NICAEA AND WOMEN’S ORDAINED MINISTRY

 

• Dr Maria Munkholt Christensen is a research fellow in the Faculty of Protestant Theology, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, and a member of the Commission on Faith and Order of the World Council of Churches., in The Ecumenical Review,  09 October 2025.

Abstract

Looking to the forthcoming Sixth World Conference on Faith and Order, we might recollect that the fifth conference at Santiago de Compostela in 1993 spoke of “continuing our study” on the ordination of women, but this ambition has never been carried out. The 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea offers an opportunity to revisit how the council dealt with the issue of the ordination of women, in particular as deaconesses. This article argues that although the canons of Nicaea reflect a general male-centred orientation of ecclesial authority, one of the canons reveals a more complex picture, in which deaconesses – though ambiguously situated – were at least present and acknowledged. The anniversary of Nicaea invites us to acknowledge the historical presence and liturgical roles of ordained women in the early church and celebrate the ministry of women not only as a past reality but as a living tradition that still calls for discernment and renewal today.

Looking ahead to the Sixth World Conference on Faith and Order in October 2025, we might recollect what was said on the topic of women’s ordination at the Fifth World Conference held in Santiago de Compostela in 1993. At that point, the Commission on Faith and Order had published in 1982 its first convergence text, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry (BEM) and had been evaluating its reception. In his report to the Fifth World Conference, the director of Faith and Order, Günther Gassmann, acknowledged, “The question of the ordination of women to the ministry of the church was rather inadequately dealt with in BEM, from both the theological and the ecumenical point of view.”1 Following this, the official report of the conference included the wish to reconcile the differing opinions on the matter:

The question of the ordination of women remains controversial and a cause of pain among the churches. Together we recognize the claims on us of the Bible and of the whole apostolic Tradition. But as we have sought to discern what that dynamic Tradition implies, we have come to different understandings. In continuing our study of this important issue, our more fundamental theological differences may be brought to light and eventually reconciled.2

The 1993 conference thus called for “continuing our study” on the matter of the ordination of women, but this ambition was never carried out. The second convergence text from the Faith and Order commission, The Church: Towards a Common Vision, in 2012 was even more meagre on the topic,3 and little substantial work on women’s ordained ministry has followed since then. Rather, the topic is politely ignored in contemporary ecumenical dialogues.4 For the moment, the situation can still be defined as it was in 1979, when a consultation organized by Faith and Order on “Ordination of Women in Ecumenical Perspective” hinted at the difficulty in overcoming the divergent opinions by stating that among the churches there existed three irreconcilable attitudes. The report placed churches in the following categories: (1) churches that are against the ordination of women; (2) churches that have been ordaining women for some time; and (3) churches that are still considering arguments for or against the ordination of women.5 In other words, as is well known, the question of women’s ministry remains divisive among Christians.

However, the issue is not new but rather flows through church history as an undercurrent. Churches disagree whether women should be ordained. And if this is the case, which ministries are open to women – only the lower orders? The story of women’s ordination is not a linear history. From the early church and through a thousand years of church history, the office of deaconess was well known in the church, and ordination rituals developed to sacramentally mark women’s transition into this formal ministry.6 In what follows, this article investigates how the First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in its canons already touched on, although indirectly, the topic of women’s ordination as deaconesses. This article argues that although the canons of Nicaea reflect a general male-centred orientation of ecclesial authority, Canon 19 reveals a more complex picture, in which deaconesses – though ambiguously situated – were at least present and acknowledged. However, before exploring the ambivalent Nicene treatment of deaconesses, a first section presents the (lack of) mention of women in relation to the Council of Nicaea.

Women at the Council of Nicaea and in Its Canons

Tradition refers to the participants at the Council of Nicaea as the “318 Fathers,” a number that is likely symbolic and refers to an Old Testament group of godly men (see Genesis 14:14).7 We cannot know for certain if women were physically present at the council or what role they might have played.8 One could speculate that Empress Helena, the mother of Emperor Constantine, who convened the council, may have at least been present in the city of Nicaea as part of his entourage. However, she does not appear in the written records or the later iconic tradition of the event, which typically portrays Emperor Constantine surrounded only by male bishops.

The council of bishops at Nicaea in 325 is best known for agreeing on the initial form of the Nicene Creed. However, it also adopted 20 canons, which are church laws written in a form resembling imperial edicts and Roman legislation.9 These canons tell us much about the impetus at the time to unify and to streamline the institutional church. It is fair to say that both the Council of Nicaea and the language it employed can be characterized as predominantly male, both in its authoritarian and classificatory style, and in its exclusively male terminology in reference to God. This is not surprising given that a largely male clergy had already been established within the church’s hierarchical structure, much like one could find in other public institutions of the time.

Out of the 20 Nicene canons, seven dealt explicitly with the lives of male clergy. A few of these canons focus specifically on the required bodily integrity of male priests and on the forms of relationships with women deemed acceptable for them. For example, already Canon 1 prohibited any man who had castrated himself from being part of the clergy.10 The verbs used for castration are in no way metaphorical: the text speaks of “performing surgery [on oneself]” (ἐχειρουργήθη) and “to make a eunuch” (εὐνουχίσθησαν).11 The purpose of this canon was to make sure that no overzealous ascetic who had consciously mutilated his body to curb desire could be a priest, and to infer a distinction between men who were castrated involuntarily, such as by barbarians, and those who had castrated themselves. The latter group was deemed ineligible for priestly office. While the ideal to control one’s sexual desire was a prime ideal in the early church, and some apparently did try to solve this perceived problem with self-castration, with this canon it was obviously prohibited by the church. This might seem a peculiar subject for an ecclesiastical canon, and, notably, it appears to be the very first topic on practical matters addressed at the council. However strange it may sound to modern ears, this reflects the ethos of chastity and concern with human nature that shaped early Christian thought. It also hints at why the church sought to exclude women: primarily to protect male priests from the perceived temptation they represented. This becomes particularly evident in Canon 3.

Canon 3 also reflects the idealization of chastity among the clergy, as it states that no bishop, presbyter, or deacon should live with a woman “except for his mother, sister, or aunt, or anyone else above suspicion.” In other words, any potential sexual attraction within the clergy’s household was to be avoided. Even letting only celibate ascetic women reside with clergy members was not an option. The term used in this canon for women unrightfully living with the clergy is συνείσακτοι (“[women] brought in [to a house]”). The term suggests a known practice according to which some ascetic women moved in with clergy to form spiritual marriages while remaining celibate, but the canon highlights the risk of promiscuity inherent in such living arrangements.12 While this canon is concerned with keeping the clergy’s private spaces free from potentially disturbing female presence, the second-to-last canon of the council may allude to the presence of women in the church serving as deaconesses.

Canon 19 and Its Mention of Deaconesses

While Canon 3 reflects a strict policing of women’s proximity to male clergy, Canon 19 offers a complex image of deaconesses within the ecclesial structure. In Canon 19, deaconesses make a notable but somewhat ambiguous appearance. This canon is one of only two addressing the reconciliation of members of heterodox groups, specifically focusing on the readmission of the Paulianists (or Paulinists) and their clergy into the Catholic Church.13 The ministry of deaconesses is not described at length in its own right but is mentioned only within the specific context of readmitting so-called Paulianists and their clergy. The Paulianists were followers of the already deceased Paul of Samosata, a former bishop of Antioch. He had been deposed by a council in 268 due to his views on the Son, which were considered heretical.14 The relevant question for this inquiry into women’s ministry is whether we can glean any broader insights into the role and functions of deaconesses at the time of the Council of Nicaea.

However, no deaconesses appear in the first half of Canon 19, which states:

Concerning the former Paulinists who seek refuge in the Catholic Church (τῇ καθολικῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ), it is determined that they must be rebaptized unconditionally. Those who in the past have been enrolled among the clergy, if they appear to be blameless and irreproachable, are to be rebaptized (ἀναβαπτισθέντες) and ordained (χειροτονείσθωσαν) by the bishop of the Catholic Church. But if, on inquiry, they are shown to be unsuitable, it is right that they should be deposed.15

This first part of the canon clearly states that neither baptism nor ordination performed by Paulianist clergy is valid. Priests must be ordained through the imposition of hands by a Catholic bishop. It is only from this point onward that deaconesses are mentioned in the canon:

Similarly, with regard to deaconesses (περὶ τῶν διακονισσῶν), and all in general whose names have been included in the roll (ἐν τῷ κανόνι), the same form shall be observed. We refer to deaconesses (τῶν διακονισσῶν) who have been granted this status ([or this habit] ἐν τῷ σχήματι), for they do not receive any imposition of hands (μήτε χειροθεσίαν), so that they are in all respects to be numbered among the laity (ἐν τοῖς λαϊκοῖς).16

Many historians have sought to clarify this canon’s meaning, yet much remains open to interpretation. Part of this ambiguity stems from textual variants and uncertainties in the original wording. The version above, which mentions deaconesses twice, is preserved in one of the main sources of the Nicene canons, namely John Scholasticus’ Collection of Fifty Titles from the mid-6th century.17 However, a 5th-century version, attributed to the so-called Gelasius (or Anonymous) of Cyzicus (or Caesarea), mentions deaconesses only in the final sentence, thus excluding them definitively from ordained ministry. Due to this textual inconsistency, the 19th-century Roman Catholic scholar Karl Joseph von Hefele declared that this canon “presents insurmountable difficulties.”18 Nonetheless, von Hefele favoured Gelasius’ version, thereby downplaying the role of deaconesses in the early Catholic Church.19 Contemporary scholarship no longer views Gelasius’ version as necessarily more authoritative, given that it is known to have been heavily edited by the original compiler.20

Consequently, the version with the double mentioning of deaconesses enjoys broader acceptance today, though it still raises questions. It appears clear that the Paulianist community included deaconesses among their clergy. However, upon joining the Catholic Church, these women were no longer recognized as clergy because their ordinations, performed without the legitimate laying on of hands by a Catholic bishop, were considered invalid. Consequently, former Paulianist deaconesses were accepted as members of the Catholic Church but classified as laity.

What, then, does this tell us about the role of deaconesses within the Catholic Church itself? It remains debated whether the Catholic Church’s reluctance to accept Paulianist deaconesses reflected (1) a general rejection of deaconesses altogether (2) a rejection of deaconesses as members of the ordained clergy in the Catholic Church;21 or (3) a rejection solely of Paulianist deaconesses while still recognizing deaconesses ordained legitimately within the Catholic Church.22

Earlier, Roman Catholic scholars such as von Hefele, Adolf Karlsbach, and Roger Gryson emphasized the second interpretation, viewing Canon 19 as evidence of the existence of non-ordained deaconesses within the early Catholic Church. However, the third interpretation – acknowledging ordained deaconesses in the Catholic Church at the time of the Nicene Council – has since become the most widely accepted interpretation among a diverse range of scholars examining the text. As early as 1969, the Orthodox scholar Jerome Cotsonis argued that the canon implies that Catholic deaconesses both received the habit and were ordained, thus fully belonging to the ordained clergy. He argued:

we may conclude that, in the Church, deaconesses were canonically ordained just like the other members of the clergy…. In the time of the First Ecumenical Council, the view prevailed in the Church, that deaconesses did belong to the clergy and if at the same time nothing exceptional had happened in regard to some of the Paulinist deaconesses there would have been no reason to make a special mention of them in the Canon.23

This whole discussion also touches on what “ordination” meant at the time of the Council of Nicaea. Even if Canon 19 indicates that deaconesses existed in the Catholic Church, some could still ask if they were merely “blessed” or “appointed” by the bishop’s imposition of hands and not “ordained” in the full sacramental sense. Because the vocabulary and theology of sacramental ordination were still evolving in the 4th century, interpreting Canon 19 and related texts is complex. However, dismissing these early “ordinations” solely on the basis of later church developments seems historically questionable. Canon 19 itself does not provide a definitive answer regarding the ordination of deaconesses, but later sources – dating shortly after Nicaea – will be examined below to shed further light on the issue.

It is also noteworthy that διακονισσῶν appears in Canon 19 as the first known synodal reference to women office holders by a distinct feminine title. Earlier Christian texts used the masculine form – even for female deacons – such as Phoebe, called a διάκονον in Romans 16:1. The emergence of a specific feminine term by 325 likely reflects the growing establishment and frequency of the office of deaconess. The mentioning of deaconesses in the Nicene canons suggests that deaconesses were a recognized category within the church at that time. However, the complexity and redactional layers of Canon 19 imply some hesitancy or uncertainty regarding their precise status. My interpretation is that Canon 19 indicates that deaconesses could be regarded as part of the clergy (ἐν τῷ κανόνι) within the Catholic Church provided they were properly ordained by a Catholic bishop. It appears that the Council deliberately avoided explicitly defining the exact nature of their ministry or ordination, probably because this was not an urgent issue requiring regulation at that time. In other words, the ordination of deaconesses within the Catholic Church was not a contentious issue. The primary concern during the Council was to address the issue of the Paulianists and their reintegration into the Catholic Church.

Further Evidence of Ordained Deaconesses in the Early Church

One might – possibly motivated by confessional preferences against women’s ordination – interpret the Nicene Canon 19 to mean that deaconesses were not counted among the ordained clergy in the Catholic Church. However, this does not change the fact that ordained deaconesses clearly appear in other church orders and canonical materials shortly after the Nicene Council. For example, the Apostolic Constitutions, a late 4th-century composition, unambiguously describe the ordination of deaconesses with notable parallels to the ordination of presbyters and male deacons outlined in the same text. Regarding deaconesses, the Apostolic Constitutions prescribe: “Bishop, you shall lay your hands upon her (ἐπιθήσεις αὐτῇ τὰς χεῖρας) in the presence of the presbytery, and of the deacons and deaconesses.”24 A prayer to be said by the bishop at the ordination follows:

O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of man and of woman, who filled Miriam and Deborah, and Anna, and Hulda with the Spirit; who did not disdain that your only begotten Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, did ordain women to be keepers of your Holy Gates, do you now also look down upon this your servant, who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess (τὴν προχειριζομένην εἰς διακονίαν), and grant her your Holy Spirit, and cleanse her from all filthiness of flesh and spirit, that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her to your glory, and the praise of thy Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to you and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.25

It is striking that in this church order, the ordination of a deaconess occurs within the broader context of ordaining other clergy and that the ordination prayer contains much the same language and theological sentiment as that used for male deacons (such as τὸν προχειριζόμενόν or τὴν προχειριζομένην), including an invocation of the Holy Spirit. Nothing in the text singles out deaconesses as a lesser or unofficial part of the clergy, although the specific term most closely associated with sacramental ordination in later times, χειροτονία, is not explicitly mentioned in the description of the ordination of deaconesses. Another section of the Apostolic Constitutions notes that a deaconess is outranked by all other clergy with regard to the right to dispense blessings: “A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency.”26 However, “her hierarchical position nonetheless is not always the same in all the parts of the document,”27 suggesting some variation or uncertainty in the precise status and tasks of deaconesses.

The understanding that ordained deaconesses belonged to the ordained clergy is further supported by other authoritative texts from the following century, such as Canon 15 from the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which states clearly:

No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon (Διάκονον μὴ χειροτονεῖσθαι γυναῖκα), and then only after close scrutiny. If, after receiving ordination and spending some time in the ministry, she despises God’s grace and gets married, such a person is to be anathematized along with her spouse.28

By the time of Chalcedon, more than a century after Nicaea, ordained deaconesses were evidently a well-known and recognized category within the church; they were formally ordained and actively ministering. Numerous other examples from early Christian history confirm the presence of deaconesses.29 Given these clear attestations, it is probable that Canon 19 of the Council of Nicaea also testifies implicitly to a formally acknowledged women’s ministry within the church, even if this ministry was only indirectly addressed at the Council. In other words, deaconesses per se were not problematic for the Council.

Conclusion: Where Now for Women Deaconesses?

The sources discussed above provide a partly opaque window into the ministry of women during the era of the Council of Nicaea. While the Nicene canons concentrate heavily on male clergy, Canon 19 can plausibly be read as acknowledging deaconesses within the ordained clergy of the Catholic Church. Interpretations of this canon have diverged sharply, not least along confessional lines: pre–Vatican II Catholic scholars interpreted it to exclude deaconesses from ordained status, whereas several other scholars have argued that the existence of ordained deaconesses was a logical implication of the canon.

It is clear, however, that official Catholic texts generally limited the authority of such women from the time of the early church. In fact, women often appeared to hold greater authority in the communities which mainstream Nicene Christianity condemned. This tension poses a challenge: how to celebrate the Council of Nicaea while also recognizing and honouring women’s ministry, whatever its specific form in various communities. The fact that the practice of ordaining deaconesses fell into disuse toward the end of the first millennium complicates this commemoration.

Yet, given the ongoing contemporary efforts in some traditions to reconsider and even restore the office of deaconesses, we might see this moment as part of a living history, not merely a closed chapter.30 Within the World Council of Churches, back in the 1980s to 1990s, a series of consultations with Orthodox participants were held. An Inter-Orthodox Theological Consultation in Rhodes in 1988 reaffirmed the “male character of the ‘sacramental’ priesthood” but called for “the restoration of the ‘apostolic order of deaconesses.’”31 What became of these reflections?

Ultimately, while it may not be wise to turn the commemoration of the Council of Nicaea into a polemical debate over the ordination of women, it would be a missed opportunity not to acknowledge the historical presence and liturgical roles of ordained women in the early church. The anniversary of Nicaea invites us to revisit the theological foundations of Christian unity and also to reflect on the full scope of the church’s tradition. In doing so, we can celebrate the ministry of women not only as a past reality but as a living tradition that still calls for discernment and renewal today. Such a celebration aligns with the Nicene tradition and may in fact be its rightful continuation.

•