȚĮijȑȡİȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮțȒ ȆĮȪȜİȚĮ ijȡĮıİȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ȠįȘȖİȓ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠȣȢ țȠȡȣijĮȓȠȣȢ ȀĮȚȞȠįȚĮșȘțȠȜȩȖȠȣȢ ȞĮ țĮIJĮȜȒȟȠȣȞ ıIJȠ ıȣȝʌȑȡĮıȝĮ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ İȞ ȜȩȖȦ ıIJȓȤȠȚ İȓIJİ ȑȤȠȣȞ ȝİIJĮțȚȞȘșİȓ, İȓIJİ (ĮțȩȝĮ ʌȚșĮȞȩIJİȡĮ) ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪȞ ȝİIJĮȖİȞȑıIJİȡȘ ʌȡȠıșȒțȘ ıIJȠ țİȓȝİȞȠ.20 ȆĮȡȩIJȚ Ș İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȒ IJİțȝȘȡȓȦıȘ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ șȑıȘȢ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȠȜȪ 17

Craig Keener, “Women in Ministry: The Egalitarian View,” Two Views on Women in Ministry, eds. J. Beck and C. Blomberg (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001), 36. 18 Scholer, Women in Ministry, 4. Keener, “Women in Ministry”, 37. Karkkainen, Ecclesiology and Eschatology, 70. 19 Ann Bowman, “The Complementarian View: Women in Ministry,” Two Views on Women in Ministry, eds. J. Beck and C. Blomberg (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001), 279. ȆȡȕȜ. Blomberg, “Gender Roles”, 340. 20 Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 699-702.

The Theological Problematic in the Various Protestant Denominations

563

ȚıȤȣȡȒ, ıȣȤȞȐ ȑȞĮȢ ȝİȖȐȜȠȢ ĮȡȚșȝȩȢ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȫȞ İțțȜȘıȚȫȞ ȑȤİȚ İʌȚijȣȜȐȟİȚȢ ȞĮ ĮʌȠįİȤșİȓ șȑıİȚȢ ʌȠȣ ĮȝijȚıȕȘIJȠȪȞ IJȘȞ ĮȣșİȞIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ İȞȩȢ ǺȚȕȜȚțȠȪ ȤȦȡȓȠȣ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, İȓȞĮȚ ıȪȞȘșİȢ ijĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠ ʌȠȜȜȠȓ ǻȚĮȝĮȡIJȣȡȩȝİȞȠȚ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȖȞȦȡȓȗȠȣȞ ȝİȞ IJȚȢ țȡȚIJȚțȠțİȚȝİȞȚțȑȢ įȣıțȠȜȓİȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ȞĮ įȑȤȠȞIJĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȣșİȞIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȦȞ ıIJȓȤȦȞ, ȝİ IJȘȞ İʌȚıȒȝĮȞıȘ ȦıIJȩıȠ ȩIJȚ Ș ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ įȚĮȤȡȠȞȚțȒ. ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ, ĮijȠȡȐ ȑȞĮ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞȠ IJȠʌȚțȩ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ, ĮijȠȪ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJĮ ıȣȝijȡĮȗȩȝİȞĮ (ıIJ. 2935) įȚĮijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ IJȘȢ ȀȠȡȓȞșȠȣ ȑțĮȞĮȞ ıȣȞİȤȫȢ İȡȦIJȒıİȚȢ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠıʌȠȪıĮȞ țĮȚ įȚĮIJȐȡĮııĮȞ IJȘȞ ȫȡĮ IJȘȢ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȒȢ ıȪȞĮȟȘȢ. Ȉİ ĮȣIJȑȢ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ ĮʌİȣșȪȞİIJĮȚ Ƞ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ țĮȚ IJȚȢ įȚĮIJȐȗİȚ ȞĮ ıȚȦʌȠȪȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ ȞĮ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ IJȐȟȘ ıIJȘ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ.21 ǹȣIJȒ Ș İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ IJĮȚȡȚȐȗİȚ țĮȚ ȝİ IJȠ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȩ ȣʌȩȕĮșȡȠ IJȠȣ ʌȡȫIJȠȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ, ȩʌȠȣ ȣʌȒȡȤİ Ș ĮȞIJȓȜȘȥȘ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȞİȠțĮIJȒȤȘIJȠȚ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ȝĮșĮȓȞȠȣȞ ıȚȦʌȘȜȐ țĮȚ ȩIJȚ IJȠ ȞĮ ȡȦIJȐ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ ĮȝĮșİȓȢ İȡȦIJȒıİȚȢ ȒIJĮȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȐ ĮʌȡİʌȑȢ.22 (iv) Ǿ ǺȓȕȜȠȢ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ țĮȚ ǻȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ (ȇȦȝ 16,1-7, ǹ’ ȉȚȝ 3,11) ȆĮȡȩIJȚ Ș ȜȑȟȘ «įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ» İȓȞĮȚ ȩȡȠȢ IJȘȢ ȝİIJĮ-ĮʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȒȢ İʌȠȤȒȢ, ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȢ ȇȦȝĮȓȠȣȢ 16,1-2 Ș ĭȠȓȕȘ ʌİȡȚȖȡȐijİIJĮȚ ȦȢ «įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ» (ȜȑȟȘ ʌȠȣ ıIJȚȢ ȆĮȪȜİȚİȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȑȢ İȓȞĮȚ ıȣȞȫȞȣȝȘ IJȠȣ «ȣʌȘȡȑIJȘȢ» Ȓ «ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȩȢ»).23 ȍıIJȩıȠ, Ș ʌȡȠıșȒțȘ IJȘȢ ijȡȐıȘȢ «IJોȢ ਥțțȜȘı઀ĮȢ IJોȢ ਥȞ ȀİȖȤȡİĮ૙Ȣ» ȝİIJȐ IJȘ ȜȑȟȘ «įȚȐțȠȞȠȢ» ȝȠȚȐȗİȚ ȞĮ ʌĮȡĮʌȑȝʌİȚ ıİ İʌȓıȘȝȘ șȑıȘ.24 ǼʌȓıȘȢ, Ș ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ 3,11 ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȚıȤȣȡȒ ĮʌȩįİȚȟȘ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ-įȚĮțȩȞȦȞ. ȂȐȜȚıIJĮ IJȠ ȤȦȡȓȠ ĮȣIJȩ șȑIJİȚ țĮȚ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ țȡȚIJȒȡȚĮ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ʌȠȚİȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȞ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȜȐȕȠȣȞ ĮȣIJȒ IJȘ șȑıȘ (ȩʌȦȢ țȐȞİȚ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣȢ), ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ʌȠȣ įİȓȤȞİȚ IJȘ ıȠȕĮȡȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȠȣ İȓȤİ Ƞ șİıȝȩȢ ĮȣIJȩȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȫIJȘ İțțȜȘıȓĮ. Ȃİ ȕȐıȘ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, IJȘȞ ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒ, ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ıĮijȫȢ ȞĮ ȑȤİȚ șȑıȘ įȚĮțȩȞȠȣ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȫIJȘ İțțȜȘıȓĮ. ȂʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȩȝȦȢ ȞĮ ȑȤİȚ țĮȚ ȐȜȜİȢ șȑıİȚȢ; īȚĮ ȤȡȩȞȚĮ ȑȞĮ Įʌȩ IJĮ ıȣȞȘșȑıIJİȡĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ țĮIJȐ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȒIJĮȞ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ ĮȣIJȩ, ȩIJȚ İijȩıȠȞ ȠȚ įȫįİțĮ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ ȒIJĮȞ ȝȩȞȠ ȐȞįȡİȢ, ıȣȞİʌȫȢ șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ țĮȚ Ș İțțȜȘıȓĮ ȞĮ ȑȤİȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȐȞįȡİȢ ıIJȚȢ șȑıİȚȢ ȘȖİıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ. ȍıIJȩıȠ, ȠȚ įȫįİțĮ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ ȒIJĮȞ İʌȓıȘȢ ǿȠȣįĮȓȠȚ, ȦıIJȩıȠ țĮȞİȓȢ įİȞ ıȣȞȐȖİȚ İȟ ĮȣIJȠȪ ȩIJȚ ȐȡĮ Ș İțțȜȘıȓĮ ıȒȝİȡĮ șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞİȓ ȝȩȞȠ ǿȠȣįĮȓȠȣȢ. ǼȓȞĮȚ 21

Keener, “Women in Ministry”, 50. ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, 51. 23 ȈIJȠ ȓįȚȠ, 39. 24 Schreiner, “Complementarian View”, 193. 22

564

Chapter Thirty Eight

ȜȠȚʌȩȞ ĮıĮijȑȢ ȝİ ʌȠȚȠ ıțİʌIJȚțȩ IJȠ ijȪȜȠ IJȦȞ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȦȞ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ įȚĮȤȡȠȞȚțȩ țȡȚIJȒȡȚȠ İʌȚȜȠȖȒȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȪȝİȞȦȞ, ĮȜȜȐ ȩȤȚ Ș İșȞȚțȩIJȘIJȐ IJȠȣȢ. 25 ǼʌȚʌȜȑȠȞ, ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ İȐȞ Ƞ ȋȡȚıIJȩȢ İȟȑȜİȟİ ȝȩȞȠ ȐȞįȡİȢ ȖȚĮ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤȒ IJȘȢ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮȢ IJȠȣ, ʌȡȠȟİȞİȓ İȞIJȪʌȦıȘ ȩIJȚ İʌȓıȘȢ İȟȑȜİȟİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȠȚ ʌȡȫIJȠȚ ȝȐȡIJȣȡİȢ IJȘȢ ǹȞȐıIJĮıȘȢ, ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ ĮȞ ĮȞĮȜȠȖȚıIJİȓ țĮȞİȓȢ ȩIJȚ İțİȓȞȘ IJȘȞ İʌȠȤȒ, țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȐ țĮȚ ȞȠȝȚțȐ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ įİȞ șİȦȡȠȪȞIJĮȞ ĮȟȚȩʌȚıIJȠȚ ȝȐȡIJȣȡİȢ.26 ȉȑȜȠȢ, IJȠ ʌȚȠ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩ ȓıȦȢ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ ȑȤİȚ ȞĮ țȐȞİȚ ȝİ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ, ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ İȐȞ ȠȚ ǻȫįİțĮ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ ȒIJĮȞ ȩȞIJȦȢ ȝȩȞȠ ȐȞįȡİȢ, ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ ȚıȤȣȡȩIJĮIJİȢ İȞįİȓȟİȚȢ ȩIJȚ ȣʌȒȡȟĮȞ ıIJȘ ıȣȞȑȤİȚĮ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ, ȝİ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȩIJİȡȠ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ ĮȣIJȩ IJȘȢ ǿȠȣȞȓĮȢ ʌȠȣ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȢ ȇȦȝĮȓȠȣȢ 16,7. Ǿ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ ĮȣIJȠȪ IJȠȣ ıIJȓȤȠȣ ȑȤİȚ ĮʌȠIJİȜȑıİȚ ʌİįȓȠ ıijȠįȡȒȢ ĮȞIJȚʌĮȡȐșİıȘȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ șİȠȜȩȖȦȞ, ıİ įȪȠ țȡȓıȚȝĮ ıȘȝİȓĮ. ȉȠ ʌȡȫIJȠ ıȘȝİȓȠ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȠ țĮIJȐ ʌȩıȠȞ IJȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ ǿȠȣȞȓĮȞ ĮȞĮijȑȡİIJĮȚ ıİ ȐȞįȡĮ Ȓ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ. Ǿ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȒ ȑȡİȣȞĮ ȑȤİȚ įİȓȟİȚ ȩIJȚ IJĮ ıIJȠȚȤİȓĮ ıȣȞȘȖȠȡȠȪȞ ıȣȞIJȡȚʌIJȚțȐ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘ įİȪIJİȡȘ İțįȠȤȒ: ȝİ ȕȐıȘ ȑȡİȣȞİȢ ʌȠȣ ȑȤȠȣȞ ȖȓȞİȚ ıIJȠ TLG țĮȚ IJȠ TLL, įİȞ ĮʌĮȞIJȐIJĮȚ țĮȞȑȞĮȢ ȐȞįȡĮȢ ȝİ IJȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ «ǿȠȣȞȓĮȢ» Ȓ «ǿȠȣȞȚĮȞȩȢ» IJȘȞ İȜȜȘȞȠȡȦȝĮȧțȒ İʌȠȤȒ.27 ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ, IJȠ șȘȜȣțȩ ȩȞȠȝĮ «ǿȠȣȞȓĮ» ĮʌĮȞIJȐIJĮȚ ıİ ʌȐȞȦ Įʌȩ 250 ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ İȜȜȘȞȚțȫȞ țĮȚ ȜĮIJȚȞȚțȫȞ țİȚȝȑȞȦȞ.28 ǼȓȞĮȚ įİ ȤĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȩ ȩIJȚ ȩȜȠȚ ȠȚ ȝİIJĮijȡĮıIJȑȢ țĮȚ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȑȢ IJȘȢ ǺȓȕȜȠȣ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȠ ȂİıĮȓȦȞĮ ĮʌȑįȚįĮȞ ʌȐȞIJĮ IJȠ ȩȞȠȝĮ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ ȦȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ.29 ȉȠ įİȪIJİȡȠ țĮȚ ʌȚȠ țȡȓıȚȝȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ țĮIJȐ ʌȩıȠȞ Ș ijȡȐıȘ «ਥʌ઀ıȘȝȠȚ ਥȞ IJȠ૙Ȣ ਕʌȠıIJંȜȠȚȢ» İȞȞȠİȓ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ǹȞįȡȩȞȚțȠȢ țĮȚ Ș ǿȠȣȞȓĮ ȒIJĮȞ «İȟĮȚȡİIJȚțȠȓ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȠȣȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ» (țĮȚ ȐȡĮ ȒIJĮȞ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȓįȚȠȚ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ) Ȓ «İȟĮȚȡİIJȚțȐ ȖȞȦıIJȠȓ ıIJȠȣȢ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȣȢ» (ȠʌȩIJİ įİȞ ıȣȝʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȞ ıİ ĮȣIJȠȪȢ). Ǿ ʌȡȫIJȘ İțįȠȤȒ ȑȤİȚ ʌȠȜȪ ʌȚȠ ȚıȤȣȡȐ 25 Paul Jewett, The Ordination of Women: An Essay on the Office of Christian Ministry (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 88. ȆȡȕȜ. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 941. 26 Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John (The New International Commentary on the New Testament; Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995), 743. ȆȡȕȜ. Mishnah, Rosh Ha-Shanah 1:8. 27 Linda Belleville, “The Egalitarian View: Women in Ministry,” Two Views on Women in Ministry, eds. J. Beck and C. Blomberg (Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001), 85. 28 Richard Cervin, “A note Regarding the Name ‘Junia(s)’ in Romans 16:7,” New Testament Studies 40 (1994):464-70. 29 Belleville, “Women”, 85.

The Theological Problematic in the Various Protestant Denominations

565

İȡİȓıȝĮIJĮ, IJȩıȠ ıIJȘȞ ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJȚțȒ, ȩıȠ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ, țĮșȫȢ ȩȜȠȚ ȠȚ ȆĮIJȑȡİȢ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ (ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ țȐʌȠȚȠȚ ʌȠȣ įİȞ ȑȕȜİʌĮȞ țĮșȩȜȠȣ șİIJȚțȐ IJȠ İȞįİȤȩȝİȞȠ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ) ĮȞĮȖȞȫȡȚȗĮȞ ȩIJȚ Ș ǿȠȣȞȓĮ ȒIJĮȞ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ.30 Ǿ ȓįȚĮ Ș ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ĮȞĮȖȞȦȡȓȗİȚ IJȘȞ ǿȠȣȞȓĮ ȦȢ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠ, țĮȚ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ țĮȚ ȦȢ ĮȖȓĮ31, țĮȚ IJȚȝȐ IJȘȞ ȝȞȒȝȘ IJȘȢ ıIJȚȢ 17 ȂĮǸȠȣ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, țĮȚ İijȩıȠȞ ȩȜİȢ ȠȚ İȞįİȓȟİȚȢ (ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJȚțȒ, ıȣȝijȡĮȗȩȝİȞĮ, ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ) ıȣȞȘȖȠȡȠȪȞ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȘ, IJȩIJİ țĮșȓıIJĮIJĮȚ ıĮijȑȢ ȩIJȚ Ș ǿȠȣȞȓĮ ȣʌȒȡȟİ ȩȞIJȦȢ ȝȓĮ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ. ǼȐȞ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ ȝȓĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ ȜȐȕİȚ IJȠ ǹʌȠıIJȠȜȚțȩ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ ıIJȠȞ ʌȡȫIJȠ ĮȚȫȞĮ, IJȩIJİ ʌȡȠijĮȞȫȢ țĮȚ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ ȜȐȕİȚ țĮȚ ȠʌȠȚȠįȒʌȠIJİ ȐȜȜȠ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ ıȒȝİȡĮ, İȓIJİ ĮȣIJȩ ȒIJĮȞ İțİȓȞȠ IJȠȣ ʌȡİıȕȪIJİȡȠȣ, İȓIJİ IJȠȣ ʌȠȚȝȑȞĮ, İȓIJİ IJȠȣ İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ. ȈIJȠ ıȘȝİȓȠ ĮȣIJȩ ȕȑȕĮȚĮ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ țĮȞİȓȢ ȞĮ ĮȞIJȚIJİȓȞİȚ ȩIJȚ țȐIJȚ IJȑIJȠȚȠ șĮ İȡȤȩIJĮȞ ıİ ĮȞIJȓșİıȘ ȝİ IJȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ IJȘȢ ǹ’ ʌȡȠȢ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ 3 ʌȠȣ įİȞ ĮȞĮijȑȡİȚ IJȓʌȠIJĮ ȖȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȠȣȢ. ȉȠ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ ĮȣIJȩ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȠȜȪ țȡȓıȚȝȠ, ȦıIJȩıȠ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ĮʌĮȞIJȘșİȓ șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ Ș ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ 3 ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ țĮIJĮȞȠȘIJȒ ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȘȢ ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘȢ IJȠȣ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȪȝİȞȠȣ țİijĮȜĮȓȠȣ (2,8-15) ıIJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ șĮ ıIJȡĮijȠȪȝİ IJȫȡĮ. (v) Ǿ ijȪıȘ IJȘȢ ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘȢ IJȘȢ ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ 2,8-15 ǵʌȦȢ ʌȡȠĮȞĮijȑȡșȘțİ, Ș ʌİȡȚțȠʌȒ ĮȣIJȒ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȖȚĮ ʌȠȜȜȠȪȢ ǻȚĮȝĮȡIJȣȡȩȝİȞȠȣȢ IJȠ ʌȚȠ țȡȓıȚȝȠ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ țĮIJȐ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. Ǽț ʌȡȫIJȘȢ ȩȥİȦȢ, Ș ʌİȡȚțȠʌȒ ȝȠȚȐȗİȚ ȩȞIJȦȢ ȞĮ ĮʌĮȖȠȡİȪİȚ İȣșȑȦȢ ȠʌȠȚĮįȒʌȠIJİ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJĮ ȝȑıȦ IJȘȢ ȠʌȠȓĮȢ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ įȚįȐıțȠȣȞ Ȓ ȞĮ ĮıțȠȪȞ İȟȠȣıȓĮ İʌȐȞȦ ıİ ȐȞįȡİȢ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ, țĮȚ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ ȖȚĮ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȠȪȢ (ȐȡĮ įȚĮȤȡȠȞȚțȠȪȢ), ȩȤȚ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȠțȠȚȞȦȞȚțȠȪȢ. ȍıIJȩıȠ, ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȝȚĮ ȝİșȠįȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ ȩIJĮȞ Ș ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ șİȦȡİȓ IJȠ ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ 2,11-14 ȦȢ ȝȚĮ įȚĮȤȡȠȞȚțȒ İȞIJȠȜȒ, ĮȜȜȐ ȩȤȚ țĮȚ IJȠȣȢ ĮȝȑıȦȢ ʌȡȠȘȖȠȪȝİȞȠȣȢ ıIJȓȤȠȣȢ (2,9-10) ʌȠȣ ȝȚȜȠȪȞ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ȑȞįȣıȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, Ȓ ȐȜȜİȢ ʌİȡȚțȠʌȑȢ IJȘȢ ȓįȚĮȢ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒȢ (5,316) ʌȠȣ ȝȚȜȠȪȞ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ʌȫȢ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȠȚ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ ȞĮ ijȡȠȞIJȓȗȠȣȞ IJȚȢ ȤȒȡİȢ.32 ǹȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤȘ ĮıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȩIJĮȞ Ș șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ıȣȝʌȜȘȡȦȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ 30

Keener, “Women in Ministry”, 35. ȆȡȕȜ. Michael H. Burer and Daniel B. Wallace. “Was Junia really an apostle? A reexamination of Romans 16:7”, New Testament Studies 47 (2001):90. 31 ǹȣIJȩ ijȣıȚțȐ șȑIJİȚ țĮȚ ȑȞĮ ĮțȩȝĮ ʌȚȠ İȞįȚĮijȑȡȠȞ İȡȫIJȘȝĮ: ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ İȐȞ įİȞ ȣʌȒȡȟİ ʌȠIJȑ IJİȜȚțȐ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ, İȞIJȠȪIJȠȚȢ İȓȞĮȚ ĮįȚĮȝijȚıȕȒIJȘIJȠ ȩIJȚ ȣʌȒȡȟĮȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȠȣ Ș İțțȜȘıȓĮ ĮȞĮȖȞȫȡȚıİ ȦȢ ĮȖȓİȢ. ǼȐȞ ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ ĮȖȓĮ, ȖȚĮIJȓ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ țĮȚ ȝȑȜȠȢ IJȠȣ țȜȒȡȠȣ; 32 Keener, “Women in Ministry”, 56.

566

Chapter Thirty Eight

șİȦȡİȓ Ƞ ıIJ. 15 įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȩIJȚ ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ıȦșİȓ țȣȡȚȠȜİțIJȚțȐ «įȚĮ IJȘȢ IJİțȞȠȖȠȞȓĮȢ» (ǹ’ ȉȚȝ 2,15) țĮșȩIJȚ ĮȣIJȩ ȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ıİ ĮȞIJȓșİıȘ ȝİ IJȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ ȩȜȘȢ IJȘȢ ȣʌȩȜȠȚʌȘȢ īȡĮijȒȢ ʌİȡȓ ıȦIJȘȡȓĮȢ țĮIJȐ ȤȐȡȚȞ. ǵȝȦȢ ȩIJĮȞ ȠȚ ıIJ. 11-14 ȝȠȚȐȗȠȣȞ ȞĮ ȑȡȤȠȞIJĮȚ İʌȓıȘȢ ıİ ĮȞIJȓșİıȘ ȝİ IJȘ įȚįĮıțĮȜȓĮ IJȘȢ ȣʌȩȜȠȚʌȘȢ īȡĮijȒȢ ıȤİIJȚțȐ ȝİ IJȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, įİȞ İijĮȡȝȩȗİIJĮȚ Ș ȓįȚĮ ĮȡȤȒ. īȚĮ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ, ʌȫȢ İȟȘȖİȓIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ ıİ ȐȜȜİȢ ʌİȡȚțȠʌȑȢ, İȝijĮȞȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȠȣ įȚįȐıțȠȣȞ ȐȞįȡİȢ, ȩʌȦȢ Ș ȆȡȓıțȚȜȜĮ IJȠȞ ǹʌȠȜȜȫ (Ȇȡȟ 18,26), ȤȦȡȓȢ ʌȠIJȑ ĮȣIJȩ ȞĮ șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ ȠȜȓıșȘȝĮ; ȅ ȓįȚȠȢ Ƞ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȢ įȚįȐȤșȘțİ IJȘȞ ʌȓıIJȘ Įʌȩ įȪȠ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, IJȘ ȝȘIJȑȡĮ IJȠȣ țĮȚ IJȘ ȖȚĮȖȚȐ IJȠȣ (Ǻ’ ȉȚȝ 1,5, 3,14-15).33 ǹțȩȝĮ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ, Ș ȀȠȜȠııĮİȓȢ 3,16 țĮȚ Ș ǹ’ ȀȠȡȚȞșȓȠȣȢ 14,26 İȞșĮȡȡȪȞȠȣȞ IJȠȣȢ ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȠȪȢ ȞĮ įȚįȐıțȠȣȞ țĮȚ ȞĮ ȞȠȣșİIJȠȪȞ ĮȜȜȒȜȠȣȢ, ĮȞİȟĮȡIJȒIJȦȢ ijȪȜȠȣ.34 ǼʌȚʌȜȑȠȞ, İijȩıȠȞ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ įİȤșİȓ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ıIJ. 13 İțijȡȐȗİȚ ȝȚĮ įȚĮȤȡȠȞȚțȒ ĮȡȤȒ İʌİȚįȒ ıIJȘȡȓȗİIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ, IJȩIJİ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ȚıȤȪİȚ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ıIJ. 14. ȅ ıIJ. 14 ȩȝȦȢ («ਝį੹ȝ Ƞ੝ț ਱ʌĮIJ੾șȘ, ਲ į੻ ȖȣȞ੽ ਥȟĮʌĮIJȘșİ૙ıĮ ਥȞ ʌĮȡĮȕ੺ıİȚ Ȗ੼ȖȠȞİȞ») ȝȠȚȐȗİȚ ȞĮ ȣʌȠȞȠİȓ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȚȠ İȣȐȜȦIJIJİȢ ıIJȘȞ İȟĮʌȐIJȘıȘ Įʌȩ IJȠ įȚȐȕȠȜȠ ıİ ıȤȑıȘ ȝİ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ. ȍıIJȩıȠ, ȝȚĮ IJȑIJȠȚĮ ȐʌȠȥȘ İȓȞĮȚ İʌȚıIJȘȝȠȞȚțȐ, ȥȣȤȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, țĮȚ ijȣıȚțȐ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ ĮȞȣʌȩıIJĮIJȘ: Ș ǺȓȕȜȠȢ ʌȠȣșİȞȐ įİȞ įȚįȐıțİȚ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȜȚȖȩIJİȡȠ ȑȟȣʌȞİȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ. ǼʌȚʌȜȑȠȞ, İȐȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȐ ĮȣIJȩ ȒIJĮȞ IJȠ ȞȩȘȝĮ IJȠȣ ıIJ. 14, IJȩIJİ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ șĮ ȑʌȡİʌİ ȞĮ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȠȪȞ, ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȞĮ įȚįȐıțȠȣȞ ȐȞįȡİȢ, ĮȜȜȐ Įʌȩ țȐșİ İȓįȠȣȢ įȚĮțȠȞȓĮ, ĮijȠȪ țĮȚ İțİȓ șĮ ȒIJĮȞ ʌȚȠ İȣȐȜȦIJIJİȢ ıIJȠ ȞĮ İȟĮʌĮIJȘșȠȪȞ Įʌȩ IJȠ įȚȐȕȠȜȠ. ȀȐIJȚ IJȑIJȠȚȠ ȩȝȦȢ, ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ıIJĮșİȓ ǺȚȕȜȚțȐ țĮȚ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ĮȜȜȐ ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ İȝʌİȚȡȚțȐ: Ș ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘ įİ İȚȡȦȞİȓĮ ȖȚĮ țȐʌȠȚȠȞ ʌȠȣ ȣȚȠșİIJİȓ ȝȚĮ IJȑIJȠȚĮ șȑıȘ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ įȪȠ ȤȚȜȚȐįİȢ ȤȡȩȞȚĮ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒȢ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮȢ įİȓȤȞȠȣȞ ȩIJȚ Ș ıȣȞIJȡȚʌIJȚțȒ ʌȜİȚȠȥȘijȓĮ IJȦȞ ĮȞșȡȫʌȦȞ ʌȠȣ ȟİțȓȞȘıĮȞ ȝȚĮ ĮȓȡİıȘ ȒIJĮȞ ȐȞįȡİȢ. ǼʌȚʌȜȑȠȞ, İȐȞ Ƞ ǹįȐȝ «Ƞ੝ț ਱ʌĮIJ੾șȘ», ĮȣIJȩ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȩIJȚ ĮȝȐȡIJȘıİ ıȣȞİȚįȘIJȐ. ǹȜȜȐ IJȩIJİ ȖȚĮIJȓ ȞĮ șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ ʌȚȠ ĮȟȚȩʌȚıIJȠȢ ĮȣIJȩȢ ʌȠȣ ĮȝȐȡIJȘıİ ıȣȞİȚįȘIJȐ, țĮȚ ȩȤȚ İțİȓȞȘ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȜȐ ĮʌĮIJȒșȘțİ; 35 ȆȐȞIJȦȢ, ȓıȦȢ IJȠ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȠ ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ Įʌȩ ȩȜĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ İȐȞ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ įİȤȩIJĮȞ ȝȚĮ IJȑIJȠȚĮ șİȫȡȘıȘ, IJȩIJİ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ ȠȚ ĮȡȤȑȢ ĮȣIJȑȢ įİȞ ȕĮıȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ıİ İțİȓȞȘ IJȘȢ ȆIJȫıȘȢ. ǹȣIJȩ ȩȝȦȢ ȝȠȚȐȗİȚ ȞĮ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİȓ ȑȞĮ ĮțȩȝĮ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȠ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ 33

Bowman, “Women in Ministry”, 280. Schreiner, “Complementarian View”, 191. 35 Blomberg, “Gender Roles”, 366. 34

The Theological Problematic in the Various Protestant Denominations

567

ʌȡȩȕȜȘȝĮ, ĮijȠȪ İʌȓ IJȘȢ ȠȣıȓĮȢ ıȘȝĮȓȞİȚ ȩIJȚ Ș IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ ȆIJȫıȘȢ țĮIJĮȜȒȖİȚ ȞĮ ȠȡȓȗİȚ IJȘȞ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ țĮȚ IJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮȢ.36 ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠȚ șİȠȜȩȖȠȚ ȣʌȠıIJȘȡȓȗȠȣȞ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ İįȫ įİȞ įȚĮIJȣʌȫȞİȚ ȝȚĮ ȞȑĮ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ʌİȡȚ ĮȝĮȡIJȓĮȢ: ĮȞIJȓșİIJĮ, ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȠȢ ȇȦȝĮȓȠȣȢ 5,12 Ƞ ȓįȚȠȢ țĮIJȘȖȠȡİȓ IJȠȞ ǹįȐȝ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ ȜȐșȠȢ ʌȠȣ ıIJȘȞ ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ 2,14 țĮIJȘȖȠȡİȓ IJȘȞ ǼȪĮ.37 ȈȣȞİʌȫȢ, Ș įȒȜȦıȘ ĮȣIJȒ șĮ ȒIJĮȞ țĮȜȪIJİȡȠ ȞĮ İȡȝȘȞİȣșİȓ ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ İțİȓȞȘ IJȘȢ Ǻ’ ȀȠȡȚȞșȓȠȣȢ 11,3, ȩʌȠȣ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ȝȚĮ ĮȞĮȜȠȖȓĮ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȘȞ İȟĮʌȐIJȘıȘ IJȘȢ ǼȪĮȢ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌȚșĮȞȒ İȟĮʌȐIJȘıȘ ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ ȀȠȡȚȞșȓȦȞ (ĮȞįȡȫȞ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ).38 ǼȞĮȜȜĮțIJȚțȐ, țȐʌȠȚȠȚ ʌȡȠIJİȓȞȠȣȞ țĮȚ ȝȚĮ IJȣʌȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȞȐȖȞȦıȘ IJȠȣ ıIJȓȤȠȣ, țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ, ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȠȣ ĮțȠȜȠȣșȠȪıĮȞ IJȠȣȢ ȥİȣįȠįȚįĮıțȐȜȠȣȢ İțİȓȞȘȢ IJȘȢ İʌȠȤȒȢ İȟĮʌĮIJȫȞIJĮȞ țĮȚ ĮȝȐȡIJĮȞĮȞ ȩʌȦȢ İȓȤİ İȟĮʌĮIJȘșİȓ ıIJȠ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞ țĮȚ Ș ǼȪĮ.39 ǹȜȜȐ ȓıȦȢ Ș ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘ ĮʌȩįİȚȟȘ ȩIJȚ Ș İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ıȣȝʌȜȘȡȦȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ Ƞ ıIJ. 15 («ıȦș੾ıİIJĮȚ į੻ įȚ੹ IJોȢ IJİțȞȠȖȠȞ઀ĮȢ»). Ȃİ ȕȐıȘ IJȠ ıțİʌIJȚțȩ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ, «ȝȚĮ ĮʌȜȒ țȣȡȚȠȜİțIJȚțȒ ĮȞȐȖȞȦıȘ» IJȦȞ ıIJ. 11-14 Įȡțİȓ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ įİȓȟİȚ ȩIJȚ Ș İȞ ȜȩȖȦ ʌİȡȚțȠʌȒ ĮʌĮȖȠȡİȪİȚ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ įȚįȐıțȠȣȞ. ȍıIJȩıȠ, ȝİ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ ıțİʌIJȚțȩ, ȝȚĮ ĮʌȜȒ țȣȡȚȠȜİțIJȚțȒ ĮȞȐȖȞȦıȘ IJȠȣ ıIJ. 15 ȝȠȚȐȗİȚ ȞĮ ȣʌȠȞȠİȓ ȩIJȚ Ș ıȦIJȘȡȓĮ İʌȑȡȤİIJĮȚ įȚĮ IJȘȢ IJİțȞȠȖȠȞȓĮȢ, țĮȚ ȩȤȚ Sola gratia Ȓ Sola fide. Ǿ ĮȞIJȓijĮıȘ ĮȣIJȒ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ Ȝȣșİȓ ȝȩȞȠ İȐȞ Ș ȜȑȟȘ ıȦș‫ޤ‬ıİIJĮȚ İȡȝȘȞİȣșİȓ, ȩȤȚ İıȤĮIJȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, ĮȜȜȐ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȑȞȞȠȚĮ ʌȠȣ ȑȤİȚ ʌȚȠ ıȣȤȞȐ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ İȜȜȘȞȚțȒ ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJİȓĮ, țȠȚȞȫȢ İțİȓȞȘ IJȘȢ ĮʌİȜİȣșȑȡȦıȘȢ.40 ǼʌȚʌȜȑȠȞ, IJȠ țȜİȚįȓ ȖȚĮ ĮȣIJȒȞ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȚțȠʌȒ İȓȞĮȚ ȞĮ ȡȦIJȒıİȚ țĮȞİȓȢ, ȩȤȚ «ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȚ» șĮ ıȦșİȓ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ, ĮȜȜȐ «Įʌȩ IJȚ»: İįȫ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ ȤȡİȚȐȗİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ȜȘijșİȓ ȣʌȩȥȚȞ IJȠ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ ȖȡȐijİIJĮȚ Ș ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ İʌȚıIJȠȜȒ, țĮȚ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȥİȣįȠįȚįȐıțĮȜȠȚ ʌȠȣ İȓȤĮȞ İȝijĮȞȚıIJİȓ ıİ İțİȓȞȘ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȚȠȤȒ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞĮ įȓįĮıțĮȞ ĮʌȠȤȒ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȖȐȝȠ, țĮȚ ȐȡĮ ʌȡȠijĮȞȫȢ țĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ IJİțȞȠȖȠȞȓĮ (ǹ’ ȉȚȝ 4,3).41 ǼȐȞ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ ĮȣIJȒ Ș ĮȞȐȖȞȦıȘ İȓȞĮȚ ıȦıIJȒ, IJȩIJİ Ƞ ıIJ. 15 ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȐ ȜȑİȚ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ șĮ ıȦșȠȪȞ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȜȐȞȘ IJȦȞ ȥİȣįȠįȚįĮıțȐȜȦȞ İȐȞ țȐȞȠȣȞ ĮțȡȚȕȫȢ IJȠ ĮȞIJȓșİIJȠ Įʌȩ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȠȣ İțİȓȞȠȚ įȚįȐıțȠȣȞ: țȠȚȞȫȢ İȐȞ ʌĮȞIJȡİȪȠȞIJĮȚ, țȐȞȠȣȞ ʌĮȚįȚȐ țĮȚ ȗȠȣȞ ȝȚĮ ȗȦȒ ʌȓıIJȘȢ, ĮȖȚȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȚ 36

Daniel Kirk, Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul? A Narrative Approach to the Problem of Pauline Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 2012), 137. 37 Wall, “1 Timothy”, 93. 38 Keener, “Women in Ministry”, 59. 39 Scholer, “1 Timothy 2:9-15”, 114. 40 Keener, Paul, 118. 41 Belleville, “Women”, 137.

568

Chapter Thirty Eight

ıȦijȡȠıȪȞȘȢ. ǼȓȞĮȚ ȜȠȚʌȩȞ ĮȣIJȒ Ș ĮʌĮȖȩȡİȣıȘ įȚĮȤȡȠȞȚțȒ; īȚĮ ȞĮ ĮʌĮȞIJȒıİȚ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ ıİ ĮȣIJȒ IJȘȞ İȡȫIJȘıȘ șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ įȚĮțȡȓȞİȚ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȡȤȒ ȝȚĮȢ İȞIJȠȜȒȢ, țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ İijĮȡȝȠȖȒ IJȘȢ ıİ țȐșİ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ: Ș șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȡȤȒ șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ʌĮȡĮȝȑȞİȚ įȚĮȤȡȠȞȚțȒ, ȩȤȚ ȩȝȦȢ țĮȚ Ƞ IJȡȩʌȠȢ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ ĮȣIJȒ İijĮȡȝȩȗİIJĮȚ ıİ țȐșİ IJȩʌȠ țĮȚ İʌȠȤȒ.42 ȈIJȘȞ ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ 2,11-15 Ș șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȡȤȒ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ įİȞ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ĮȞĮIJȡȑʌȠȣȞ IJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ (ıIJ. 13) țĮȚ șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıȑȤȠȣȞ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ ʌȜĮȞȘșȠȪȞ Įʌȩ ȥİȣįȠįȚįĮıțĮȜȓİȢ (ıIJ. 14), ĮȜȜȐ ȞĮ ȗȠȣȞ ȝİ ıȦijȡȠıȪȞȘ (ıIJ. 15). Ǿ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ İijĮȡȝȠȖȒ ȩȝȦȢ IJȦȞ ĮȡȤȫȞ ĮȣIJȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ ȖȚĮ țȐșİ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ. īȚĮ ʌĮȡȐįİȚȖȝĮ, ıIJȚȢ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡİȢ ǻȣIJȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓİȢ, ȩʌȠȣ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȡȦșȣʌȠȣȡȖȠȓ, İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȓİȢ, ıIJȡĮIJȚȦIJȚțȠȓ, țĮșȘȖȒIJȡȚİȢ ʌĮȞİʌȚıIJȘȝȓȦȞ țȜʌ. (țȠȚȞȫȢ ȞĮ ȘȖȠȪȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȒ, ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȚțȒ, ıIJȡĮIJȚȦIJȚțȒ țĮȚ ĮțĮįȘȝĮȧțȒ ȗȦȒ IJȦȞ IJȩʌȦȞ IJȠȣȢ), IJȩIJİ IJȠ ȞĮ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȠȣ ȞĮ ȘȖȠȪȞIJĮȚ țĮȚ ıIJȘ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ įİȞ İțijȡȐȗİȚ ĮȞĮIJȡȠʌȒ IJȘȢ IJȐȟȘȢ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ, ȩʌȦȢ ĮȣIJȒ İțijȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ıİ İțİȓȞȘ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȚȠȤȒ. Ȉİ ȐȜȜİȢ ʌİȡȚȠȤȑȢ ȩȝȦȢ Ș ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ İijĮȡȝȠȖȒ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ IJİȜİȓȦȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ: ʌ.Ȥ. ıİ ȚıȜĮȝȚțȑȢ ȤȫȡİȢ ȩʌȠȣ IJĮ įȚțĮȚȫȝĮIJĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İȓȞĮȚ İȟĮȚȡİIJȚțȐ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȑȞĮ, Ș ȐțȡȚIJȘ ȣȚȠșȑIJȘıȘ İȞȩȢ ǻȣIJȚțȠȪ ʌȡȠIJȪʌȠȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ ȘȖİıȓĮȢ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ șĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪıİ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȚțȩ ıțȐȞįĮȜȠ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ IJȠʌȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓİȢ, ĮijȠȪ ıIJĮ ȝȐIJȚĮ IJȦȞ ȝȘ-ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȫȞ Ș İțțȜȘıȓĮ ȝȑıȦ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒȢ șĮ İijȐȡȝȠȗİ țȐIJȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȐ ȚıȠʌİįȠIJȚțȩ. ǹȣIJȠȞȩȘIJĮ ĮȣIJȩ șĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪıİ ʌȡȩıțȠȝȝĮ ıIJȘȞ ʌȡȩȠįȠ IJȠȣ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ, țĮȚ ȦȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ șĮ ȒIJĮȞ ȝȚĮ İʌȚȜȠȖȒ ȩȤȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȜĮȞșĮıȝȑȞȘ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ĮȞIJȓșİIJȘ ȝİ IJȘ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ĮȡȤȒ IJȘȢ ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ 2,8-15, ʌȠȣ İȓȞĮȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ ȗȠȣȞ ȝİ ıȦijȡȠıȪȞȘ (ıIJ. 15) țĮȚ ȝİ IJȡȩʌȠȣȢ ʌȠȣ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ ĮȞĮIJȡȑʌȠȣȞ IJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ (ıIJ. 13) ȩʌȦȢ ĮȣIJȒ İțijȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ıİ țȐșİ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ țĮȚ İʌȠȤȒ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, Ș İȡȝȘȞİȓĮ ĮȣIJȒ įİȞ țĮIJĮȜȒȖİȚ ıİ ȝȓĮ ȠȚțȠȣȝİȞȚțȒ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ ȖȚĮ țȐșİ İʌȠȤȒ, ĮȜȜȐ İȞĮʌȠșȑIJİȚ ıİ țȐșİ İțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȘȞ İȣșȪȞȘ ȞĮ İʌȚȜȑȟİȚ ȝİ ıȠijȓĮ țĮȚ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ IJȠ ʌȫȢ șĮ İțijȡȐıİȚ IJȠ ǼȣĮȖȖȑȜȚȠ ıIJȚȢ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡİȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ țĮȚ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȑȢ ıȣȞșȒțİȢ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȚȢ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȗİȚ. 2. ǼʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ Įʌȩ IJȘ ijȪıȘ, IJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘ ȆȑȡĮ Įʌȩ IJĮ ĮȞȦIJȑȡȦ ȕȚȕȜȚțȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ, ȠȚ ȣʌȑȡȝĮȤȠȚ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ İʌȚțĮȜȠȪȞIJĮȚ ıȣȤȞȐ țĮȚ ȐȜȜĮ, ȩʌȦȢ IJȘȞ ȚıȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ijȪȜȦȞ Įʌȩ ʌȜİȣȡȐȢ ijȣıȚțȒȢ, ȕȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ țĮȚ 42

Schreiner, “Complementarian View”, 229.

The Theological Problematic in the Various Protestant Denominations

569

ȥȣȤȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ĮȞȐȜȣıȘȢ.43 Ȉİ ȐȜȜİȢ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ, ȚıIJȠȡȚțȠȓ ȑȤȠȣȞ İȡİȣȞȒıİȚ įȚİȟȠįȚțȐ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ țĮȚ ȑȤȠȣȞ įİȓȟİȚ ȩIJȚ IJȠ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ ȩIJȚ «ĮȞȑțĮșİȞ» Ș ȘȖİıȓĮ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓIJȠ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȐ Įʌȩ ȐȞįȡİȢ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȝȚĮ İʌȚțȓȞįȣȞȘ ȖİȞȓțİȣıȘ. ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ, Ș İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȖİȝȐIJȘ Įʌȩ ʌĮȡĮįİȓȖȝĮIJĮ IJȩıȠ IJȦȞ ǻȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ ıIJȘȞ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒ, ȩıȠ țĮȚ įİțȐįȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘ ǻȪıȘ ʌȠȣ ȑțĮȞĮȞ ĮȚıșȘIJȒ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȠ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȩ ȖȓȖȞİıșĮȚ IJȘȢ İʌȠȤȒȢ IJȠȣȢ.44 ȉȑȜȠȢ, ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠȚ ʌĮȡĮIJȘȡȠȪȞ ȩIJȚ, ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ ıIJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ įȠȣȜİȓĮȢ, ȑIJıȚ țĮȚ ıİ ĮȣIJȩ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, Ș ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ıİ ĮȣIJȐ IJĮ șȑȝĮIJĮ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȐ įȚĮȝȠȡijȫșȘțİ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌĮIJȡȚĮȡȤȚțȒ ȞȠȠIJȡȠʌȓĮ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ țĮȚ ȜȚȖȩIJİȡȠ Įʌȩ IJȘ ǺȚȕȜȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ, țĮȚ ȐȡĮ ȑȤİȚ ȑȡșİȚ Ș ȫȡĮ Ș IJİȜİȣIJĮȓĮ ȞĮ ȜȐȕİȚ ʌȐȜȚ IJȘ șȑıȘ IJȘȢ.45

III. ǹȞIJȓ ıȣȝʌİȡĮıȝȐIJȦȞ: ǼȡȦIJȒȝĮIJĮ ʌȡȠȢ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚıȝȩ Ǿ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ıȣȗȒIJȘıȘ įȓȞİȚ ȝȩȞȠ ȝȓĮ ȖİȪıȘ IJȘȢ ʌȠȜȣʌȜȠțȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȠȣ ȩȜȠȣ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ, țĮșȫȢ ȠȚ įȪȠ ʌȜİȣȡȑȢ İȡȝȘȞİȪȠȣȞ IJȚȢ ȓįȚİȢ ʌİȡȚțȠʌȑȢ ȝİ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȠȪȢ IJȡȩʌȠȣȢ. ǵʌȦȢ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ țĮIJĮȞȠȘIJȩ, țĮȚ ȠȚ įȪȠ ʌȜİȣȡȑȢ ȑȤȠȣȞ ȚıȤȣȡȐ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ ıIJȘ įȚȐșİıȒ IJȠȣȢ: Ǿ ȝİȞ İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮIJȐ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝȠȚȐȗİȚ ȞĮ ȣʌİȡIJİȡİȓ ıİ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒȝĮIJĮ ȩʌȦȢ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȆȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȑȢ ǼʌȚıIJȠȜȑȢ țȐȞȠȣȞ ȜȩȖȠ ȝȩȞȠ ȖȚĮ ȐȞįȡİȢ ȆȡİıȕȣIJȑȡȠȣȢ (ǹ’ ȉȚȝ 3,1-7 țĮȚ ȉȚIJ 1,5-9), țĮȚ ȩIJȚ Ș IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ ȩȞIJȦȢ ȕȜȑʌİȚ IJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ ȦȢ IJȘȞ țİijĮȜȒ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ, ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȀĮȚȞȒ ǻȚĮșȒțȘ (ǹ’ ȀȠȡ 11,3, Ǽij 5,22-24). ǹȞIJȓıIJȠȚȤĮ, Ș İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮ ȣʌȑȡ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝȠȚȐȗİȚ ȞĮ ȣʌİȡIJİȡİȓ ıİ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠȣȢ ȐȜȜȠȣȢ IJȠȝİȓȢ, țĮȚ ıȣȖțİțȡȚȝȑȞĮ ıIJȘ ȝİȖȐȜȘ ʌȚșĮȞȩIJȘIJĮ ȞĮ ȣʌȒȡȤİ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ (ȇȦȝ 16,7), ıIJȘȞ ʌȚȠ ʌİȚıIJȚțȒ İȟȒȖȘıȘ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȦȞ ȤȦȡȓȦȞ-țȜİȚįȚȫȞ ȩʌȦȢ Ș ǹ’ ȀȠȡȚȞșȓȠȣȢ 14,33-36 țĮȚ Ș ǹ’ ȉȚȝȩșİȠȞ 2,8-15, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮȞȐįİȚȟȘ IJȠȣ ȖİȖȠȞȩIJȠȢ ȩIJȚ IJȠ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡȠ ʌȞİȪȝĮ IJȘȢ ȀĮȚȞȒȢ ǻȚĮșȒțȘȢ įȓȞİȚ ȝȚĮ İȚțȩȞĮ ȠȜȠȑȞĮ țĮȚ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘȢ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ǼȐȞ įİ țȐʌȠȚȠȢ ĮȞĮȖȞȦȡȓıİȚ țĮȚ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ Ș ȋȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒ ǹȞĮIJȠȜȒ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȠȪıİ ǻȚĮțȩȞȚııİȢ țĮIJȐ IJȠȣȢ ʌȡȫIJȠȣȢ ĮȚȫȞİȢ, IJȩIJİ țĮȚ 43

Mary Stewart Van Leeuwen, Gender & Grace: Love, Work & Parenting in a Changing World (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1990). 44 John L. Thompson, Women in Church History and Theology, ȈȘȝİȚȫıİȚȢ ıIJȠ ȝȐșȘȝĮ CH575 (Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, Winter 2012), 16-30. 45 Karkkainen, Ecclesiology and Eschatology, 71. Grudem, Systematic Theology, 943.

570

Chapter Thirty Eight

IJȠ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ İț IJȘȢ ȆĮȡĮįȩıİȦȢ ȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ȣʌȑȡ IJȘȢ ıȣȞȑȤȚıȘȢ IJȘȢ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ ıȒȝİȡĮ. ȆȠȚȠ İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ ıȣȝʌȑȡĮıȝĮ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, Įʌȩ IJĮ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ; ȆȡȠijĮȞȫȢ įİȞ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ ȑȞĮ ȝȩȞȠ ıȣȝʌȑȡĮıȝĮ, ĮijȠȪ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȑȢ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȑȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ țĮIJĮȜȒȖȠȣȞ ıİ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȑȢ ĮʌĮȞIJȒıİȚȢ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, Ș ʌĮȡȠȪıĮ İȚıȒȖȘıȘ įİȞ șĮ İʌȚȤİȚȡȒıİȚ ȞĮ įȫıİȚ «IJȘȞ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ», ĮȜȜȐ ȞĮ șȑıİȚ ȝİȡȚțȐ țĮȓȡȚĮ İȡȦIJȒȝĮIJĮ, țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȒ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒ. īȚĮ ȝİȞ IJȘȞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȓșİȞIJĮȚ IJȡİȚȢ ʌȡȠțȜȒıİȚȢ: ȆȡȫIJȠȞ, ʌĮȡȐ IJȘȞ İȞįİȜİȤȒ İȟȑIJĮıȘ IJȘȢ ǺȚȕȜȚțȒȢ İʌȚȤİȚȡȘȝĮIJȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ İʌȓ IJȠȣ șȑȝĮIJȠȢ, Ș ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚțȒ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ ıȣȤȞȐ ȣıIJİȡİȓ ıIJȘ șİȫȡȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ Įʌȩ ȐȜȜİȢ ʌȜİȣȡȑȢ IJȠȣ. ǼȞįİȚțIJȚțȑȢ ʌIJȣȤȑȢ ʌȠȣ șĮ ȤȡȒȗĮȞİ ʌİȡĮȚIJȑȡȦ įȚİȡİȪȞȘıȘȢ șĮ ȒIJĮȞ IJȩıȠ Ș ȚıIJȠȡȚțȒ ʌIJȣȤȒ (ȝİȜȑIJȘ ıİ ȕȐșȠȢ IJȘȢ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒȢ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ĮȞȐ IJȠȣȢ ĮȚȫȞİȢ țĮȚ ıȦıIJȒ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȘȢ ȆĮȡȐįȠıȘȢ ıIJȘ įȚĮȝȩȡijȦıȘ IJȘȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ), ȩıȠ țĮȚ ȝȚĮ İȣȡȪIJİȡȘ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ șİȫȡȘıȘ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȦȞ İȡȦIJȘȝȐIJȦȞ IJĮ ȠʌȠȓĮ Ƞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚıȝȩȢ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ ȑȤİȚ İȟİIJȐıİȚ ȝȑȤȡȚ IJȫȡĮ ȝİ IJȘȞ įȑȠȣıĮ ʌȡȠıȠȤȒ (ʌ.Ȥ. Ș șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ıȘȝĮıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȑȝijȣȜȠȣ Ȓ ȐijȣȜȠȣ IJȠȣ ıĮȡțȦșȑȞIJȠȢ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ). ǻİȪIJİȡȠȞ, Ƞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚıȝȩȢ șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ țȐȞİȚ IJȘȞ ĮȣIJȠțȡȚIJȚțȒ IJȠȣ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ IJȠȣȢ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓȠȣȢ įȪȠ ĮȚȫȞİȢ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȑȤİȚ ıȣȤȞȐ ĮʌȠIJİȜȑıİȚ ȜȩȖȠ įİțȐįȦȞ ıȤȚıȝȐIJȦȞ. ǻİȞ İȓȞĮȚ įȣȞĮIJȩȞ Ș șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȞĮ ʌȡȠȦșİȓIJĮȚ ıİ ȕȐȡȠȢ ȝȚĮȢ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮȢ IJȘȢ İȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ. ǹʌȠIJİȜİȓ IJȠȣȜȐȤȚıIJȠȞ ʌĮȡȐįȠȟȠ ijĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠ IJȠ ijȪȜȠ IJȠȣ ʌȠȚȝȑȞĮ Ȓ IJȠȣ İʌȚıțȩʌȠȣ țȐșİ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ĮȚIJȓĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘ įȚȐıʌĮıȘ IJȘȢ İȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ, IJȘ ıIJȚȖȝȒ ʌȠȣ Ƞ ȓįȚȠȢ Ƞ ʌȠȚȝȑȞĮȢ (Ȓ Ƞ İʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ) țĮȞȠȞȚțȐ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ țĮIJİȟȠȤȒȞ İțijȡĮıIJȒȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ IJȘȢ İȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ȉȡȓIJȠȞ, Ƞ ȆȡȠIJİıIJĮȞIJȚıȝȩȢ șĮ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȜȠȖȚıIJİȓ ʌȠȜȪ ıȠȕĮȡȐ IJȘ įȚĮʌȓıIJȦıȘ ȩIJȚ Ƞ IJȡȩʌȠȢ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ İțijȡȐȗİIJĮȚ Ș IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ įȚĮijȑȡİȚ ıİ țȐșİ IJȩʌȠ țĮȚ İʌȠȤȒ. ȍȢ İț IJȠȪIJȠȣ, ȤȡİȚȐȗİIJĮȚ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡȘ ʌȡȠıȠȤȒ IJȠ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ IJȘȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ İijĮȡȝȩȗİIJĮȚ ȐțȡȚIJĮ ıİ țȐșİ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮ IJȠȣ țȩıȝȠȣ, țĮșȫȢ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ ijĮȚȞȩȝİȞȠ ʌȠȣ ıİ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞİȢ ǻȣIJȚțȑȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓİȢ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ șİȦȡȘșİȓ ĮȞĮȖȞȫȡȚıȘ IJȘȢ ĮȟȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ıİ ȐȜȜİȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓİȢ ȞĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜȑıİȚ ıțȐȞįĮȜȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ʌȡȩȠįȠ IJȠȣ ǼȣĮȖȖİȜȓȠȣ. ȈȣȞİʌȫȢ ȤȡİȚȐȗİIJĮȚ ȝİȖȐȜȘ įȚȐțȡȚıȘ ıIJȠ ʌȠȪ țĮȚ ʌȩIJİ İȓȞĮȚ ȫȡȚȝİȢ ȠȚ ıȣȞșȒțİȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ İijĮȡȝȠȖȒ ȝȚĮȢ IJȑIJȠȚĮȢ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȒȢ, țĮȚ İȪȡİıȘ İȞĮȜȜĮțIJȚțȫȞ IJȡȩʌȦȞ ĮȟȚȠʌȠȓȘıȘȢ IJȦȞ ȤĮȡȚıȝȐIJȦȞ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȩIJĮȞ ȠȚ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȑȢ ıȣȞșȒțİȢ įİȞ İʌȚIJȡȑʌȠȣȞ IJȘ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȓĮ IJȠȣȢ. ȉȑȜȠȢ, Ș ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİȓ IJȡİȚȢ ʌȡȠțȜȒıİȚȢ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ. ȆȡȫIJȠȞ, Ș ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȘȢ

The Theological Problematic in the Various Protestant Denominations

571

ǿȠȣȞȓĮȢ (IJȘȞ ȠʌȠȓĮ Ș ȓįȚĮ Ș ȅȡșȠįȠȟȓĮ ĮȞĮȖȞȦȡȓȗİȚ ȦȢ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠ țĮȚ ĮȖȓĮ) įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖİȓ ȞȑĮ įİįȠȝȑȞĮ ıIJȘȞ ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȒ șİȫȡȘıȘ IJȠȣ ȗȘIJȒȝĮIJȠȢ, ĮijȠȪ, ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ İȐȞ ȠȚ ǻȫįİțĮ ĮʌȩıIJȠȜȠȚ ȒIJĮȞ ȩȜȠȚ ȐȞįȡİȢ, İȞIJȠȪIJȠȚȢ Ș ȪʌĮȡȟȘ ȝȚĮȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ĮʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣ ĮȝȑıȦȢ ȖİȞȞȐ İȡȦIJȒȝĮIJĮ ȖȚĮ IJȠ İȐȞ IJİȜȚțȐ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ țȐʌȠȚĮ șȑıȘ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ ʌȠȣ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ȩȞIJȦȢ țȜİȚıIJȒ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ. ȀȠȚȞȫȢ, İȐȞ ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıİ ȞĮ İȓȞĮȚ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ, IJȚ șĮ İȝʌȩįȚȗİ ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıȒȝİȡĮ ȞĮ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȘșİȓ țĮȚ ıİ șȑıİȚȢ ĮȞȫIJİȡİȢ Įʌȩ ĮȣIJȒ IJȘȢ ǻȚĮțȩȞȚııĮȢ; ȀĮȚ İȐȞ ȝȚĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ ĮȖȓĮ, ȖȚĮIJȓ įİȞ ȝʌȠȡİȓ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ įȚĮțȩȞȚııĮ; ǻİȪIJİȡȠȞ, ĮțȩȝĮ țĮȚ İȐȞ ʌȠIJȑ įİȞ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞȒșȘțĮȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, Ș ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȩıȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȜĮȧțȫȞ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȠȣȢ ıȣȞİȡȖȐIJİȢ IJȠȣ ǹʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣ ȆĮȪȜȠȣ ĮȞĮįİȚțȞȪİȚ IJȘȞ ıʌȠȣįĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȘȢ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ, ȑıIJȦ țĮȚ ȦȢ ȜĮȧțȫȞ. ȉȓșİȞIJĮȚ, İʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞĮ ȐȜȜĮ İȡȦIJȒȝĮIJĮ İįȫ: ȝİ ʌȠȚȠȣȢ IJȡȩʌȠȣȢ ȝʌȠȡİȓ țȐșİ İȞȠȡȓĮ ȞĮ İȞȚıȤȪıİȚ IJȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȦȞ ȜĮȧțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȚĮıIJȚțȒ IJȘȢ ȗȦȒ; ȂʌȠȡİȓ ȝȚĮ İȞȠȡȓĮ ȞĮ ȑȤİȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝİ ʌȠȚȝĮȞIJȚțȐ (ȑıIJȦ țĮȚ ȝȘȝȣıIJȘȡȚĮțȐ) țĮșȒțȠȞIJĮ, ȩʌȦȢ țȐȞȠȣȞ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ ȀĮșȠȜȚțȑȢ İȞȠȡȓİȢ ıIJȠ İȟȦIJİȡȚțȩ; ȀĮȚ ȕȑȕĮȚĮ, ʌȫȢ ĮʌȠIJȚȝȐ Ș ȅȡșȩįȠȟȘ İțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ǹʌȩıIJȠȜȠȢ ȆĮȪȜȠȢ İʌȑIJȡİʌİ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıİȪȤȠȞIJĮȚ įȘȝȩıȚĮ ıIJȘ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȒ ıȪȞĮȟȘ (ǹǯ ȀȠȡ 11, 2-16); Ȃİ ȕȐıȘ ĮȣIJȒ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȚțȠʌȒ, ȝİ ʌȠȚȠȣȢ IJȡȩʌȠȣȢ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȞ ıȒȝİȡĮ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıİȣȤȘșȠȪȞ įȘȝȩıȚĮ ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȘȢ șİȓĮȢ ȁİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ; ȉȡȓIJȠȞ, Ș įȚĮțȒȡȣȟȘ ȩIJȚ İȞ ȋȡȚıIJȫ «Ƞ੝ț ਩ȞȚ ਙȡıİȞ țĮ੿ șોȜȣ» ȝĮȢ ʌȡȠțĮȜİȓ ȞĮ ıțİijIJȠȪȝİ İȐȞ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ IJȠȝİȓȢ ıIJȚȢ İțțȜȘıȓİȢ ȝĮȢ ıIJȠȣȢ ȠʌȠȓȠȣȢ țȚȞȠȪȝĮıIJİ ĮțȩȝĮ ȝİ ȕȐıȘ IJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ ȆIJȫıȘȢ țĮȚ ȩȤȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ «țĮȚȞȒȢ țIJȓıİȦȢ». ǵIJĮȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮʌȠțȜİȓȠȞIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ IJȐȟȘ IJȦȞ įȚĮțȠȞȚııȫȞ, ʌĮȡȩIJȚ Ș IJİȜİȣIJĮȓĮ İȓȞĮȚ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȫȢ țĮȚ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȫȢ țĮIJȠȤȣȡȦȝȑȞȘ, Ȓ ȩIJĮȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮʌȠțȜİȓȠȞIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȞĮ İȚıȑȜșȠȣȞ ıIJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ İʌİȚįȒ șİȦȡȠȪȞIJĮȚ «ĮțȐșĮȡIJİȢ», țȠȚȞȫȢ ȩIJĮȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ĮʌȠțȜİȓȠȞIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ İțțȜȘıȓĮȢ ȝȩȞȠ țĮȚ ȝȩȞȠ İʌİȚįȒ İȓȞĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, ĮȞĮȡȦIJȚȑIJĮȚ țĮȞİȓȢ ʌȠȚĮ IJȐȟȘ țȣȕİȡȞȐ ĮȣIJȒ IJȘȞ İțțȜȘıȓĮ; ȆȠȪ ʌȒȖİ Ș IJȐȟȘ IJȘȢ «țĮȚȞȒȢ țIJȓıİȦȢ»; ȉȠ ȕȑȕĮȚȠ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ Ș ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ ıIJȘȞ ǼȜȜȐįĮ ıȒȝİȡĮ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ IJȠ ʌİȡȚșȫȡȚȠ ȞĮ ȝİȓȞİȚ ȐȜȜȠ ıIJȐıȚȝȘ: ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ȗȒIJȘȝĮ İʌȚȕȓȦıȘȢ ȖȚĮ ĮȣIJȒȞ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȖȞȦȡȓıİȚ IJȘȞ ĮȟȓĮ țĮȚ IJĮ ȤĮȡȓıȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ Ƞ ĬİȩȢ ȑȤİȚ įȫıİȚ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȠȣ IJȘȞ ĮʌĮȡIJȓȗȠȣȞ, țĮȚ ȞĮ įȘȝȚȠȣȡȖȒıİȚ ȑȞĮ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ ıIJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ ĮȣIJȐ IJĮ ȤĮȡȓıȝĮIJĮ șĮ ʌȡȠıȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȚ țĮȚ șĮ ĮȟȚȠʌȠȚȠȪȞIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȠȚțȠįȠȝȒ IJȠȣ ȈȫȝĮIJȠȢ IJȠȣ ȋȡȚıIJȠȪ.

572

Chapter Thirty Eight

ǺȚȕȜȚȠȖȡĮijȓĮ Barnett, P.W., “Apostle,” Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, eds. G. Hawthorne et al., Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1993. Beck, James R. and Craig Blomberg. “Reflections on Egalitarian Essays,” Two Views on Women in Ministry. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001. Belleville, Linda. “The Egalitarian View: Women in Ministry,” Two Views on Women in Ministry, eds. J. Beck and C. Blomberg. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001. Blomberg, Craig. “Neither Hierarchicalist nor Egalitarian: Gender Roles in Paul,” Two Views on Women in Ministry, eds. J. Beck and C. Blomberg. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001. Bowman, Ann. “The Complementarian View: Women in Ministry,” Two Views on Women in Ministry, eds. J. Beck and C. Blomberg. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001. Burer, Michael H. and Daniel B. Wallace. “Was Junia really an apostle? A reexamination of Romans 16:7”, New Testament Studies 47 (2001): 7691. Cervin, Richard, “A note Regarding the Name ‘Junia(s)’ in Romans 16:7,” New Testament Studies 40 (1994):464-70. Cohick, Lynn. Women in the world of the earliest Christians. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 2009. Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987. Gaventa, Beverly. Our Mother Saint Paul: Toward the Recovery of a Neglected Theme. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Grenz, Stanley J. and Denise Muir Kjesbo. Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry. Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1995. Grudem, Wayne A. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House, 2004. Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Crossway Commentaries. Crossway: Philadelphia, 1994. Jewett, Paul. The Ordination of Women: An Essay on the Office of Christian Ministry. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Kärkkäinen, Veli-Matti. Ecclesiology and Eschatology. ȈȘȝİȚȫıİȚȢ ıIJȠ ȝȐșȘȝĮ ST503, Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, Winter 2011. Keener, Craig S. “Women in Ministry: The Egalitarian View,” Two Views

The Theological Problematic in the Various Protestant Denominations

573

on Women in Ministry, eds. J. Beck and C. Blomberg. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001. —. Paul, women and wives: marriage and women's ministry in the letters of Paul. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1992. —. The IVP Bible background commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1993. Kirk, J. R. Daniel. Jesus Have I Loved, but Paul? A Narrative Approach to the Problem of Pauline Christianity. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 2012. Levine, Amy-Jill. Feminist Companion to Paul: Deutero-Pauline Writings. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Moo, Douglas. The Epistle to the Romans. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1996. Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. The New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995. Piper, John and Wayne A. Grudem. Recovering biblical manhood and womanhood: A response to Evangelical feminism. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1991. Scholer, David. Women in Ministry: A Biblical Basis for Equal Partnership: Women and Men in the Ministry of the Church. Pasadena, Ca: Fuller Theological Seminary. Schreiner, Thomas R. “A Dialogue with Scholarship,” Women in the Church: A Fresh Analysis of 1 Timothy 2:9-15, eds. T. Schreiner, A. Köstenberger, and S. Baldwin. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker, 1995. —. “The Complementarian View: Women in Ministry,” Two Views on Women in Ministry, eds. J. Beck and C. Blomberg. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2001. Thompson, John L. John Calvin and the Daughters of Sarah: Women in Regular and Exceptional Roles in the Exegesis of Calvin, His Predecessors, and His Contemporaries. Geneve: Librairie Droz, 1992. —. Women in Church History and Theology, ȈȘȝİȚȫıİȚȢ ıIJȠ ȝȐșȘȝĮ CH575, Pasadena: Fuller Theological Seminary, Winter 2012. ǻȚĮșȑıȚȝȠ ıIJȠ http://documents.fuller.edu/sot/faculty/thompson_john/homepage.htm Van Leeuwen, Mary Stewart. Gender & Grace: Love, Work & Parenting in a Changing World. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1990. Wall, Robert. “1 Timothy 2:9-15 Reconsidered (Again)”. Bulletin for Biblical Research 14.1 (2004):81-103.

574

Chapter Thirty Eight

Willson, Kenneth, “Should Women Wear Head Coverings?” Bibliotheca Sacra 48, no. 592 (1991): 453. Winter, Bruce. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities. Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 2003.

CHAPTER THIRTY NINE THE LITURGICAL PRESENCE OF WOMEN IN ANCIENT GREECE ANNA KOLTSIOU

Abstract: The perception of women as having a limited role in ancient Greece, especially in Athens, has been overturned by studies of the last few decades. The role and presence of women has been illuminated by utilizing archeological findings, fragmentary textual testimonies and, especially, epigraphic evidence. In addition, a sociological perspective highlights an increasingly important aspect of women’s activity: their participation in religious rituals during the classical era. Women’s priesthood allowed for equal, hegemonic participation in public life, although it did not disrupt the social or economic dependence on the authority of men. During these rituals, women were able to have a strong, visible presence in the public life of the city, while serving and honoring the gods, the institution of family, and local citizens. So, functioning within their socially established role as priestesses, women had a growing significance in terms of reinforcing the idea and practice of communal life.

ȉȠ șȑȝĮ ʌȠȣ șĮ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐıȦ țĮIJ’ ĮȞȐȖțȘ ȝĮȢ ȝİIJĮijȑȡİȚ ıİ ȑȞĮ İȞIJİȜȫȢ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ, ȤȡȠȞȚțȐ țĮȚ șİȠȜȠȖȚțȐ, țĮȚ ȑȟȦ Įʌȩ IJĮ ȩȡȚĮ İȞIJȩȢ IJȦȞ ȠʌȠȓȦȞ İțijȡȐıIJȘțİ Ș ȦȢ IJȫȡĮ ʌȡȠȕȜȘȝĮIJȚțȒ.

ǼȚıĮȖȦȖȚțȐ. Ǿ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ țĮȚ Ƞ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȖİȞȚțȐ Ǿ İʌȚțȡĮIJȠȪıĮ İȚțȩȞĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘ șȑıȘ țĮȚ IJȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ǼȜȜȐįĮ, İȓȞĮȚ ȦȢ ȖȞȦıIJȩȞ ĮȡțȠȪȞIJȦȢ ĮȡȞȘIJȚțȒ, ʌĮȡȐ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ ȖİȞȚțȐ Ș ȝȠȡijȒ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ İȜȜȘȞȚțȒ ȜȠȖȠIJİȤȞȓĮ țĮȚ IJȑȤȞȘ İȓȞĮȚ ȑȞIJȠȞȘ, ĮijȠȪ Ȝ.Ȥ. Ș ĮȡȤĮȓĮ İȜȜȘȞȚțȒ ʌȠȓȘıȘ ĮȞĮIJȑȜȜİȚ IJȠȞ 8Ƞ ĮȚȫȞĮ ȝİ ȑȞĮ ȑȡȖȠ ıIJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ țȣȡȓĮȡȤȘ İȓȞĮȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ ȝȠȡijȒ IJȘȢ ȦȡĮȓĮȢ ǼȜȑȞȘȢ, ȑȟȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ įȫįİțĮ șİȠȪȢ IJȠȣ ȅȜȪμʌȠȣ ȒIJĮȞ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ țĮȚ ȠȚ μȚıȑȢ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ IJȡĮȖȦįȓİȢ țĮȚ IJȚȢ țȦμȦįȓİȢ ʌȠȣ ıȫșȘțĮȞ μȑȤȡȚ IJȚȢ ȘμȑȡİȢ μĮȢ ijȑȡȠȣȞ ȠȞȩμĮIJĮ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ Ȓ ȑȤȠȣȞ ȤȠȡȠȪȢ ĮʌȠIJİȜȠȪμİȞȠȣȢ Įʌȩ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ.

576

Chapter Thirty Nine

ǵȝȦȢ, IJĮ ʌȡȩıȦʌĮ ʌȠȣ ȖȞȦȡȓȗȠȣȝİ ȞĮ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȠʌȠȚȠȪȞIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ ıIJȘ ıȣȞIJȡȚʌIJȚțȒ IJȠȣȢ ʌȜİȚȠȥȘijȓĮ ĮȞȒțȠȣȞ ıİ ȐȞįȡİȢ. ǹȞIJȓșİIJĮ, ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȘȞ ǹȡȤĮȓĮ ǼȜȜȐįĮ țĮȚ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ ıIJȘȞ ǹșȒȞĮ įİȞ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ȑʌĮȚȗĮȞ țȐʌȠȚȠ ȡȩȜȠ ıIJȘȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȒ ıțȘȞȒ. ǻİȞ İȓȤĮȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȐ įȚțĮȚȫȝĮIJĮ, įİȞ İȓȤĮȞ ȜȩȖȠ ıIJȘ ǺȠȣȜȒ, įİȞ ȝİIJİȓȤĮȞ ıIJȚȢ įȓțİȢ. ǹȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ȚįȚȦIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ Ș ȖİȞȚțȒ İȞIJȪʌȦıȘ İȓȞĮȚ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ İȓȞĮȚ ıȚȦʌȘȜȑȢ, ȣʌȠȤȦȡȘIJȚțȑȢ, ıȤİįȩȞ ĮȩȡĮIJİȢ, ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȑȞİȢ ıIJĮ ȩȡȚĮ IJȠȣ ȞȠȚțȠțȣȡȚȠȪ, ȩʌȠȣ ijȡȠȞIJȓȗȠȣȞ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ȠȚțȚĮțȑȢ İȡȖĮıȓİȢ, IJĮ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȚțȐ IJȠȣ ȠȓțȠȣ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮIJȡȠijȒ IJȦȞ ʌĮȚįȚȫȞ IJȠȣȢ.1 Ǿ İȞIJȪʌȦıȘ ĮȣIJȒ ĮʌȠȡȡȑİȚ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȖİȖȠȞȩȢ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȡĮȝȝĮIJİȚĮțȑȢ ʌȘȖȑȢ țȣȡȓȦȢ IJȠȣ 4Ƞȣ ĮȚȫȞĮ ijĮȓȞİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ĮʌȠijİȪȖȠȣȞ ȞĮ țȐȞȠȣȞ ȜȩȖȠ ȐȝİıĮ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ. ǹȣIJȒ Ș ıȚȦʌȒ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ-ıȣȖȖȡĮijȑȦȞ įİȞ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ȝĮȢ İțʌȜȒııİȚ, ĮijȠȪ ĮȞIJȚțĮIJȠʌIJȡȓȗİȚ ȝȚĮ ĮȞįȡȠțİȞIJȡȚțȒ ȚįİȠȜȠȖȓĮ, ʌȠȣ įȚĮIJȣʌȫȞİȚ ȝİ ʌȠȜȜȒ ıĮijȒȞİȚĮ Ƞ ĬȠȣțȣįȓįȘȢ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ İȟĮȓȡİȚ țĮȚ șİȦȡİȓ ȝİȖȐȜİȢ İțİȓȞİȢ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, ʌİȡȓ IJȦȞ ĮȡİIJȫȞ Ȓ İȜĮIJIJȦȝȐIJȦȞ IJȦȞ ȠʌȠȓȦȞ ȖȓȞİIJĮȚ ȩıȠȞ IJȠ įȣȞĮIJȩȞ ȜȚȖȩIJİȡȠȢ ȜȩȖȠȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ. (ȅȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȝȚȜȠȪȞ ȩıȠ IJȠ įȣȞĮIJȩȞ ȜȚȖȩIJİȡȠ ȠȚ ȐȞįȡİȢ) *** ȍıIJȩıȠ, ȠȚ ȑȡİȣȞİȢ IJȦȞ IJȡȚȫȞ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓȦȞ įİțĮİIJȚȫȞ ȑȡȤȠȞIJĮȚ ȞĮ ĮȞĮIJȡȑȥȠȣȞ IJȘȞ ȐʌȠȥȘ ĮȣIJȒ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ. Ǿ ĮȟȚȠʌȠȓȘıȘ ĮʌȠıʌĮıȝĮIJȚțȫȞ țİȚȝİȞȚțȫȞ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȚȫȞ, İʌȚȖȡĮijȚțȫȞ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȚȫȞ țĮȚ țȣȡȓȦȢ ĮȡȤĮȚȠȜȠȖȚțȫȞ İȣȡȘȝȐIJȦȞ ȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ijȦIJȓıİȚ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ țĮȚ ȝİ IJȘ ıȣȞįȡȠȝȒ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȚȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ʌȡȠıȑȖȖȚıȘȢ ȞĮ ĮȞĮįİȓȟİȚ ȝȚĮ ʌȠȜȪ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ ʌȜİȣȡȐ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȠʌȠȓȘıȘȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ĮȡȤĮȓĮȢ İȜȜȘȞȚțȒȢ ʌȩȜȘȢ: Ș ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ ĮȣIJȒ ıȤİIJȓȗİIJĮȚ ȝİ IJȘ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJĮ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȐ įȡȫȝİȞĮ. DzIJıȚ, ȑȤİȚ ĮȞIJȚıIJȡĮijİȓ Ș İȚțȩȞĮ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȞİȩIJİȡȠȚ ȝİȜİIJȘIJȑȢ İıIJȚȐȗȠȣȞ ʌȜȑȠȞ ȩȤȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮʌȠȝȩȞȦıȘ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȘȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ıIJĮ țİȓȝİȞĮ țĮȚ IJĮ İȣȡȒȝĮIJĮ İțİȓȞĮ ʌȠȣ ȡȓȤȞȠȣȞ ijȦȢ ıIJȠ ȡȩȜȠ țĮȚ ıIJȚȢ ȗȦȑȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ȒIJĮȞ ȦȢ IJȫȡĮ ĮȩȡĮIJİȢ Ȓ ʌĮȡİȟȘȖȘȝȑȞİȢ. ȈIJȘȞ ʌȡĮȖȝĮIJȚțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠȣıȓĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȒ ıțȘȞȒ ȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ĮȞĮʌȜȘȡȫıİȚ Ƞ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ ʌȠȣ ȑʌĮȚȗİ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȘ 1

ȆĮȡȩȝȠȚİȢ ĮȞIJȚȜȒȥİȚȢ ĮʌĮȞIJȠȪȞ țĮȚ ıİ ȐȜȜȠȣȢ ıȣȖȖȡĮijİȓȢ. ȈIJȠȞ ȅȚțȠȞȠȝȚțȩ IJȠȣ ȄİȞȠijȫȞIJĮ Ƞ ǿıȤȩȝĮȤȠȢ ȜȑİȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ IJȠȣ: Dzʌȡİʌİ ȞĮ ȕȜȑʌİȚ ȩıȠ ȖȚȞȩIJĮȞ ȜȚȖȩIJİȡȠ, ȞĮ ĮțȠȪİȚ ȩıȠ ȖȚȞȩIJĮȞ ȜȚȖȩIJİȡȠ, țĮȚ ȞĮ țȐȞİȚ ȩıȠ ȖȚȞȩIJĮȞ ȜȚȖȩIJİȡİȢ İȡȦIJȒıİȚȢ, İȞȫ Ƞ ȀȡȚIJȩȕȠȣȜȠȢ, ıİ ȐȜȜȠ ıȘȝİȓȠ IJȠȣ ȑȡȖȠȣ, ʌĮȡĮįȑȤİIJĮȚ ȩIJȚ İȜȐȤȚıIJȠȚ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȣIJȠȓ ȝİ IJȠȣȢ ȠʌȠȓȠȣȢ ıȣȗȘIJȐ ȜȚȖȩIJİȡȠ Įʌ' ȩ,IJȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ IJȠȣ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ (ȅȚțȠȞȠȝȚțȩȢ 3, 12-13).

The Liturgical Presence of Women in Ancient Greece

577

șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ IJȘȢ ʌȩȜȘȢ, ıȣȤȞȐ ȝİ IJȡȩʌȠȣȢ ʌȠȜȪ įȘȝȩıȚȠȣȢ țĮȚ ȠȡĮIJȠȪȢ. ȂȚĮ IJȑIJȠȚĮ İȚțȩȞĮ, ȕȑȕĮȚĮ, įȓȞİȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌȐȞIJȘıȘ țĮȚ ıİ ȝȚĮ İȪȜȠȖȘ ĮʌȠȡȓĮ ʌȠȣ ıȣȤȞȐ įȚĮIJȣʌȫșȘțİ ıIJȠ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞ: ȆȫȢ ȒIJĮȞ įȣȞĮIJȩȞ ȑȞĮ įȘȝȠțȡĮIJȚțȩ ʌȠȜȓIJİȣȝĮ ȩʌȦȢ Ȝ.Ȥ. ĮȣIJȩ IJȘȢ ĮȡȤĮȓĮȢ ǹșȒȞĮȢ ȞĮ IJȠʌȠșİIJİȓ ıIJȠ «ʌİȡȚșȫȡȚȠ» IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ;

OȚ ȞİȩIJİȡİȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJĮ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȐ įȡȫȝİȞĮ Ǿ ʌȚȠ İȞIJȣʌȦıȚĮțȒ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓĮ ʌȠȣ ĮȟȚȠʌȠȓȘıİ țĮȚ ʌȡȩȕĮȜİ ʌȡȩıijĮIJĮ Ș ȑȡİȣȞĮ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ țĮIJȑȤȠȣȞ IJȠ ȝİȖĮȜȪIJİȡȠ ȝȑȡȠȢ ıIJȘ įȚİțʌİȡĮȓȦıȘ IJȦȞ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȫȞ IJİȜİIJȫȞ İȞIJȠʌȓȗİIJĮȚ ıİ ȑȞĮ ĮʌȠıʌĮıȝĮIJȚțȐ ıȦȗȩȝİȞȠ įȡȐȝĮ IJȠȣ ǼȣȡȚʌȓįȘ, IJȘ ȂİȜĮȞȓʌʌȘ ǻİıȝȫIJȚįĮ. ȆȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ ȑȞĮȞ ĮȖȫȞĮ ȜȩȖȦȞ, ʌȚșĮȞȩIJĮIJĮ ʌȡȠȢ IJȠ IJȑȜȠȢ IJȠȣ įȡȐȝĮIJȠȢ țĮȚ ʌȡȚȞ IJȘȞ DzȟȠįȠ, ıIJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ Ș ȂİȜĮȞȓʌʌȘ ĮȞĮȜĮȝȕȐȞİȚ ȞĮ ȣʌİȡĮıʌȚıIJİȓ IJȠ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȠ ijȪȜȠ ȑȞĮȞIJȚ IJȦȞ țĮIJȘȖȠȡȚȫȞ ʌȠȣ İțıijİȞįȠȞȓȗİȚ İȞĮȞIJȓȠȞ ȩȜȦȞ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ Ƞ ȕĮıȚȜȚȐȢ, ȩIJĮȞ ʌȜȘȡȠijȠȡİȓIJĮȚ ȝȚĮ ıȣȞȦȝȠıȓĮ IJȘȢ ıȣȗȪȖȠȣ IJȠȣ. ȆȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ ȑȞĮȞ İʌȚįİȚțIJȚțȩ ȡȘIJȠȡȚțȩ ȜȩȖȠ, ȩʌȠȣ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ȐȜȜȦȞ ʌȡȠȕȐȜȜİIJĮȚ Ș ıʌȠȣįĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ șȑıȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȠȞ ȠȓțȠ IJȠȣȢ, ĮȜȜȐ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ Ƞ țȣȡȓĮȡȤȠȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘȞ İʌȚIJȑȜİıȘ IJȦȞ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȫȞ țĮșȘțȩȞIJȦȞ. ȅ ʌȠȚȘIJȒȢ ĮijȚİȡȫȞİȚ ıIJȠ ıȘȝİȓȠ ʌȠȣ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȘ ıȤȑıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ȝİ IJȘ șȡȘıțİȓĮ IJȠȣȢ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠȣȢ ıIJȓȤȠȣȢ (12-21). ȆȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ ȑȞĮ ijİȝȚȞȚıIJȚțȩ ȪȝȞȠ [ıIJ. 4-8: ıȤȑıİȚȢ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıİ ĮȞIJȓșİıȘ ȝİ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ (ĮȜȜȘȜİȖȖȪȘ, İȝʌȚıIJȠıȪȞȘ, ĮȝȠȚȕĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ), ıIJ. 911: Ș ıʌȠȣįĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ įȡȐıȘȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJĮ ʌȜĮȓıȚĮ IJȠȣ ȠȓțȠȣ țĮȚ ıIJ. 12-22: IJȠ țȪȡȚȠ İʌȚȤİȓȡȘȝĮ ʌȠȣ ĮijȠȡȐ IJȠȞ țȣȡȓĮȡȤȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘȞ İʌȚIJȑȜİıȘ IJȦȞ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȫȞ țĮșȘțȩȞIJȦȞ]. ĬĮ ıĮȢ ĮʌȠįİȓȟȦ, ȜȑİȚ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤȒ Ș ȂİȜĮȞȓʌʌȘ, ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ İȓȞĮȚ ĮȞȫIJİȡİȢ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ: Į‫ ݨ‬įߩ İ‫ݫ‬ıߩ ܻȝİަȞȠȣȢ ܻȡı‫ޢ‬ȞȦȞ. įİަȟȦ įߩ ‫݋‬Ȗެ.

ȀĮȚ ıȣȞİȤȓȗİȚ: Ȟ‫ޢ‬ȝȠȣıȚ įߩ Ƞ‫ݫ‬țȠȣȢ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJ‫ ޟ‬ȞĮȣıIJȠȜȠުȝİȞĮ ‫ݏ‬ıȦ įިȝȦȞ ıެȚȗȠȣıȚȞ, Ƞ‫ރ‬įߩ ‫݋‬ȡȘȝަĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțާȢ Ƞ‫ݭ‬țȠȢ İ‫ރ‬ʌȚȞ‫ޣ‬Ȣ Ƞ‫ރ‬įߩ ‫ݻ‬ȜȕȚȠȢ. IJ‫ ޟ‬įߩ ‫݋‬Ȟ șİȠ߿Ȣ Į‫ ·މ‬ʌȡࠛIJĮ Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ țȡަȞȦ IJ‫ޠ‬įİ· ȝ‫ޢ‬ȡȠȢ ȝ‫ޢ‬ȖȚıIJȠȞ ‫ݏ‬ȤȠȝİȞ·( ‫݋‬Ȟ ĭȠަȕȠȣ IJİ Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ ȤȡȘıȝȠ߿Ȣ ʌȡȠijȘIJİުȠȣıȚ ȁȠȟަȠȣ ijȡ‫ޢ‬ȞĮ ȖȣȞĮ߿țİȢ, ܻȝij‫ ޥ‬įߩ ܼȖȞ‫ ޟ‬ǻȦįެȞȘȢ ȕ‫ޠ‬șȡĮ ijȘȖࠛȚ ʌĮȡߩ ‫ݨ‬İȡߢȚ ș߱Ȝȣ IJ‫ޟ‬Ȣ ǻȚާȢ ijȡ‫ޢ‬ȞĮȢ

578

Chapter Thirty Nine Ȗ‫ޢ‬ȞȠȢ ʌȠȡİުİȚ IJȠ߿Ȣ ș‫ޢ‬ȜȠȣıȚȞ ‫ݒ‬ȜȜ‫ޠ‬įȠȢ.) ܾ įߩ İ‫ݫ‬Ȣ IJİ ȂȠަȡĮȢ IJ‫ޠ‬Ȣ IJߩ ܻȞȦȞުȝȠȣȢ șİ‫ޟ‬Ȣ ‫ݨ‬İȡ‫ ޟ‬IJİȜİ߿IJĮȚ, IJĮࠎIJߩ ‫݋‬Ȟ ܻȞįȡ‫ޠ‬ıȚȞ ȝ‫ޡ‬Ȟ Ƞ‫ރ‬Ȥ ‫ݼ‬ıȚĮ țĮș‫ޢ‬ıIJȘțߩ, ‫݋‬Ȟ ȖȣȞĮȚȟ‫ ޥ‬įߩ Į‫އ‬ȟİIJĮȚ ݀ʌĮȞIJĮ. IJĮުIJȘȚ IJܻȞ șİȠ߿Ȣ ‫ݏ‬ȤİȚ įަțȘȢ ș‫ޤ‬ȜİȚĮ. ʌࠛȢ Ƞ‫މ‬Ȟ Ȥȡ‫ ޣ‬ȖȣȞĮȚțİ߿ȠȞ Ȗ‫ޢ‬ȞȠȢ țĮțࠛȢ ܻțȠުİȚȞ;2 (ȆȠȜȪ İȜİȪșİȡĮ:

ǻȚȠȚțȠȪȞ įȘȜĮįȒ IJĮ ıʌȓIJȚĮ țĮȚ įȚĮȤİȚȡȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ IJĮ ĮȖĮșȐ ʌȠȣ ȝʌĮȓȞȠȣȞ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȠ ıʌȓIJȚ. DzȞĮ ıʌȓIJȚ Įʌȩ IJȠ ȠʌȠȓȠ ĮʌȠȣıȚȐȗİȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ įİȞ İȓȞĮȚ ȠȪIJİ IJĮțIJȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȠ ȠȪIJİ țĮȚ İȣIJȣȤȚıȝȑȞȠ…..Ǽțİȓ ȩȝȦȢ ȩʌȠȣ İȝİȓȢ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ (Į ʌȡȩıȦʌȠ) ʌĮȓȗȠȣȝİ ȑȞĮ ȟİȤȦȡȚıIJȩ ȡȩȜȠ İȓȞĮȚ IJĮ șȑȝĮIJĮ IJȘȢ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮȢ IJȦȞ șİȫȞ (țĮȚ İȖȫ ʌȡȠțȡȓȞȦ IJĮ șȑȝĮIJĮ ĮȣIJȐ țĮȚ IJĮ șİȦȡȫ IJĮ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩIJİȡĮ Įʌȩ ȩȜĮ)….ǵıȠȞ ĮijȠȡȐ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ IJȘ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ ʌȠȣ IJİȜİȓIJĮȚ ıIJĮ ȚİȡȐ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȦȞ șİȠIJȒIJȦȞ ĮȣIJȒ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ʌȡȠȞȩȝȚȠ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȐ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ, İȞȫ Ș ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ įİȞ İʌȚIJȡȑʌİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ IJȠ șİȓȠ ȞȩȝȠ). ȈȘȝİȚȦIJȑȠȞ İʌȓıȘȢ ȩIJȚ Ƞ ǼȣȡȚʌȓįȘȢ ijȑȡİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ȑȖȡĮȥİ ȝȚĮ ȤĮȝȑȞȘ ıȒȝİȡĮ IJȡĮȖȦįȓĮ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ȚȑȡİȚİȢ.3 ȈIJȚȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ ĮȣIJȑȢ ȑȡȤȠȞIJĮȚ ȞĮ ʌȡȠıIJİșȠȪȞ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ ȖȚĮ ȚİȡİȓȢ țĮȚ ȚȑȡİȚİȢ Įʌȩ țȐșİ İȓįȠȣȢ țİȓȝİȞĮ: Įʌȩ IJȘ ȖȡĮȝȝȚțȒ Ǻ, IJȘȞ İʌȚțȒ ʌȠȓȘıȘ, IJȘ ȜȣȡȚțȒ ʌȠȓȘıȘ, IJȡĮȖȦįȓĮ, țȦȝȦįȓĮ, ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȠȓ ȜȩȖȠȚ, įȘȝȩıȚİȢ ĮʌȠijȐıİȚȢ. ȀȣȡȓȦȢ ȩȝȦȢ ȠȚ ȝȠȡijȑȢ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ĮȞĮʌĮȡȚıIJȐȞȠȞIJĮȚ ıȤİįȩȞ ıİ țȐșİ İȓįȠȢ ȣȜȚțȠȪ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȠȪ: Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤȚIJİțIJȠȞȚțȒ țĮȚ IJȘ ȖȜȣʌIJȚțȒ ȝȑȤȡȚ ĮijȚİȡȦIJȚțȐ ĮȖȐȜȝĮIJĮ, IJĮijȚțȐ ĮȖȖİȓĮ, ȟȪȜȚȞİȢ ʌȜȐțİȢ, ĮȞIJȚțİȓȝİȞĮ Įʌȩ ȝʌȡȠȪȞIJȗȠ țĮȚ ıȓįȘȡȠ. ȉĮ İȜȜȘȞȚțȐ ĮȖȖİȓĮ ʌȠȜȪ ıȣȤȞȐ ĮʌİȚțȠȞȓȗȠȣȞ ȚȑȡİȚİȢ ʌȠȣ İʌȚȕȜȑʌȠȣȞ șȣıȓİȢ. ǹʌȩ IJĮ ĮȡȤĮȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İȣȡȒȝĮIJĮ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ʌĮȡĮıIJȐıİȚȢ IJȠȣȢ ʌȡȠțȪʌIJİȚ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȚȑȡİȚİȢ ȠįȘȖȠȪıĮȞ IJȚȢ ȜȚIJĮȞİȓİȢ, ʌȡȠıȑijİȡĮȞ ʌȡȠıİȣȤȑȢ, ȐȞĮȕĮȞ ijȦIJȚȑȢ ıIJȠȣȢ ȕȦȝȠȪȢ, ʌȡȠıȑijİȡĮȞ ıʌȠȞįȑȢ, įȚĮțȠıȝȠȪıĮȞ IJĮ

2 Aʌȩıʌ. 13, ıIJ. 3 țĮȚ 5-19. ȆȡȕȜ. ǿȐȝȕȜȚȤ. ǺȓȠȢ ȆȣșĮȖȩȡȠȣ 30,170: ȖȣȞĮ߿țĮ į‫ޡ‬ ȖİȞȠȝ‫ޢ‬ȞȘȞ ʌȡެIJȘȞ ʌȡȠıȚ‫ޢ‬ȞĮȚ IJȠ߿Ȣ ȕȦȝȠ߿Ȣ țĮȚ 11.56: įȚިIJȚ IJ߱Ȣ İ‫ރ‬ıİȕİަĮȢ Ƞ‫ݧ‬țİȚިIJĮIJިȞ ‫݋‬ıIJȚ IJާ Ȗ‫ޢ‬ȞȠȢ IJࠛȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțࠛȞ ‫݌‬ț‫ޠ‬ıIJȘȞ IJ‫ޣ‬Ȟ ‫ݘ‬ȜȚțަĮȞ Į‫ރ‬IJࠛȞ ıȣȞެȞȣȝȠȞ ʌȠȚ‫ޤ‬ıĮıșĮȚ șİࠜ... ߔ ıުȝijȦȞȠȞ İ‫ݭ‬ȞĮȚ IJާ țĮ‫ ޥ‬IJȠީȢ ȤȡȘıȝȠީȢ ‫݋‬Ȟ ǻȦįެȞ߯ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ǻİȜijȠ߿Ȣ įȘȜȠࠎıșĮȚ įȚ‫ ޟ‬ȖȣȞĮȚțިȢ. 3 ǺȑȕĮȚĮ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ țĮȚ ȐȜȜİȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠȕȐȜȠȣȞ IJȠȞ ȘȖİIJȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȚȢ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȑȢ IJİȜİIJȑȢ, ʌ.Ȥ. ıIJȚȢ ǼȣȝİȞȓįİȢ 1021-1047. Ǿ șİȐ ȜȑİȚ (ıIJ. 1024-25) ȩIJȚ șĮ ʌȠȡİȣșİȓ ȟީȞ ʌȡȠıʌިȜȠȚıȚȞ Į‫ݬ‬IJİ ijȡȠȣȡȠࠎıȚȞ ȕȡ‫ޢ‬IJĮȢ IJȠ‫ރ‬ȝިȞ, įȚțĮަȦȢ, įȘȜȫȞȠȞIJĮȢ IJȠ șȘȜȣțȠȪ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ ʌȡȠıȦʌȚțȩ IJȘȢ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȝİ ʌȡȠİȟȐȡȤȠȣıĮ ȕȑȕĮȚĮ IJȘȞ ȚȑȡİȚĮ IJȠȣ ȞĮȠȪ IJȘȢ.

The Liturgical Presence of Women in Ancient Greece

579

ĮȖȐȜȝĮIJĮ, ıIJȩȜȚȗĮȞ IJĮ ȗȫĮ ʌȠȣ İʌȡȩțİȚIJȠ ȞĮ șȣıȚĮıIJȠȪȞ, įȚȑȞİȚȝĮȞ IJȠ țȡȑĮȢ IJȦȞ șȣıȚȫȞ, ijȡȩȞIJȚȗĮȞ IJĮ ȚİȡȐ ıțİȪȘ. Ǿ İȚțȩȞĮ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠțȪʌIJİȚ Įʌȩ ȩȜİȢ ĮȣIJȑȢ IJȚȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ țĮȚ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ Įʌȩ IJĮ ĮȡȤĮȚȠȜȠȖȚțȐ İȣȡȒȝĮIJĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ǼȜȜȐįĮ, ȩıȠȞ ĮijȠȡȐ ıIJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ İțȜȠȖȒȢ, IJȚȢ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑıİȚȢ, IJĮ țĮșȒțȠȞIJĮ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ĮȡȝȠįȚȩIJȘIJİȢ, IJȚȢ ĮʌȠȜĮȕȑȢ țĮȚ IJĮ ʌȡȠȞȩȝȚĮ ʌȠȣ ĮʌȠȜȐȝȕĮȞĮȞ ȩıİȢ ĮȞĮȜȐȝȕĮȞĮȞ ĮȣIJȩ IJȠ ȜİȚIJȠȪȡȖȘȝĮ, ıİ ȖİȞȚțȑȢ ȖȡĮȝȝȑȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ș İȟȒȢ: ȅȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ, ȩʌȦȢ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȐȞįȡİȢ, ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȞ ȞĮ ĮʌȠțIJȒıȠȣȞ IJȠ ĮȟȓȦȝĮ IJȘȢ ȚȑȡİȚĮȢ ȝȑıȦ țȜȘȡȠȞȠȝȚȐȢ, țȜȒȡȦıȘȢ, İʌȚȜȠȖȒȢ, İțȜȠȖȒȢ Ȓ İȟĮȖȠȡȐȢ. ȈȣȞȒșȦȢ ȩȝȦȢ Ș İʌȚȜȠȖȒ ȖȚȞȩIJĮȞ ȝİ țȜȒȡȦıȘ ĮȞȐȝİıĮ ıİ ȑȞĮȞ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞȠ ĮȡȚșȝȩ ȣʌȠȥȘijȓȦȞ ȝȚĮȢ ʌİȡȚȠȡȚıȝȑȞȘȢ ȖİȞȚȐȢ. ǿįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ ȝȐȜȚıIJĮ Ș ȚȑȡİȚĮ IJȘȢ ǹșȘȞȐȢ ȃȓțȘȢ ʌȐȞȦ ıIJȘȞ ǹțȡȩʌȠȜȘ, ȩʌȦȢ ȝĮșĮȓȞȠȣȝİ Įʌȩ IJȠȞ țĮȞȠȞȚıȝȩ IJȘȢ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮȢ IJȘȢ, Ƞ ȠʌȠȓȠȢ ȝĮȢ ȑȤİȚ ıȦșİȓ, İțȜİȖȩIJĮȞ, ĮȞȐȝİıĮ Įʌȩ ȩȜİȢ IJȚȢ ĮșȘȞĮȓİȢ įȑıʌȠȚȞİȢ, Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ǼțțȜȘıȓĮ IJȠȣ ǻȒȝȠȣ, įȘȜĮįȒ Įʌȩ IJȠ ĮȞȫIJĮIJȠ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȩ ȩȡȖĮȞȠ IJȘȢ ĮșȘȞĮȧțȒȢ ǻȘȝȠțȡĮIJȓĮȢ. ȂĮșĮȓȞȠȣȝİ İʌȓıȘȢ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȚȑȡİȚİȢ ȑʌĮȚȡȞĮȞ IJȠȞ ȜȩȖȠ İȞȫʌȚȠȞ IJȘȢ ǺȠȣȜȒȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣ ǻȒȝȠȣ, ȑșİIJĮȞ IJȘ ıijȡĮȖȓįĮ IJȠȣȢ ıİ İʌȓıȘȝĮ ȑȖȖȡĮijĮ țĮȚ ĮʌȑʌİȝʌĮȞ IJȠȣȢ ʌĮȡİȓıĮțIJȠȣȢ Įʌȩ IJĮ ȚİȡȐ. ǼʌȚȖȡĮijȑȢ ĮijȚİȡȦȝȐIJȦȞ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȠȪȞ IJȘȞ ȖİȞȞĮȚȠįȦȡȓĮ IJȦȞ ȚİȡİȚȫȞ ȦȢ İȣİȡȖİIJȚįȫȞ IJȘȢ ʌȩȜȘȢ IJȠȣȢ țĮȚ IJȦȞ ȚİȡȫȞ IJȠȣȢ, ȩʌȠȣ ȑȤIJȚȗĮȞ ȞĮȠȪȢ, ĮȖȠȡȑȢ țĮȚ ȣįĮIJȠįİȟĮȝİȞȑȢ. ȂĮȡIJȣȡȠȪȞ İʌȓıȘȢ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȘijȐȞȚĮ ʌȠȣ ȑȞȚȦșĮȞ ȠȚ ȓįȚİȢ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ĮȞȑȖİȡıȘ IJȦȞ ĮȖĮȜȝȐIJȦȞ IJȠȣȢ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȘȞ İȟȠȣıȓĮ IJȠȣȢ ȦȢ ʌȡȠȢ IJȘȞ IJȒȡȘıȘ IJȦȞ țĮȞȠȞȚıȝȫȞ ıIJĮ ȚİȡȐ. ǼʌȚȖȡĮijȑȢ țĮȚ İʌȚIJȪȝȕȚĮ ĮȞȐȖȜȣijĮ İʌȚȕİȕĮȚȫȞȠȣȞ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȚȑȡİȚİȢ țȘįİȪȠȞIJĮȞ įȘȝȠıȓĮ įĮʌȐȞȘ ȝİ ȝİȖȐȜİȢ ʌȠȝʌȑȢ, țĮȚ ȩIJȚ ıIJȘ ȝȞȒȝȘ IJȠȣȢ ĮȞİȖİȓȡȠȞIJĮȞ İȞIJȣʌȦıȚĮțȐ IJĮijȚțȐ ȝȞȘȝİȓĮ. ȂİIJĮȟȪ IJȦȞ ĮȞIJĮȜȜĮȖȝȐIJȦȞ ʌȠȣ ȜȐȝȕĮȞĮȞ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ȣʌȘȡİıȓİȢ IJȠȣȢ, ʌİȡȚȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȞIJĮȞ ȤȡȣıȠȓ ıIJȑijĮȞȠȚ, ĮȖȐȜȝĮIJĮ ȝİ IJȘ ȝȠȡijȒ IJȠȣȢ țĮȚ įȚĮțİțȡȚȝȑȞİȢ șȑıİȚȢ ıIJȠ șȑĮIJȡȠ. Ȉİ ȠȡȚıȝȑȞİȢ ʌȩȜİȚȢ ȠȚ ȚȑȡİȚİȢ ȒIJĮȞ IJȩıȠ įȚȐıȘȝİȢ ȫıIJİ ĮʌȑȜĮȣĮȞ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȒȢ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȒȢ İʌȦȞȣȝȓĮȢ, įȘȜĮįȒ IJȠ ȩȞȠȝȐ IJȠȣȢ ȑȝİȞİ ȖȚĮ ʌȐȞIJĮ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ țĮȚ ȤȡȘıȚȝȠʌȠȚİȓIJȠ ȖȚĮ ȚıIJȠȡȚțȑȢ ȤȡȠȞȠȜȠȖȒıİȚȢ. ȈIJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ ǿıIJȠȡȓĮȚ, Ƞ ĬȠȣțȣįȓįȘȢ IJȠʌȠșİIJİȓ ȤȡȠȞȠȜȠȖȚțȐ IJȘȞ ȑȞĮȡȟȘ IJȠȣ ȆİȜȠʌȠȞȞȘıȚĮțȠȪ ȆȠȜȑȝȠȣ ıIJȠ IJİııĮȡĮțȠıIJȩ ȩȖįȠȠ ȑIJȠȢ IJȘȢ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȒȢ șȘIJİȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȋȡȣıȘȓįĮȢ, ȚȑȡİȚĮȢ IJȘȢ dzȡĮȢ ıIJȠ DZȡȖȠȢ țĮIJȐ IJȠȞ 5Ƞ ĮȚ. ʌ.ȋ. ȅȚ IJİȜİIJȠȣȡȖȓİȢ İʌȑIJȡİʌĮȞ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ țȣțȜȠijȠȡȠȪȞ țĮȚ ȞĮ țȐȞȠȣȞ ĮȚıșȘIJȒ IJȘȞ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȠȣȢ ȝȑıĮ ıIJȘȞ ʌȩȜȘ, ȣʌȘȡİIJȫȞIJĮȢ IJȠȣȢ șİȠȪȢ, IJȘȞ ȠȚțȠȖȑȞİȚȐ IJȠȣȢ țĮȚ IJȠȣȢ ǹșȘȞĮȓȠȣȢ ʌȠȜȓIJİȢ. ǹȣIJȒ Ș ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ ıİ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȑȢ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJİȢ İȓȤİ șİIJȚțȒ İʌȚȡȡȠȒ ıIJȘȞ ȗȦȒ IJȦȞ ǼȜȜȘȞȓįȦȞ, țĮșȫȢ IJȠȣȢ ʌȡȩıijİȡİ, ȝİIJĮȟȪ ȐȜȜȦȞ, ȝȚĮȞ ĮȓıșȘıȘ

580

Chapter Thirty Nine

țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ țĮȚ IJĮȣIJȩIJȘIJĮȢ. ȅȚ țȪțȜȚȠȚ ȤȠȡȠȓ ıİ ȤȫȡȠȣȢ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮȢ ȑįȚȞĮȞ İʌȓıȘȢ IJȘȞ İȣțĮȚȡȓĮ ıIJȚȢ țȠʌȑȜİȢ ʌȠȣ ȕȡȓıțȠȞIJĮȞ ıİ ȘȜȚțȓĮ ȖȐȝȠȣ ȞĮ İȝijĮȞȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ įȘȝȠıȓȦȢ ȝʌȡȠıIJȐ ıIJȠȣȢ ıȣȝʌȠȜȓIJİȢ IJȠȣȢ. ȋĮȡĮțIJȘȡȚıIJȚțȩ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ʌȠȣ ȣʌȘȡİIJȠȪȞ IJȠ ȞĮȩ İȓȞĮȚ ʌĮȡĮıIJȐıİȚȢ ȝİ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȞĮ țȡĮIJȠȪȞ IJĮ țȜİȚįȚȐ IJȠȣ ȞĮȠȪ (țȜİȚįȠȪȤȠȚ). ȆȡȩțİȚIJĮȚ ȖȚĮ ȑȞĮ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȩ țĮșȒțȠȞ ıIJȘȞ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȒ ȚİȡĮȡȤȓĮ įİįȠȝȑȞȠȣ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ȞĮȠȓ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȠȪıĮȞ ȦȢ șȘıĮȣȡȠijȣȜȐțȚĮ țĮȚ İʌȠȝȑȞȦȢ Ƞ țȐIJȠȤȠȢ IJȠȣ țȜİȚįȚȠȪ ĮʌȠȜȐȝȕĮȞİ ȝİȖȐȜȘȢ İȝʌȚıIJȠıȪȞȘȢ țĮȚ įȒȜȦȞİ ȣȥȘȜȒ șȑıȘ ıIJȘȞ ȚİȡĮȡȤȓĮ. DzȤȠȣȝİ ĮȡțİIJȑȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ țĮȚ Įʌȩ șİĮIJȡȚțȑȢ ʌĮȡĮıIJȐıİȚȢ, ȩʌȠȣ ȠȚ ȘșȠʌȠȚȠȓ țȡĮIJȠȪıĮȞ țȜİȚįȚȐ: ǿijȚȖȑȞİȚĮ, ȆȣșȓĮ. ȆȠȜȪIJȚȝİȢ İȓȞĮȚ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ Įʌȩ IJĮijȚțȐ ȝȞȘȝİȓĮ, ȩʌȠȣ İȝijĮȞȓȗȠȞIJĮȚ ȝȠȡijȑȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓİȢ ȚȑȡİȚİȢ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ țĮIJĮʌȜȘțIJȚțȐ İʌȚIJȪȝȕȚĮ İʌȚȖȡȐȝȝĮIJĮ, ȩʌȠȣ ȤĮȡȐȗİIJĮȚ ĮȞİȟȓIJȘȜĮ Ș ȝȞȒȝȘ IJȠȣȢ țĮȚ Ș ĮʌȩįȠıȘ IJȚȝȒȢ ıIJȠ ʌȡȩıȦʌȩ IJȠȣȢ.

Ǿ IJĮȣIJȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ ȚȑȡİȚĮȢ ǵʌȦȢ ʌȡȠțȪʌIJİȚ Įʌȩ IJĮ ʌĮȡĮʌȐȞȦ, IJĮ ʌȠȡȓıȝĮIJĮ Įʌȩ IJȘ ȝİȜȑIJȘ IJȦȞ ʌȘȖȫȞ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȠ ȤȫȡȠ IJȘȢ șȡȘıțİȓĮȢ ȑijİȡĮȞ ıIJȘȞ İʌȚijȐȞİȚĮ ȝȚĮ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ İȚțȩȞĮ ȖȚĮ IJȘ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȘȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ǼȜȜȐįĮ țĮȚ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ IJȘȞ ǹșȒȞĮ. ȂʌȠȡİȓ Ș ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ ȞĮ ȝȘȞ ȐȞȠȚȖİ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ IJȠȞ įȡȩȝȠ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ țȠȚȞȦȞȚțȒ Ȓ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȚțȒ ĮȞİȟĮȡIJȘıȓĮ IJȠȣȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ĮȞįȡȚțȒ ĮȚȖȓįĮ, ĮȜȜȐ İȓȞĮȚ ȕĮșȪIJĮIJĮ ĮȜȘșȑȢ ȩIJȚ Ș ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ ʌȡȩıijİȡİ ıIJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȝȚĮ ȝȠȞĮįȚțȒ İȣțĮȚȡȓĮ ȞĮ ıȣȝȝİIJȑȤȠȣȞ ıIJȘ įȘȝȩıȚĮ ȗȦȒ ȝİ ȘȖİIJȚțȠȪȢ ȡȩȜȠȣȢ, ȓıȠȣȢ ȝİ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȫȞ. Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȝİȖĮȜȫȞİȚ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȘ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ıIJȘȞ ȣʌȘȡİıȓĮ IJȘȢ șİȐȢ. Ǿ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJĮ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȐ įȡȫȝİȞĮ ĮȞȠȓȖİȚ IJȘȞ ʌȩȡIJĮ IJȠȣ ıʌȚIJȚȠȪ țĮȚ įȓȞİȚ ıIJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ IJȘ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ȞĮ įȚĮıȤȓıİȚ IJȠ įȡȩȝȠ ʌȠȣ ȠįȘȖİȓ ıIJȠ ȞĮȩ IJȘȢ ǹșȘȞȐȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮțȡȩʌȠȜȘ țĮșȫȢ țĮȚ ıİ ȐȜȜĮ ȚİȡȐ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ ıIJĮ țȠȚȝȘIJȒȡȚĮ IJȘȢ ʌȩȜȘȢ ȖȚĮ ȞĮ ijȡȠȞIJȓıİȚ IJȠȣȢ ȠȚțȠȖİȞİȚĮțȠȪȢ IJȐijȠȣȢ. Ǿ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ĮșȘȞĮȓĮȢ ȚȑȡİȚĮȢ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȠȜȪ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȒ, ĮijȠȪ Ș ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒ IJȘȢ ıIJĮ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȐ įȡȫȝİȞĮ IJȘȢ ȑįȚȞİ IJȘ įȣȞĮIJȩIJȘIJĮ ȞĮ İȚıȤȦȡȒıİȚ ıİ ȑȞĮ ȤȫȡȠ ıIJȠȞ ȠʌȠȓȠ, ıİ ĮȞIJȓșİıȘ ȝİ IJȠȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȩ, țĮIJİȓȤİ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ șȑıȘ ȝİ IJȠȞ ȐȞįȡĮ. ǺĮıȚțȒ įȚȐıIJĮıȘ İȓȞĮȚ IJȠ ȩIJȚ IJȠ İȜȜȘȞȚțȩ ʌȐȞșİȠ ʌİȡȚȑȤİȚ ʌȜȐȚ ıIJȚȢ ĮȞįȡȚțȑȢ țĮȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓİȢ șİȩIJȘIJİȢ țĮȚ, İțIJȩȢ İȟĮȚȡȑıİȦȞ, Ș ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ IJȦȞ ĮȞįȡȚțȫȞ șİȠIJȒIJȦȞ ĮȞĮIJȓșİIJĮȚ ıİ ȐȞįȡİȢ, İȞȫ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓȦȞ ıİ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ. Ǿ ĮȞȐșİıȘ IJȠȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȠȪ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJȠȢ ıȣȞȚıIJȠȪıİ ȑȞĮ įȘȝȩıȚȠ țĮșȒțȠȞ ʌȠȣ İȓȤİ IJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ ĮȟȓĮ țĮȚ IJȠ ȓįȚȠ țȪȡȠȢ ȖȚĮ IJȚȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȩıȠ țĮȚ ȖȚĮ IJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ.

The Liturgical Presence of Women in Ancient Greece

581

īȚĮ IJȠȞ ʌȡȠıįȚȠȡȚıȝȩ IJȘȢ IJĮȣIJȩIJȘIJĮȢ ȝȚĮȢ ȚȑȡİȚĮȢ ȦıIJȩıȠ, ȝȚĮ įȚȐıIJĮıȘ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ıȣȞȣʌȠȜȠȖȚıIJİȓ İȟĮȡȤȒȢ İȓȞĮȚ Ƞ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡȠȢ ȤĮȡĮțIJȒȡĮȢ IJȘȢ ıȣȝȝİIJȠȤȒȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJĮ IJİȜİIJȠȣȡȖȚțȐ įȡȫȝİȞĮ IJȘȢ ĮȡȤĮȓĮȢ ǼȜȜȐįĮȢ. Ǿ ȪʌĮȡȟȘ ʌȠȜȜȫȞ șİȠIJȒIJȦȞ țĮȚ Ș ʌȠȜȜĮʌȜȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȫȞ ĮȟȚȦȝȐIJȦȞ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ǼȜȜȐįĮ ʌȡȠȨʌȠșȑIJİȚ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ ȠȡșȒ țĮIJĮȞȩȘıȒ IJȘȢ ȝȚĮ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȒ șİȫȡȘıȘ Įʌȩ İțİȓȞȘ ʌȠȣ ȑȤȠȣȝİ İȝİȓȢ ıȒȝİȡĮ, ȩIJĮȞ ĮȞĮijİȡȩȝĮıIJİ ıIJȠ ȝȠȞIJȑȜȠ IJȘȢ ȤȡȚıIJȚĮȞȚțȒȢ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘȢ. ȆȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ȑȤȠȣȝİ țĮIJȐ ȞȠȣȞ ȩIJȚ Ș ĮȡȤĮȓĮ șȡȘıțİȓĮ įİȞ ȑȤİȚ ȑȞĮ İȞȚĮȓȠ, țȦįȚțȠʌȠȚȘȝȑȞȠ ıȪıIJȘȝĮ ĮȡȤȫȞ, įİȞ įȚĮșȑIJİȚ ȑȞĮȞ țȜȒȡȠ ʌȠȣ țĮșȠįȘȖİȓ ıIJĮ ʌȚıIJİȪȦ IJȘȢ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȒȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ. Ǿ șȡȘıțİȓĮ İȝʌȜȑțİIJĮȚ țĮȚ įȚĮʌȜȑțİIJĮȚ ıİ țȐșİ ʌIJȣȤȒ IJȘȢ ȗȦȒȢ, İȓȞĮȚ ȑȞIJȠȞĮ ȤȡȦȝĮIJȚıȝȑȞȘ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ IJȠʌȚțȑȢ ʌĮȡĮįȩıİȚȢ. Ǿ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ ȒIJĮȞ ȑȞĮ ʌĮȡȠįȚțȩ status ıİ țȐʌȠȚİȢ ʌİȡȚʌIJȫıİȚȢ țĮȚ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȞ ıIJȘ įȚȐȡțİȚĮ IJȘȢ ȗȦȒȢ IJȠȣȢ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȜȐȕȠȣȞ ʌȠȚțȓȜĮ ȚİȡĮIJȚțȐ ĮȟȚȫȝĮIJĮ, IJȩıȠ ȩıȠȞ ĮijȠȡȐ IJĮ țĮșȒțȠȞIJĮ ȩıȠ țĮȚ IJȚȢ ĮȟȚȠȜȠȖȚțȑȢ ȕĮșȝȓįİȢ4. ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ȐʌȠȥȘ ĮȣIJȒ Ș IJĮȣIJȩIJȘIJĮ ȝȚĮȢ ȚȑȡİȚĮȢ ʌĮȡȠȣıȚȐȗİȚ ȝȚĮ ʌȠȜȣʌIJȣȤȩIJȘIJĮ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ IJȘȞ ȑȤȠȣȝİ țĮIJȐ ȞȠȣȞ ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ ȞĮ țĮIJĮȞȠȒıȠȣȝİ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ IJȠ șȑȝĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ǼȜȜȐįĮ, ȑȟȦ Įʌȩ IJĮ ıIJİȡİȩIJȣʌĮ ʌȠȣ ȑȤȠȣȝİ țĮIJȐ ȞȠȣȞ ıȒȝİȡĮ. Ǿ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȣʌȐȡȤİȚ țĮȚ ȣʌȘȡİIJİȓ IJȠ ıʌȓIJȚ IJȘȢ, IJȠȞ ȠȓțȠ, ĮȜȜȐ țĮȚ IJȠ ȞĮȩ, IJȠȞ ȠȓțȠ IJȦȞ șİȫȞ. ǹʌȩ IJȘ ıIJȚȖȝȒ ʌȠȣ Ƞ ȞĮȩȢ ȒIJĮȞ Ș ȠȚțȓĮ IJȠȣ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȠȪ ĮȖȐȜȝĮIJȠȢ ʌȠȜȜȑȢ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ijȡȠȞIJȓįİȢ ʌȠȣ ĮijȠȡȠȪıĮȞ IJȘȞ ȣʌȘȡİıȓĮ ıIJȠ ȞĮȩ (țĮșĮȡȚȩIJȘIJĮ, įȚĮțȩıȝȘıȘ, ȪijĮȞıȘ) ĮȞIJȚıIJȠȚȤȠȪȞ ȝİ İțİȓȞİȢ IJȠȣ ȚįȚȦIJȚțȠȪ ȠȚțȚĮțȠȪ IJȘȢ ȤȫȡȠȣ. ǻİįȠȝȑȞȠȣ ȩIJȚ șȡȘıțİȓĮ țĮȚ ʌȩȜȘ ıȣȜȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȠȪȞ țĮȚ ȝȚĮ ıİȚȡȐ ȣʌȘȡİıȓİȢ ʌȠȣ ʌĮȡȑȤİȚ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȠ ıʌȓIJȚ ĮȞIJȚıIJȠȚȤȠȪȞ ıİ ĮȞȐȜȠȖİȢ ȣʌȘȡİıȓİȢ ʌȠȣ ʌȡȠıijȑȡİȚ ıIJȠ ȞĮȩ, ʌȡȠțȪʌIJİȚ ȝȚĮ ĮȜȜȘȜȠʌİȡȚȤȫȡȘıȘ IJȦȞ įȪȠ ȤȫȡȦȞ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞİʌȐȖİIJĮȚ IJȘȞ ĮȞĮȕȐșȝȚıȘ IJȠȣ ȡȩȜȠȣ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ. ǺȑȕĮȚĮ, ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ıȘȝİȚȫıȠȣȝİ ȩIJȚ ȣʌȐȡȤȠȣȞ țĮȚ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȚțȑȢ ĮʌȩȥİȚȢ ʌȠȣ ȕȜȑʌȠȣȞ ıIJȘȞ IJİȜİIJȠȣȡȖȚțȒ įȡĮıIJȘȡȚȩIJȘIJĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȠ ȞĮȩ IJȘȞ ʌȡȠİIJȠȚȝĮıȓĮ IJȘȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ ıȣȝȕĮIJȚțȐ țĮșȚİȡȦȝȑȞȠ ȡȩȜȠ IJȘȢ ȣʌȠIJĮȖȒȢ IJȘȢ ıIJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ IJȠȣ ȚįȚȦIJȚțȠȪ IJȘȢ ȠȓțȠȣ. ȉȠ șȑȝĮ ĮȣIJȩ ıȣȞĮȡIJȐIJĮȚ ĮıijĮȜȫȢ țĮȚ ȝİ IJȘȞ ʌȩȜȦıȘ ȝİIJĮȟȪ ȚįȚȦIJȚțȠȪ țĮȚ įȘȝȩıȚȠȣ ȤȫȡȠȣ ʌȠȣ ĮȞIJĮȞĮțȜȐIJĮȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌȩȜȦıȘ ȠȓțȠȣ țĮȚ ʌȩȜȘȢ, ȝİ ĮʌȠIJȑȜİıȝĮ ȞĮ ʌİȡȚȠȡȓȗİȚ IJȘ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ĮʌȠțȜİȚıIJȚțȐ ıIJȠȞ ȚįȚȦIJȚțȩ ȤȫȡȠ. ȅȚ ʌİȡȚııȩIJİȡȠȚ ȩȝȦȢ İȡȝȘȞİȣIJȑȢ İțIJȚȝȠȪȞ ȩIJȚ ıIJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȘȢ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮȢ țĮȚ 4

ȁȣıȚıIJȡȐIJȘ 641-50. ‫ݘ‬ȝİ߿Ȣ Ȗ‫ޟ‬ȡ ‫ ޕ‬ʌ‫ޠ‬ȞIJİȢ ܻıIJȠ‫ ޥ‬ȜިȖȦȞ țĮIJ‫ޠ‬ȡȤȠȝİȞ IJ߱ ʌިȜİȚ ȤȡȘıަȝȦȞǜ İ‫ݧ‬țިIJȦȢ, ‫݋‬ʌİ‫ ޥ‬ȤȜȚįࠛıĮȞ ܻȖȜĮࠛȢ ‫ݏ‬șȡİȥ‫ ޢ‬ȝİ. ‫݌‬ʌIJ‫ ޟ‬ȝ‫ޡ‬Ȟ ‫ݏ‬IJȘ ȖİȖࠛıߩ İ‫ރ‬șީȢ ‫ݗ‬ȡȡȘijިȡȠȣȞǜ İ‫ݭ‬IJߩ ܻȜİIJȡ‫ޥ‬Ȣ ‫ ݝ‬įİț‫ޢ‬IJȚȢ Ƞ‫މ‬ıĮ IJܻȡȤȘȖ‫ޢ‬IJȚǜ ț޳IJߩ ‫ݏ‬ȤȠȣıĮ IJާȞ țȡȠțȦIJާȞ ܿȡțIJȠȢ ‫ ݝ‬ǺȡĮȣȡȦȞަȠȚȢǜ țܻțĮȞȘijިȡȠȣȞ ʌȠIJߩ Ƞ‫މ‬ıĮ ʌĮ߿Ȣ țĮȜ‫ߩ ޣ‬ȤȠȣıߩ ‫ݧ‬ıȤ‫ޠ‬įȦȞ ‫ݸ‬ȡȝĮșިȞǜ

582

Chapter Thirty Nine

ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ǼȜȜȐįĮ IJȠ įȓʌȠȜȠ ĮȣIJȩ, țĮȚ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ IJȠ ʌȜĮȓıȚȠ İȞIJȩȢ IJȠȣ ȠʌȠȓȠȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖİȓ Ș ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȒ ȚįȚȩIJȘIJĮ, ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ įȚİȣȡȣȞșİȓ țĮȚ ȞĮ IJİșİȓ ȣʌȩ įȚĮijȠȡİIJȚțȩ ȠʌIJȚțȩ ʌȡȓıȝĮ, ʌȡȠțİȚȝȑȞȠȣ ȞĮ țĮIJĮȞȠȒıȠȣȝİ țĮȚ Įʌȩ ĮȞșȡȦʌȠȜȠȖȚțȒȢ ʌȜİȣȡȐȢ IJȘȞ IJĮȣIJȩIJȘIJĮ ȝȚĮȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ȚȑȡİȚĮȢ, ȩʌȦȢ ĮȣIJȒ ȠȚțȠįȠȝİȓIJĮȚ ȝȑıĮ Įʌȩ IJȚȢ ĮȞIJȚijȐıİȚȢ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌİȡȚʌȜȠțȩIJȘIJĮ IJȦȞ İȝʌİȚȡȚȫȞ ʌȠȣ Ș țȐșİ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ ȕȓȦȞİ țĮIJȐ IJȘ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȒ įȚĮįȚțĮıȓĮ, ĮȞȐȜȠȖĮ ȝİ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ĮȞȐȜȘȥȘȢ IJȘȢ ȚįȚȩIJȘIJĮȢ ĮȣIJȒȢ, IJȠȞ țȪțȜȠ IJȘȢ ȗȦȒȢ IJȘȢ, IJȘȞ țĮIJĮȖȦȖȒ, IJȘȞ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȚțȒ IJȘȢ țĮIJȐıIJĮıȘ țȜʌ.

ȈȘȝĮıȓĮ IJȠȣ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȚțȠȪ ȡȩȜȠȣ ȖİȞȚțȩIJİȡĮ Ǿ țİȞIJȡȚțȒ șȑıȘ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘ įȚĮȝȩȡijȦıȘ țĮȚ įȚĮIJȒȡȘıȘ ĮȣIJȫȞ IJȦȞ IJİȜİIJȠȣȡȖȚțȫȞ ʌĮȡĮįȠıȚĮțȫȞ ʌȡĮțIJȚțȫȞ ȩʌȦȢ İȓȞĮȚ ȠȚ ȝȘIJȑȡİȢ, ȠȚ ıȪȗȣȖȠȚ țĮȚ ȠȚ įĮıțȐȜİȢ, ȒIJĮȞ ĮıijĮȜȫȢ ȠȣıȚĮıIJȚțȒ ıIJȠ ȞĮ ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖȒıȠȣȞ ȠȚ İȜȜȘȞȚțȑȢ ʌȩȜİȚȢ. ȅ ʌȡȦIJĮȖȦȞȚıIJȚțȩȢ ȩȝȦȢ ȡȩȜȠȢ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȒ ıțȘȞȒ ȑȡȤİIJĮȚ ȞĮ ıʌȐıİȚ IJȠ ıIJİȡİȩIJȣʌȠ țĮȚ įȚİțįȚțİȓ ȞĮ IJȚȢ IJȠʌȠșİIJȒıİȚ ȚıȩIJȚȝĮ ʌȜȐȚ ıIJȠȣȢ ȐȞįȡİȢ. īȚĮ ȞĮ IJȠ ĮȞIJȚȜȘijșȠȪȝİ ĮȣIJȩ ʌȡȑʌİȚ ȞĮ ıȣȞİȚįȘIJȠʌȠȚȒıȠȣȝİ ȩIJȚ IJĮ șȑȝĮIJĮ ʌȠȣ ĮijȠȡȠȪȞ IJȘ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ İȓȞĮȚ ʌȚȠ ıȘȝĮȞIJȚțȐ Įʌȩ ȩıȠ ȝʌȠȡȠȪȝİ ȞĮ ȣʌȠȜȠȖȓıȠȣȝİ İȝİȓȢ ıȒȝİȡĮ, ȖȚĮ ʌȠȜȜȠȪȢ ȜȩȖȠȣȢ. ȂȠȞȐȤĮ ıIJȘȞ ǹIJIJȚțȒ ȑȤȠȣȞ țĮIJĮȝİIJȡȘșİȓ 2.000 ȚİȡȐ țĮȚ 170 șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȑȢ ȖȚȠȡIJȑȢ. Ǿ ǹșȒȞĮ İȟĮȡIJȐIJĮȚ ʌȜȒȡȦȢ Įʌȩ IJȘ ıȣȞİȡȖĮıȓĮ ȝİIJĮȟȪ șİȫȞ țĮȚ ʌȠȜȚIJȫȞ. ȅȚ șİȠȓ ĮʌĮȚIJȠȪıĮȞ IJȚȝȒ, șȣıȓİȢ țĮȚ IJİȜİIJȑȢ. Ǿ įȚĮȤİȓȡȚıȘ IJȦȞ ȠȚțȠȞȠȝȚțȫȞ, IJȦȞ İįĮijȫȞ, IJȦȞ țĮȡʌȫȞ țĮȚ ȐȜȜȦȞ ʌȩȡȦȞ, IJȘȢ ʌİȡȚȠȣıȓĮȢ IJȦȞ ĮijȚİȡȦȝȐIJȦȞ ȑʌȡİʌİ ȞĮ ȖȓȞİȚ Įʌȩ IJȠȣȢ ȚİȡİȓȢ. ȅȚ șȞȘIJȠȓ ȤȡİȚȐȗȠȞIJĮȞ IJȘȞ İȪȞȠȚĮ țĮȚ ʌȡȠıIJĮıȓĮ IJȦȞ șİȫȞ, ȣȖİȓĮ, İȜİȣșİȡȓĮ, ĮʌȩțIJȘıȘ ʌĮȚįȚȫȞ, ȚıȤȣȡȒ ıIJȡĮIJȚȦIJȚțȒ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ, IJȘ įȚĮıijȐȜȚıȘ ȩıȦȞ IJȠȣȢ ȐijȘıĮȞ ȠȚ ʌȡȩȖȠȞȠȓ IJȠȣȢ. ȉȠ IJİȜİIJȠȣȡȖȚțȩ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȠ, șİȦȡİȓIJĮȚ ʌȦȢ ȑʌĮȚȟİ țĮșȠȡȚıIJȚțȩ ıȣȞįİIJȚțȩ ȡȩȜȠ ıIJȘ ȝİIJĮȝȩȡijȦıȘ ȝȚĮȢ ĮȞȠȝȠȚȠȖİȞȠȪȢ ȠȝȐįĮȢ ĮIJȩȝȦȞ ʌȠȣ ȒIJĮȞ ıIJĮșİȡȠȓ ıIJȘȞ ĮijȚȑȡȦıȒ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘ ȜĮIJȡİȓĮ. Ȃİ IJȠȞ IJȡȩʌȠ ĮȣIJȩ įȚĮȝȠȡijȫșȘțĮȞ țĮȚ ıIJĮșİȡȠʌȠȚȒșȘțĮȞ țĮȚ İʌȚȕȓȦıĮȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȑȢ ȜĮIJȡİȣIJȚțȑȢ IJĮȣIJȩIJȘIJİȢ. ȈIJȘȞ ȓįȚĮ țĮIJİȪșȣȞıȘ țȚȞİȓIJĮȚ țĮȚ Ș ĮȞĮʌȩijİȣțIJȘ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȦȞ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȚȢ IJİȜİIJȑȢ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮȢ, ȠȚ ȠʌȠȓİȢ ıIJȘȞ ʌİȡȓʌIJȦıȘ IJȘȢ IJĮijȒȢ ĮȞĮȜĮȝȕȐȞȠȣȞ ȝĮȗȓ ȝİ IJȠ șȡȒȞȠ țĮȚ IJȘȞ ʌȜȪıȘ IJȠȣ ȞİțȡȠȪ, İȡȤȩȝİȞİȢ ȝȩȞȠ ĮȣIJȑȢ țȚ ȩȤȚ ȠȚ ȐȞIJȡİȢ ıİ İʌĮijȒ ȝİ IJȠ ȝȓĮıȝĮ. ǹȣIJȩ IJȠ IJİȜİȣIJĮȓȠ ıIJȠȚȤİȓȠ țĮșȠȡȓȗİȚ İʌȓıȘȢ țĮȚ IJȠ ȝİıȠȜĮȕȘIJȚțȩ IJȠȣȢ ȡȩȜȠ ȝİIJĮȟȪ IJȠȣ ĮȞșȡȫʌȚȞȠȣ țĮȚ IJȠȣ șİȧțȠȪ țȩıȝȠȣ, ȩʌȠȣ Ș ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮ ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ ĮȞĮįİȚțȞȪİIJĮȚ Ș ȝȩȞȘ ȚțĮȞȒ ȞĮ ĮȞĮȜȐȕİȚ IJȠ ȑȡȖȠ IJȠȣ țĮșĮȡȝȠȪ.

The Liturgical Presence of Women in Ancient Greece

583

Ǿ șȡȘıțİȣIJȚțȒ ȗȦȒ ıIJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȓĮ ǼȜȜȐįĮ ĮʌȠIJİȜİȓ ĮȞĮʌȩıʌĮıIJȠ țȠȝȝȐIJȚ IJȘȢ ȗȦȒȢ IJȘȢ ʌȩȜȘȢ. ȀȐșİ ȝİIJȐȕĮıȘ ıIJȘ ȗȦȒ, Įʌȩ IJȘ ȖȑȞȞȘıȘ ȦȢ IJȠ șȐȞĮIJȠ, ıȘȝĮįİȪİIJĮȚ Įʌȩ ȑȞĮ İȓįȠȢ IJİȜİIJȠȣȡȖȓĮȢ. ǹȞIJȚȜĮȝȕĮȞȩȝĮıIJİ, ȜȠȚʌȩȞ, țĮȜȪIJİȡĮ ȖȚĮIJȓ Ș ʌĮȡȠȣıȓĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ ıIJȠȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚıȝȩ, IJȚȢ IJİȜİIJȠȣȡȖȓİȢ, IJȚȢ İȠȡIJȑȢ ıȣȞįȑİIJĮȚ ȐȝİıĮ ȝİ IJĮ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȐ įȡȫȝİȞĮ țĮȚ ĮȞĮʌȜȘȡȫȞİȚ IJȘȞ ĮʌȠȣıȓĮ IJȘȢ Įʌȩ IJȘȞ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȒ ıțȘȞȒ. ǹʌȩ IJȘȞ ȐȜȜȘ, ĮȞ ĮȞĮȜȠȖȚıIJȠȪȝİ ȩIJȚ ȠȚ ʌȠȜȓIJİȢ IJȘȢ ĮȡȤĮȓĮȢ ǹșȒȞĮȢ İȣșȣȖȡĮȝȝȓȗȠȣȞ ıȣȤȞȐ IJȚȢ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȑȢ IJȠȣȢ İʌȚȜȠȖȑȢ ȝİ IJȠ șȑȜȘȝĮ IJȦȞ șİȫȞ țĮȚ ĮʌȠįȓįȠȣȞ IJȚȢ İʌȚIJȣȤȓİȢ IJȠȣȢ ıIJȘȞ İȪȞȠȚĮ IJȦȞ șİȫȞ țĮȚ ʌȦȢ IJȘȞ İȪȞȠȚĮ ĮȣIJȒ įȚĮıijĮȜȓȗȠȣȞ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ İȟİȣȝİȞȓȗȠȞIJĮȢ IJȠȣȢ șİȠȪȢ, İțIJȚȝȠȪȝİ ʌȦȢ șĮ ȝʌȠȡȠȪıĮȝİ İȞ IJȑȜİȚ ȞĮ ȣʌȠıIJȘȡȓȟȠȣȝİ ȩIJȚ ȒIJĮȞ ȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȠȣ İȓȤĮȞ İʌȦȝȚıșİȓ ıİ ȝİȖȐȜȠ ȕĮșȝȩ IJȘȞ İȣșȪȞȘ ȖȚĮ IJȘȞ İȪȞȠȚĮ ĮȣIJȒ IJȦȞ șİȫȞ țĮȚ țĮIJȐ ıȣȞȑʌİȚĮ IJȘ ȤȐȡĮȟȘ IJȘȢ ʌȠȜȚIJȚțȒȢ. ȅȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ʌȠȣ țĮIJİȓȤĮȞ IJȘȞ ȚİȡȠıȪȞȘ ıȣȞȑįİıĮȞ IJȘȞ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJȐ IJȠȣȢ ȝİ țȐIJȚ ʌȓıȦ țĮȚ ʌȑȡĮ Įʌȩ ĮȣIJȑȢ, IJȠȣȢ șİȠȪȢ, țĮșȫȢ İʌȓıȘȢ ȝİ IJȠȣȢ ʌȡȠȖȩȞȠȣȢ țĮȚ IJĮ ʌĮIJȡȠȖȠȞȚțȐ ȑșȚȝĮ, ȝȑıȦ IJȦȞ ȠʌȠȓȦȞ IJȚȝȠȪȞIJĮȞ ȠȚ șİȠȓ. dzIJĮȞ ĮȣIJȑȢ ʌȠȣ ȪijĮȞĮȞ IJȠ ʌȜȑȖȝĮ İțİȓȞȠ ʌȠȣ ıȣȞİȓȤİ IJȘȞ țȠȚȞȩIJȘIJĮ țĮȚ ʌȠȣ IJȘ ıȣȞȑįİİ ȝİ IJȠ ʌĮȡİȜșȩȞ IJȘȢ țĮȚ ʌȐȞȦ Įʌȩ ȩȜĮ ȝİ IJȠȣȢ șİȠȪȢ ʌȠȣ İȖȖȣȩȞIJĮȞ IJȘȞ İȣȘȝİȡȓĮ IJȘȢ. Ȉİ ȑȞĮ ĮijĮȚȡİIJȚțȩ İʌȓʌİįȠ Ș ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ țĮȚ ȚįȚĮȓIJİȡĮ Ș ȚȑȡİȚĮ-ȖȣȞĮȓțĮ İȟĮıijȐȜȚȗİ, ȩʌȦȢ ıȘȝİȚȫȞİIJĮȚ ıIJȘ ȕȚȕȜȚȠȖȡĮijȓĮ, «IJȘ ıȣȞȠȤȒ IJȘȢ țȠȚȞȦȞȓĮȢ»5.

ǺȚȕȜȚȠȖȡĮijȓĮ Breton Connelly, Joan Portrait of a Priestess: Women and Ritual in Ancient Greece. Princeton University Press, 2007. Burkert, W. "Greek Tragedy and Sacrificial Ritual," GRBS 7 (1966) 87121. Des Bouvrie, S. Women in Greek Tragedy, Symbolae Osloenses Fasc. Suppl. XXVI, Oslo 1990. Fantham, Elaine, Peet Foley Helene, Boumel Kampen Natalie, Pomeroy B. Sarah, Shapiro, Alan H., ȅȚ ȖȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȠȞ ǹȡȤĮȓȠ ȀȩıȝȠ (ȝİIJȐijȡ. ȀȦȞıIJĮȞIJȓȞȠȢ ȂʌȠȪȡĮȢ, İʌȚȝ. ǼȜȑȞȘ īțĮıIJȒ), ǹșȒȞĮ 2004. Foley, H. (İʌȚȝ.), Reflections of Women in Antiquity, New York 1981. Foxhall, L. "Women's Ritual and Men's Work in Ancient Athens," ıIJȠ R. Hawley and B. Levick (İʌȚȝ.), Women in Antiquity: New Assessments, Routledge 1995. Haines-Eitzen, Kim. «“Girls Trained in beautiful Writing”: Female 5

S. Des Bouvrie, Women in Greek Tragedy. An Anthropological Approach, Oslo 1990, ıİȜ. 58.

584

Chapter Thirty Nine

Scribes in Roman Antiquity and Early Christianity», Journal of Early Christian Studies 6. 4 (1998) 629-646. Ingalls, Wayne B. "Ritual Performance as Training for Daughters in Archaic Greece," Phoenix 54 (2000) 1-20. Just, R. Women in Athenian Law and Life, London 1989. Kaltsas, Nikolaos, Alan Shapiro (İʌȚȝ.), Worshiping Women: Ritual and Reality in Classical Athens, New York 2008. ȀȩȜIJıȚȠȣ-ȃȚțȒIJĮ, A. «ȀȐIJȠʌIJȡȠȞ ıȣȗȪȖȠȣ ȖȣȞĮȚțȩȢ: Įʌȩ IJȠȞ ȆȜȠȪIJĮȡȤȠ ıIJȠȞ īȡȘȖȩȡȚȠ ȃĮȗȚĮȞȗȘȞȩ», ıIJȠ: ȅȝȠIJȓȝȠȚȢ įȚĮȜİȖȩȝİȞȠȢ. ȉȚȝȘIJȚțȩȢ IJȩȝȠȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠȞ țĮșȘȖȘIJȒ ǻ. ȁȐʌʌĮ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2012, ıİȜ. 89-109. —. «ȂȘIJȡȠįȓįĮțIJȠȢ: īȡĮȝȝĮIJİȚĮțȑȢ ȝĮȡIJȣȡȓİȢ ȖȚĮ IJȠ ȡȩȜȠ ȝȚĮȢ ȝȘIJȑȡĮȢ ıIJȘ ȝȩȡijȦıȘ IJȠȣ ʌĮȚįȚȠȪ IJȘȢ țĮIJȐ IJȘȞ ĮȡȤĮȚȩIJȘIJĮ», ıIJȠ ǹȖȦȖȒ ĮȖȐʌȘȢ țĮȚ İȜİȣșİȡȓĮȢ. ȉȚȝȘIJȚțȩ ĮijȚȑȡȦȝĮ ıIJȠȞ ȠȝȩIJȚȝȠ țĮșȘȖȘIJȒ ȋȡȒıIJȠ Ȁ. ǺĮıȚȜȩʌȠȣȜȠ, ĬİııĮȜȠȞȓțȘ 2012, ıİȜ. 137-159. Lefkowitz, Mary R. īȣȞĮȓțİȢ ıIJȠȞ İȜȜȘȞȚțȩ ȝȪșȠ (ȝİIJȐijȡ. ǹ. ȂİȖĮʌȐȞȠȢ), ǹșȒȞĮ 1993. —. "Women in the Panathenaic and Other Festivals," ıIJȠ Jenifer Neils (İʌȚȝ.), Worshipping Athena Madison: Univ of Wisconsin Press (1996), ıİȜ. 78-94 Loraux, N. (İʌȚȝ.), ǹȡȤĮȓĮ ǼȜȜȐįĮ ȖȑȞȠȣȢ șȘȜȣțȠȪ (ȝİIJȐijȡ. Ȃ. ȀȠȣȞİȗȒ Ȇ. ȈțȩȞįȡȠȢ), ǹșȒȞĮ 2003. Loraux, N. ǺȓĮȚȠȚ șȐȞĮIJȠȚ ȖȣȞĮȚțȫȞ ıIJȘȞ IJȡĮȖȦįȓĮ, ǹșȒȞĮ 1995. —. "Women and Freedom," Arethusa 28 no. 1 (1995) 107 țİȟ. ȂĮȞIJȐ, K. «ȈȪȞIJȠȝȘ ĮȞĮįȡȠȝȒ ıIJȘȞ ȚıIJȠȡȓĮ IJȘȢ ȖȣȞĮȚțİȓĮȢ İțʌĮȓįİȣıȘȢ», ǹȡȤĮȚȠȜȠȖȓĮ țĮȚ ȉȑȤȞİȢ 81 (2001) 90-94. Mosse, Claude. Ǿ īȣȞĮȓțĮ ıIJȘȞ ǹȡȤĮȓĮ ǼȜȜȐįĮ (ȝİIJȐijȡ. ǹ. ȈIJİijĮȞȒȢ), ǹșȒȞĮ 2004 Ortner, S. "Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?," ıIJȠ M. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (İʌȚȝ.), Women, Culture, and Society (1974) 67-8. Osborne, Robin. "Law, the Democratic Citizen and the Representation of Women in Classical Athens," Past and Present 155 (1997) 3-33. Scheidel, W. "The Most Silent Women of Greece and Rome: Rural Labour and Women's Life in the Ancient World," Greece & Rome 42, no. 2 (1995) 202-217.

CHAPTER FORTY THE FINAL COMMUNIQUÉ

At the Conclusion of the International Theological Conference: “Deaconesses, Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology” “The Church is called to articulate its prophetic word [. . .] Our heart is set on the long-awaited Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church in order to witness to its unity as well as to its responsibility and care for the contemporary world [. . .] The Church does not live for itself but is obliged to witness to and share God’s gifts with those near and afar.” Bearing in mind this message from the 2014 Synod of the Primates of the Orthodox Church, as well as the recommendation by His Beatitude Archbishop Chrysostomos of Cyprus on the same occasion, that the Orthodox Church “should be also concerned with the role of women in the Church and strengthen her position on the issue of the ordination of women, while after a serious study and consideration of all parameters, restoring the order of deaconesses in the Church,” the Centre for Ecumenical, Missiological and Environmental Studies “Metropolitan Panteleimon Papageorgiou” (CEMES), together with the Theological Schools of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, and Holy Cross of Boston, U.S.A., jointly organized an international theological conference on “Deaconesses, ordination of women and Orthodox theology.” The conference was convened in Thessaloniki (January 22-24, 2015) at the premises of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (which graciously provided all electronic facilities for live coverage), and at the amphitheater “Panteleimon Papageorgiou” of the Holy Monastery of St. Theodora of Thessaloniki, which hosts the offices of CEMES and was inaugurated in 2013 by His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. It was dedicated to 94-year-old Prof. Emeritus Evangelos Theodorou who, 60 years ago was the first among Orthodox theologians to initiate scholarly discussion on the ordination of deaconesses to the sacramental priesthood in the Orthodox Church. Conscious that a thorough theological examination of all aspects of this issue (which have,

586

Chapter Forty

over the years, been discussed widely and ecumenically) constitutes a primary responsibility of the Orthodox academic community to the Orthodox Church in general, the above academic institutions organized this conference along the same lines of the conference held two years ago by CEMES: “An Orthodox approach for a theology of religions” (June 14-15, 2013). The conference was initially placed within the context of a two-yearproject by CEMES, entitled: “Humble Theological Contribution to the Orthodox Church on its Way to the 2016 Pan-Orthodox Council”. Although the issues debated during the conference were not included in the official agenda of this long-anticipated Pan-Orthodox synod, the intervention of the Primate of the Church of Cyprus prompted the inclusion of this conference within the overall framework of the project. It was symbolically launched on the day that the Orthodox churches commemorate St. Mary Magdalene, equal to the apostles, with an open invitation to all interested theologians. The concept of the conference was an in-depth examination of the theological argumentation by Orthodox scholars, one generation after the Rhodes Consultation, with a view to exploring the progress in recent biblical and theological scholarship. In other words, the centrality of “Orthodox theology” in the title of the conference was stressed, alongside the reference to “deaconesses” as a central and parallel focus, without neglecting the overall question of the “ordination of women” inasmuch as it now poses a challenge not only from outside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church but also from its ecclesiastical dignitaries and theological scholars. The theological perspective of the conference was prompted by Metropolitan John [Zizioulas] of Pergamon, who has argued for a purely theological conversation on this subject, especially on the thorny question of the ordination of women, which has divided churches and Christian denominations both vertically and horizontally. As the official representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate addressing the Anglican communion during its Lambeth Conference two decades ago, Metropolitan John warned all concerned that this problem could not be solved by using either the argument from sociology or the argument from tradition. What is desperately needed is to address this delicate issue, which has resulted in painful divisions within and among almost all Christian traditions, on a theological basis. Most of the conference papers focused on the order of deaconesses (or women deacons), and the issue of the restoration of deaconesses was adopted by all speakers, participants and attendees. An institution so

The Final Communiqué

587

deeply, theologically and historically rooted in our Orthodox tradition and, most importantly, with conciliar and canonical validity, despite falling for the time being into disuse, must be urgently revived in order to support and strengthen the authentic witness of our Church in society and the world. This, of course, does not mean that the role of lay women in the Orthodox Church’s witness should not be vigorously encouraged. All participants agreed that, in accordance with the current canonical restrictions, women are forbidden to enter into the sacramental or “hieratic” priesthood, except the “diaconal” one. For over a generation, the Orthodox Church has held a clear and concrete position on this matter, as explicitly expressed in the final document of the Rhodes Conference, which also patently recommended that “the apostolic order of deaconesses should be revived” (§ 32). Quite recently, however, a number of Orthodox theologians have expressed reservations concerning the theological validity of some arguments proposed against the ordination of women. The reformulation by Metropolitan Kallistos [Ware] of Diokleia of his seminal argumentation on the ordination of women; the tireless approach to the issue by the late Dr. Elizabeth Behr-Sigel, as well as her titanic struggle to upgrade the role of women in the Orthodox Church and its liturgy; and the theological views formulated by the late Prof. Nikos Matsoukas, one of the greatest Orthodox dogmatic theologians of our time; as well as a number of Orthodox theological dissertations and postdoctoral studies and other scholarly contributions all seem to have challenged the opposition to the ordination of women on the basis of Orthodox theology and tradition. Apart from recommending that the forthcoming Pan-Orthodox Council consider the restoration of the order of deaconesses, our conference did not come to conclusions, choosing to leave any final decision to the appropriate ecclesiastical authorities in the hope that they will also consider other relevant parameters. Speakers simply raised some serious theological concerns on all issues discussed (see Appendix) and underlined the inconsistency in the conventional Orthodox view that appeals to “tradition” with regard to the overall question of the “ordination of women,” but ignores the same tradition in relation to the revival of the order of deaconesses and the participation of women in the sacramental diaconal priesthood. Nearly 40 papers were presented at the conference, in addition to insightful messages from ecclesiastical (namely, the Ecumenical Patriarch) and academic authorities from various theological schools. The papers covered almost all areas of biblical, liturgical, patristic, systematic, canonical, and historical theology. Although most focused on the issues

588

Chapter Forty

from an Orthodox perspective, their sober analysis can provide theological argumentation for the wider Christian community, to the churches and Christian denominations that exclude women from the sacramental priesthood (such as Roman Catholics and some evangelicals) and to those that have already adopted their ordination, such as Anglicans and mainstream Protestants. Other papers provided an objective and critical study of the history, experience and theological arguments of other Christian traditions from an Orthodox perspective. Finally, the conference did not omit to address the perspective of other, non-Orthodox Christians. With regard to the issue of women’s ordination, it was humbly suggested that, from an Orthodox point of view, the theological arguments used so far in the inter-Christian dialogue need to be reformulated; this is possible, feasible and legitimate, even if this requires further scholarly research. All the papers delivered at this international theological conference will be published electronically on the official website of CEMES (cemes.weebly.com), and in printed form as part of the series of CEMES editions. Finally, all of our scholarly endeavor will be humbly submitted to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and all other Orthodox churches.

The Final Communiqué

589

Appendix Synopsis and Codification of the Reflections and Questions Raised at the Conference 1. How important, for the Orthodox Church’s theological arsenal, is the fact that the institution of deaconesses has a conciliar ecumenical and canonical foundation which, in fact, has never been repealed by a subsequent synodical decision? 2. Since deaconesses were installed into their ministry through ordination (hierotonia), which was the same as for the major orders of the clergy, and not by a simple laying on of hands (hierothesia), and their ordination had an absolute likeness in form and content to the ordinations of the major order of the clergy, does not the reluctance by many Orthodox churches to proceed to the rejuvenation of the order of deaconesses affect the witness of the Church today? 3. Can the clear assurance in ancient prayers that Christ did not ban women from liturgical duties in the churches (see, “rejecting no woman…from serving in your holy houses” [‫ ݸ‬ȝȘį‫ޡ‬ ȖȣȞĮȓțĮȢ…ȜİȚIJȠȣȡȖİ߿Ȟ IJȠ߿Ȣ ܼȖȓȠȚȢ Ƞ‫ݫ‬țȠȚȢ ıȠȣ ܻʌȠȕĮȜȜȩȝİȞȠȢ] help the Orthodox Church to immediately proceed to the rejuvenation of the order of deaconesses? 4. Can the proposed distinction of the sacramental priesthood into “diaconal” and “hieratic,” (i.e. a quantitative rather than qualitative distinction) help the Orthodox Church to restore her traditional ancient practice and ordain deaconesses? 5. How can the interpretation in the canonical sources that the deaconess, as a symbol of the Holy Spirit, held a higher position even than that of the presbyters, who were considered symbols of the apostles, affect the possibility of upgrading the status of women in relation to the theological legitimacy of their participation in the diaconal sacramental priesthood? 6. Can Orthodox bishops at any time, without any relevant conciliar decision, ordain deaconesses and accept them into the major orders of the clergy? 7. If the Orthodox Church is characterized by its liturgical (and Eucharistic) theology, how crucial is it today to revive the order of ordained deaconesses for their necessary missionary witness, particularly in the area of ministry? 8. If the human person is determined by his/her relationship with others and if the Eucharistic community is (for the Orthodox) the primary

590

Chapter Forty

framework for constructive and virtuous relationships (which are fully possible for both men and women), on what theological grounds can one today exclude women from even the diaconal sacramental priesthood? 9. Does the presence of demonic elements (e.g. ideas about women being cursed for their culpability in the Fall and their eternal punishment in subjugation to the man, as well as their impurity and consequent marginalization in the Church’s life of worship and administration, etc.) compromise the Church’s witness to the world, additionally raising an enormous ethical problem? 10. Throughout Western Christian history, there has been a gradual, perhaps unconscious, degradation of women on three issues: the status and position of Mary Magdalene, of St. Junia, and the institution of deaconesses. The long-standing tradition of the East, on the other hand, takes pride in these persons and institutions. How can this affect the position of the Orthodox Church? 11. How does the now academically indisputable evidence in the New Testament and in the early Christian centuries of important women “apostles” (e.g. Junia) affect the Orthodox theological argument on the need for the rejuvenation of the order of deaconesses, and even on the discussion of women's ordination? 12. If great Orthodox theologians, such as St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom, speak about the priesthood with metaphors based not on male paternal models but on examples of virtue for the community, and if theses hierarchs use both masculine and feminine metaphors to describe the method and the ministry of the priesthood, what theological arguments can justify the exclusion of women today, even from the diaconal priesthood? 13. Does Patriarch Gregory of Antioch’s reference that connects women (until the 6th century) with the apostolic office and ordination («ȂĮșȑIJȦ ȆȑIJȡȠȢ ‫ܻ ݸ‬ȡȞȘıȐȝİȞȩȢ ȝİ, ‫ݺ‬IJȚ įȪȞĮȝĮȚ țĮ‫ ޥ‬ȖȣȞĮ߿țĮȢ ܻʌȠıIJȩȜȠȣȢ ȤİȚȡȠIJȠȞİ߿Ȟ» PG 88, 1864b) not demonstrate that there is at least some evidence that the Church held a different attitude in the Eastern Christian tradition regarding the liturgical role of women? 14. Does the exclusive “male priesthood” – derived from the historically indisputable male form of the incarnate God – constitute a binding element of divine grace? How strong is this theological argument, and how consistent is it with the dogma of Chalcedon? 15. Is the exclusion of women from the sacramental priesthood, especially from the “diaconal” one in the course of history, based on human law (de jure humano) or divine law (de jure divino)?

The Final Communiqué

591

16. What impact can the close terminological connection that St. Basil the Great repeatedly makes in his anaphora between “diaconal” and “sacramental” have on the liturgical role of women? 17. On the thorny issue of the ordination of women, should the Orthodox Church and its theology use liturgical, canonical, Trinitarian, Christological, ecclesiological, eschatological or sociological criteria? 18. In selecting theological criteria, should priority be given – and if so, how much – to the long-standing “primary” liturgical tradition of the Church over the various doctrinal expressions that were subsequently formulated? 19. Is it theologically legitimate to use human, biological concepts of gender and the supposedly masculine or feminine structures of each of the persons of the Holy Trinity? 20. How and to what extent does the basic Orthodox theological position that at the eschaton there will be no discrimination based on biological sex, influence the debate about the liturgical and sacramental role of women? 21. Does the invocation of elements of ontological reduction and the division of the human being into two hierarchically superimposed sexes negate the doctrine of the divine incarnation and nullify its objectives? 22. If, according to Orthodox Christian anthropology, the archetype of the human being is Christ, does the invocation of the male sex of the word of God provide theological, canonical, historical-critical, and liturgical grounds for the exclusion of women, even from the diaconal sacramental priesthood? 23. If every human person is created unique, complete and free, designed to achieve deification (theosis) through his/her virtuous life, how is it possible theologically to define the nature of man, or even his virtuous life, on the basis of gender? Does this not lead to a denial of the completeness of human nature at the crown of creation, as well as its call to the “likeness”? 24. Regarding the ministry of the priesthood, does not the selective use and transfer of practices based on gender – which theologically and anthropologically permit the impairment of the human person – substantially undermine, rather than encourage, the achievement of the Orthodox ideal of theosis? From the Scientific Committee

CONTRIBUTORS

Evanthia ADAMTZILOGLOU, Ph.D. in Theology, specialized in Christian Feminist Theology. Constantinos AGORAS, Ph.D. in Theology and Philosophy. Assistant Prof. at the Open Hellenic University. Eirini ARTEMI, Ph.D. in Theology. Visiting Prof. at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a member of academic staff at the Hellenic Open University. Christophoros ARVANITIS, Ph.D. in Theology. Assistant Prof. at the Higher Patriarchal Academy of Crete. Spyridoula ATHANASOPOULOU-KYPRIOU, M.D., Ph.D. A member of academic staff at the Hellenic Open University. Sotirios BOUKIS, M.Div. M.Th., B.Th. and Ph.D. Candidate. Youth Pastor in the Greek Evangelical Church of Thessaloniki. Rev. John CHRYSSAVGIS, Ph.D. in Theology. Archdeacon of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, former prof. at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology and currently a theological advisor on environmental issues to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Rev. Emmanuel CLAPSIS, Ph.D. in Theology. Archbishop Iakovos Prof. of Theology at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. Katerina DROSIA, M.Th. in Theology, and Ph.D. candidate specializing in St. Mary Magdalene. Stuart George HALL, Prof. Emeritus at King’s College, University of London, U.K. Maria HATZIAPOSTOLOU, Ph.D. A member of academic staff at the Orthodox Academy of Crete.

594

Contributors

Fotios IOANNIDIS, Prof. at the School of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. John KARAVIDOPOULOS, Prof. Emeritus at the Theological Faculty of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Valerie KARRAS, M.Div. PhD. Assistant Prof. of Church History at the Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University. Kyriaki KARIDOYANES-FITZGERALD, M.Div., Ph.D. in Psychology. Adjunct Prof. in Theology at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. Eleni KASSELOURI-HATZIVASSILIADI, M.Div., Ph.D. A member of academic staff at the Hellenic Open University, and a gender expert for the Greek National Center for Public Administration and Local Government. Arthur J. KEEFER, Old Testament scholar in the Faculty of Divinity at Cambridge University, U.K. Dimitrios KERAMIDAS, M.Div. Ph.D. Missiologist and a member of academic staff at the Hellenic Open University. Anna KOLTSIOU, Prof. at the School of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Dimitra KOUKOURA, Prof. at the School of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Nikolaos KOUREMENOS, M.Div., Ph.D. Historian and independent scholar. Antonia KYRIATZI, Ph.D. in Theology. Assistant Prof. in the School of Theology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. R. Rev. Elpidoforos LAMBRINIADIS, Associate Prof. at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Metropolitan of Proussa, and Abbott at the Monastery of Halki, of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Deaconesses, the Ordination of Women and Orthodox Theology

595

Ioannis LOTSIOS, M.Div., Ph.D. Independent scholar on ecumenical theology. Maria Gwyn McDOWELL, M.Div. Ph.D. Feminist theologian and ethicist. Niki PAPAGEORGIOU, Associate Prof. at the School of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Ioannis PETROU, Prof. Emeritus at the School of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Teva REGULE, M.Div. Ph.D. candidate. Editor in Chief of the Orthodox Journal, St. Nina Quarterly, as well as teaching at Boston. Ioanna SAHINIDOU, Ph. D. in Theology. Independent scholar on ecofeminism. Panagiotis SKALTSIS, Prof. at the School of Theology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Elisabeth M. SMITH, Ph.D. candidate on the systematic and historical theology of the Catholic University of America. Vassiliki STATHOKOSTA, Assistant Prof. of Ecumenical Theology, University of Athens. Evangelos THEODOROU, Prof. Emeritus at the Theological Faculty, University of Athens. Srboljub UBIPARIPOVIû, Ph. D in Theology. Lecturer at the Theological School of Belgrade. Petros VASSILIADIS, Prof. Emeritus at the Theological Faculty, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. Evangelia VOULGARAKI-PISINA, M.Div., Ph.D. Teaches at the Higher Ecclesiastical Academy of Athens. Theodore YAGOU, Prof. at the Theological Faculty, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

596

Contributors

+ Constantine YOKARINIS, Ph.D. in Theology. Before retirement, he taught at the University of Athens. He recently passed away. Phyllis ZAGANO, Internationally acclaimed Catholic scholar who teaches at various universities and is currently at Hofstra University, teaching contemporary spirituality and women's issues in the Church.