Talk:Deaconess

NPOV
In the "Art" section words like "conspiracy" violate NPOV. The ending phrase "to further glorify the role of Christian men" is way off the deep end, wow. PeterMottola 06:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe those are direct quotes or at least summaries of statements from the two books referenced. I will check to see if the WP statement is vastly different from the sources. Do you know of any source material that contradicts these assertions? --Robbie Giles 03:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that an objective description of the "Episcopa Theodora" mosaic would state that while some historians speculate that the use of the latinized feminine form "episcopa" indicates that Theodora was a female bishop, others point out that Theodora was the mother of Pope Paschal I, and the term was a common honorific befitting her status as mother of the pope. Of course, since this article is on deaconesses, and the section in question relates to Theodora's disputed status as bishop, perhaps it doesn't properly belong in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.176.14 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

In the introduction to the article, singling out the absence of deaconesses in the Catholic Church violates NPOV. There are other Christian denominations that do not have deaconesses and yet they are not mentioned in the introduction. Instead of singling out one denomination in the introduction it would be better to simply say that not all denominations have deaconesses and mention those without deaconesses in the body o the article, trying one's best to mention all the denominations that do not admit deaconesses. Otherwise singling out Catholicism's absence of deaconesses borders on promoting anti-Catholic bias, something which considering some of the talk on this page might already be a factor. Chrisgaffrey (talk) 00:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Now that I've figured out how to edit the introduction, I've removed the singling out of the absence of deaconesses in the Catholic Church, something which should be dealt with in the body, not in the introduction, and I've deleted the unnecessary discussion in the introduction about Catholic ordination that accompanied the singling out of Catholicism's lack of deaconesses, something again which would be more appropriate in the body.Chrisgaffrey (talk) 01:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

NPOV removed. The source is notable and reliable, if it claims there is a conspiracy, it is necessary to have that in the article. NPOV isn't about making article bland, it is about presenting points of view in a balanced manner, and with due weight. - RoyBoy 02:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

To-Do
--Robbie Giles 13:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Add more info from western churches
 * Name sections for more specific time periods
 * Research time period from 14th century to modern times
 * Religious art or photos of the artwork mentioned

Deaconess as a major order
Council of Nicea canon XIX clearly states deaconesses are to be counted among the laity, i.e. not the clergy... AlephGamma (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That canon refers to deaconesses coming from the heretical Paulianists, not deaconesses in general. If we are debating original research here, then the Council of Chalcedon canon XV clearly states that deaconesses are ordained.  In any event, deaconesses ranked above subdeacons, who were also considered to be one of the major orders. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing out Chalcedon. Schaff still is of the opinion, and he cites Chalcedon that “the laying on of hands” of the deaconesses did not correspond to those ordained to the diaconate, presbyterate or episcopate - and that it was merely a solemn dedication. BTW, I'm not a researcher and I leave that PhD work to someone else. Where does the ranking of system come from? Last I read Scripture does not mention subdeacons. AlephGamma (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is an article on major orders in medieval times, after the office of deaconess died out in the West. There are also minor orders.  Historical evidence suggests that bishop, priest, deacon, and deaconess were ordained in the East, while subdeacon and the others were not ordained either in East or West.  Arguments against the ordination of deaconesses consist mainly of trying to cast doubt on or otherwise spin the historical evidence (such as Schaff's argument) and the theological understanding of the early bishops in East.  Some of the debate points are in Ordination of women.-- Cat Whisperer (talk) 12:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone assumes that the intent of a deaconesses' ordination and their functions were the same as a male deacons in the early Church (back in a time for which a lot of us in the Anglosphere lack the cultural, historical and linguistic references) - yes - then they would be a major order. Good point on Chalcedon. AlephGamma (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I still believe that it can be disputed that Nicea canon XIX can refer to deaconesses as being part of the laity whether they are Paulianists or not. Otherwise why does the canon not state something similar to - like the (male) clergy, let them be (re)ordained? AlephGamma (talk) 02:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The male Paulianist clergy were considered laity as well, otherwise why would they need to be (re)ordained? I don't know why (re)ordination wasn't an option for deaconesses.  But this is a subject of debate within the Catholic Church.  However, my understanding is that within the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the majority belief is that deaconesses were ordained.  Probably not coincidentally, many of the Catholic arguments on the "deaconesses were not ordained" side depend on the assertion that the early Eastern bishops were just too theologically ignorant for their pro-ordination statements to be accepted.  -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 04:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The discussion about what the Council of Nicea decreed regarding deaconesses has been moved forward by a publication of the original Greek text online, with a discussion of the various interpretations . The outcome seems to favour the view that Nicea did consider them a major order. However, there is more evidence pointing to the women's diaconate being a major order. (1) Theodore of Mopsuestia (350-429) clearly distinguishes the 'orders of real ministry' (priests, deacons) from minor functions (lectors, subdeacons, etc.) And the distinguishing mark is that for these real ministries ordinations took place in the sanctuary . This is confirmed by the 15th-century Orthodox liturgist Simeon of Thessalonika: "The exalted ordinations are imparted inside the sanctuary" [Megas Synaxaristes, ed. V. Matheou, Attica 1956; John Wijngaards, Women Deacons in the Early Church, Herder & Herder, New York 2002, pp. 100-101]. And we know from the ordination rites that women deacons too were always ordained within the sanctuary. (2) In the Church legislation under Emperor Justinian (529-564), deaconesses are routinely ranked with male deacons. In a number of cases the legislation speaks of; "the deacons, men or women, etc.". See Novella 6. 6 par. 1-10; 131. 23; 123.30; etc. [R. Schoell and G. Kroll, eds. Corpus iuris civilis, vol. III, Berlin 1899, pp. 43-45, 616, 662.] From such evidence it is clear that deaconesses should be ranked among the higher clergy  Elsa Beek  —Preceding undated comment added 08:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

Let me resurrect this discussion, how about Didascalia of the Apostles? Unfortunately I haven't seen the earliest edition which was founded in Constantinople, but the so-called (later) edition states deaconess were in lay, not in clergy as well as choir-leader, although those two offices were counted as　ministers. I think I have not to point out the Orthodox Church has also a male minister office but not clergy - preachers. But preachers are also "ordained" or precisely blessed to be appointed to that office. It would be a bit difficult to say clearly, but I think it's important to stick to a clear and coherent terminology. If the word "ordain" confuses many other people, we have to find another word. Since it is obvious that every office of the Orthodox Church should be "appointed" (or ordained) but not every of them are of clergy. Diaconess is such a ministry, need to be appointed in a right way and following rules, but not belongs to clergy order from the ancient. --Aphaia (talk) 08:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Greek Orthodox Church
The Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church recently voted to start the ball rolling on deaconesses, but some bloggers are calling it a lay office which is not the same as the religious order of deacon. It is also being called a disciplinary decision. Since I don't read Greek, I don't know if the Synod has made that distinction. More information would be helpful. AlephGamma (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Check out Ordination of women. There is a Bishop Ware quote about it being an ordained office. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the Bishop Ware quote. He is referring to his opinion on the historical state of the deaconesses as being ordained. I doubt he speaks for the Greek Orthodox Synod though and still would like to know what the Synod had to say - and if they made such a distinction as deaconesses being a lay function or an ordination AlephGamma (talk) 02:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about the modern Greek Orthodox situation other than what was contained in the Ordination of women article. However, if the deaconess ordination ceremony was used unchanged, then Bishop Ware's comments (regarding lex orandi, lex credendi) would continue to apply. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are too many assumptions being made. 1) Men and women were equals then - in the early Church and antiquity 2) That deaconesses then - in the early Church - did the same as modern deacons 3) deaconesses were ordained - the same way as men - and not blessed or appointed to a lay office 4) the Orthodox church agrees with Bishop Ware and 5) some conspiracy exists. Re-reading Nicea canon XIX in the view that deaconesses are laity - whether Paulianist or not - and were never ordained (as other Orthodox claim) - therefore IMO, I reason that the translation of Chalcedon canon XV does not have a plain reading or the clear meaning we think it it does. This brings to mind the plain reading of the "brothers" of Jesus. AlephGamma (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Evangelos Theodorou seems to be a leading scholarly authority among the Eastern Orthodox. From : Professor Theodorou's scholarly examination of the history of women deacons was first published in the year 1948. In his monumental study published in 1954, Theodorou clearly demonstrates that women were truly ordained as deacons in the Orthodox Church at least through the Middle Ages, and that the order never completely disappeared to this very day. Based upon an extensive study of ancient sources, Theodorou convincingly shows that women deacons were ordained at the Altar during the Liturgy in a manner similar to male deacons. In his study, Theodorou reproduces the ordination prayers for women deacons used in the Byzantine period. He also identifies and discusses the many responsibilities which women deacons had in the Church. The article also indicates that the ancient ordination prayers of the Byzantine period was used in the modern ceremony. It would be interesting to see if there are any modern, scholarly opinions among the Eastern Orthodox that deaconesses are not ordained. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. This page indicates that Prof. John Karmiris is on the non-ordained side of the issue. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't tell for sure, but something I read makes me wonder if Prof. Karmiris thinks that deaconesses weren't ordained because he thinks deacons weren't ordained either. Weird, if true.  Well, I guess the Catholic Church didn't figure out that episcopal ordination was a sacrament until Vatican II, so this must be a difficult theological question in general. -- Cat Whisperer (talk) 04:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an old tactic - deny deacons were never ordained, which sounds like the myth of the calvinist Patriarch of New Rome. And I thought only the Pope was guilty of hubris. :) AlephGamma (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To correct a mistaken point of view, the Catholic Church understood episcopal consecration to be a sacrament before Vatican II. The Catholic Encyclopedia, written in 1908 mentions its sacramental character specifically. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04276a.htm. The debate was whether it the effects of the sacrament were different than that of priesthood or rather simply an extension of the sacramental character of priesthood. See the article for more information. The issue concerning deacons in the Catholic Church is a debate on whether they receive a sacramental character akin to priestly ordination. If the definitive answer is "no" to the sacramental character, this would leave room for deaconesses as female counterparts of male deacons. If "yes", this would definitively exclude such a counterpart, while not closing the door on a lay ministry of deaconesses. Chrisgaffrey (talk) 00:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Deaconesses?
The heading of the article says the Catholic Church does not currently have deaconesses, but the Roman Catholic Church was in the list of denominations. That list does not have a particular title, but presumably it refers to denominations with deaconesses currently. That clearly conflicts with what was said above, so I removed the Roman Catholic Church from said list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.230.156.54 (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of text from cited section
I removed the following from some cited text in the early history section. If there is a source for this summation, it needs to be outside the cited section. "(although it could easily have meant that she was the wife or widow of a bishop)" --Robbie Giles (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Preserve Distinction Between "Deaconness" and "Diaconate"
Although it has been suggested to fold in "Deaconess" in with an entry on the Diaconate, it will be helpful to preserve a separate subsection on the topic, as the variation in their use by different religious sects within Christianity makes them oftentimes distinct from their male counterparts. For example, in Episcopal Church History, in 1889, the order of Deaconess "set apart" women to care for "the sick, the afflicted, and the poor." Although arguably closer to the traditional ministry of the Diaconate than many of their male counterparts in the era, Deaconesses could not function liturgically. With women's ordination to the Diaconate in 1970, Deaconesses were automatically folded in with Deacons, although some rejected the new designation.

I agree. Though some claim that deaconesses are the same as their male counterparts, other Christian dispute this,and so the distinct article should be maintained.Chrisgaffrey (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I too think the distinction should be kept for the reasons given. (Elsa Beek), 21 April 2011.

I wouldn't completely integrate the two articles either. But... I would make a much clearer distinction between deaconnesses (to be discussed in this article) and female deacons (to be discussed in the article about deacons). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Deaconess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100804075234/http://www.dace.org:80/deacons/famous.shtml to http://www.dace.org/deacons/famous.shtml#ferard

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:47, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deaconess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091007222534/http://www.oefgroup.com/34.html to http://www.oefgroup.com/34.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dace.org/deacons/famous.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040714093603/http://ucc.org/aboutus/histories/chap7.htm to http://www.ucc.org/aboutus/histories/chap7.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Deaconess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.dace.org/deacons/history-extended.shtml.
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927014842/http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/administration/centennial/history/deaconess/display.aspx to http://www.nazarene.org/ministries/administration/centennial/history/deaconess/display.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060925192452/http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=9093 to http://www.lcms.org/pages/internal.asp?NavID=9093
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061218012934/http://new.gbgm-umc.org/about/us/mp/deaconess-homemissioner/ to http://new.gbgm-umc.org/about/us/mp/deaconess-homemissioner/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040824045257/http://www.presbycan.ca/odm/history.html to http://www.presbycan.ca/odm/history.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

False Information and other Unchecked Sources...
A lot of the information on this Wikipedia page is either completely false or extremely taken out of context in regards to the Catholic Church and women. A lot of these sources which claim that women were ordained, once checked show the complete opposite. Sources like womenpriests.org are 100% FALSE INFORMATION designed to promote some random peoples theological viewpoint which has no historical basis in reality. A lot of the information here needs to be vetted. KEleison (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Women cannot be ordained as deacons as they cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. For this to be stated to have happened in and throughout the article doesn't make logical sense. KEleison (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that is several of your edits you have claimed that the deleted material was unsourced, whereas in fact various sources were cited. Moreover, you have not provided any reliable sources to substantiate your claims that certain things could not have ever occurred. While there is certainly controversy over the history of the female deaconate, I don't think the state of that controversy is such that the idea is rejected by every expert. Therefore, while it would certainly be in order to add the dissenting views with appropriate sources, outright deletion of the views you oppose is, in my view, unwarranted. Therefore, I have reverted the article to the state it was in before your edits. Indyguy (talk) 22:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There are many things, for example. You can search this up yourself, people like John Chrysostom and Basil the Great never accept that women were ordained. Regardless of the sources present on the article, actual verifiable sources claim that these Saints held the opposite positions for example, see https://www.catholic.com/tract/women-and-the-priesthood and https://www.churchfathers.org/women-and-priesthood. Christianity before the Protestant revolt has never accepted ordination to the diaconate for women.


 * Secondly, the source (11) REBUKES ITSELF, regardless that womenpriests.org is 100% POV, the website itself states "This interpretation is understood by some authors as the Council stating that in the Catholic Church deaconesses were not ordained and always to be ranked among the laity." which is against the article...


 * Thirdly, source 12 rebukes itself, the Apostolic Constituions if you read them yourself state, "A virgin is not ordained, for we have no such command from the Lord, for this is a state of voluntary trial, not for the reproach of marriage, but on account of leisure for piety".


 * Fourthly, there is no evidence whatsoever that deaconesses were the primary people for baptisms or the administration of the Anointing of the Sick.


 * Upon the many other claims mentioned in this article, it doesn't matter that claims in this article were sourced, bad sources doesn't make a lot of the information present here good.


 * I am not planning to insert any POV onto this article, all I was doing was literally fact checking all of the information present, searching up quotes (which most redirect to womenpriests.org), sources, etc. that are in the article in which a lot either say the contrary or a lot of other sources flat out call them wrong. You could try to search up these sources and quotes and claiks from the article. For one source here that supports whats against history, hundreds can be found against it.


 * The term ordination to the diaconate implies a WHOLE DIFFERENT meaning than what a deaconess actually is.KEleison (talk) 23:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Removed Disputed banner from article. There are sufficient citations in the article to justify the removal.  Also, other than the previous changes made by blocked user "RarelyIfEvenUsedAccount" aka "KEleison" and content on this talk page, there is no ongoing dispute.  • Bobsd •  (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Doubtful information
In the beggining of the article it says that in the past (in Byzantium and in Western Europe more specifically) deaconesses were "recognized as one of the major non-ordained orders of clergy." In the article on ordination of women it says otherwise:

Thomas Hopko and Evangelos Theodorou have contended that female deacons were fully ordained in antiquity. K. K. Fitzgerald has followed and amplified Theodorou's research. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware wrote: "The order of deaconesses seems definitely to have been considered an 'ordained' ministry during early centuries in at any rate the Christian East.[...] Some Orthodox writers regard deaconesses as having been a 'lay' ministry. There are strong reasons for rejecting this view. In the Byzantine rite the liturgical office for the laying-on of hands for the deaconess is exactly parallel to that for the deacon; and so on the principle lex orandi, lex credendi—the Church's worshipping practice is a sure indication of its faith—it follows that the deaconesses receives, as does the deacon, a genuine sacramental ordination: not just a χειροθεσια but a χειροτονια."

Which one of these statements is true? Statskvinde (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Reliability of the principal source, and other issues with this article
This article repeatedly falsely equates the ministry of deaconess with the Major Order of Deacon, and for this reason I believe that large portions of it ought to be rewritten and the theory that a female diaconate existed in the early church relegated to its own section. The source cited most often in the article for this fringe theory is Valerie Karras' article in 'Church History' entitled Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church. In her text she frequently equates a supposed female diaconate with the well-known position of deaconess. Below is an excerpt from page 273 of the aforementioned journal (this may be found on the Internet Archive), wherein we see her use the terms interchangeably:

"The evidence for ordained female deacons in the early Christian period, at least in portions of the Eastern Church, is clear and unambiguous. That deaconesses continued to exist from the early through the middle Byzantine period, at least in Constantinople and Jerusalem...."

The use of these terms interchangeably is highly inappropriate and is indicative of the purpose of her article: to equate the position of deaconess with the Major Order of Diaconate. The diaconate, and I shall clarify that by "diaconate" I am limiting it to male deacons, is an important liturgical position. I will later on provide evidence from early Christians to demonstrate that the position of deaconess served no liturgical purpose; and Karras practically admits as much in her own article. From the same aforementioned article, on page 274:

"While the literary record does not give a detailed and comprehensive picture of the female diaconate, especially with respect to liturgical activities, the order appears to have thrived in the early Byzantine period."

She later insists that they served liturgical purposes, whilst failing to present any evidence of deaconesses performing any function in the Mass, aside perhaps from singing hymns. In the following quotation, the author asserts that they perform the actual baptism with the bishop simply performing the other baptismal rites.

"However, the primary reason for ordination to the clergy is specific liturgical function, and that is the area for which we have the most information with respect to female deacons, especially in late antiquity. One of the most important sacramental duties of the deaconess in the early church in the East was conducting the physical anointing and baptism of (nude) adult women, who were then "officially" baptized by the bishop's prayer over the just-baptized woman after she was either chastely robed or hidden from male gaze."

The author's account of events greatly overstates the importance of the deaconess, suggesting that she is in fact performing the baptism (something generally reserved to clerics, though anyone can validly baptize). This is not the case, as we read in the Apostolic Constitutions (see quotation below). While the deaconess does indeed anoint the body in oil prior to the baptism, it is the bishop or priest performing the sacraments of baptism and chrismation. We can see thus that the deaconesses served no unique liturgical purpose (with the singing of hymns being done even by laymen and laywomen), nor does she perform any sacrament, though she indeed does assist in the ceremonies surrounding the administration of a sacrament (that being baptism).

"After that, either you, O bishop, or a presbyter that is under you, shall in the solemn form name over them the Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, and shall dip them in the water; and let a deacon receive the man, and a deaconess the woman, that so the conferring of this inviolable seal may take place with a becoming decency. And after that, let the bishop anoint those that are baptized with ointment."

The most substance which the author can pull up, as seen from page 279 onwards, is that deaconesses were consecrated (though she on occasion uses the word "ordained" in an effort to move her argument forward). However, she admits that they were often both "abbess and deaconess" (Karras 282). The author then on pages 288 and 289 attempts to reason that, on account of the Church's refusal to accept the Paulicians deaconesses, on account of them having not been "ordained" through the laying of hands, that the Catholic Church must've considered her own deaconesses to be clergy. This can hardly be the case, as the laying of hands by a bishop is used in contexts other than ordination. For instance, the Pontificale Romanum includes a rite for the consecration of an Abbess, notably including the laying of hands: "His dictis, Electa surgit, et ante Pontificem genuflectit, qui prosequitur, manus ante pectus extensas tenens, dicens... Pontifex imponit ambas manus extensas, digitis tamen non disjunctis, super caput Electæ, et eas sic tenet prosequendo...". Yet nobody would reckon that the abbess is now a cleric simply because the bishop has laid hands upon her.

The muddling of the terms "deaconess" and "female deacon" is the most obnoxious of the tendencies of Karras. As evidenced by an earlier section in this very talk page entitled "Preserve Distinction Between "Deaconess" and "Diaconate"", it was hardly a popular conflation. Despite the consensus of previous editors that the distinction ought to be maintained, this Wikipedia article has followed in the steps of Karras in conflating the two very different concepts of a deaconess and a female deacon. Despite this article clarifying that "Non-clerical deaconesses should not be confused with women ordained deacons such as in the Anglican churches, the Methodist churches, and the Protestant Church in the Netherlands, many of which have both ordained deacons and consecrated deaconesses...", it itself falls into this folly in the subsection "Women as deacons" through the close of the section.

Epiphanius of Salamis, who is mentioned early in the Wikipedia article as evidence for the existence of the office of deaconess, in his refutation of the Collyridian heresy outright rejects that deaconesses serve any liturgical purpose. This alone should warrant the separation of the subsection "Women as deacons" from the section "Early Christian period", and into its own section dealing with the theory that a female diaconate existed. He wrote:

"It is plain too that there is an order of deaconesses in the church. But this is not allowed for the practice of priesthood or any liturgical function, but for the sake of female modesty, at either the time of baptism or of the examination of some condition or trouble, and when a woman’s body may be bared, so that she will be seen not by the male priests but by the assisting female who is appointed by the priest for the occasion, to take temporary care of the woman who needs it at the time when her body is uncovered."

Having said this much, I reassert that this Wikipedia article is in need of a rewrite to thoroughly clarify the distinction between a deaconess and a female deacon (if such a thing even existed). I am additionally of the opinion that Karras' Female Deacons in the Byzantine Church should not be used as a source outside of a new section dedicated specifically to her theory that the supposed female diaconate was a clerical order, and perhaps even a Major Order.

As a final matter, I am of the opinion that the subsection entitled "Restoration of the female diaconate" ought to be moved to the section entitled "Late modern period". Count Cherokee (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)