Are You In Favour Of Women Joining The Diaconate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Soldier_Of_God
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Soldier_Of_God

Guest
It is my understanding that women served as Deaconesses in early Church history. However, it was the conclusion of the the International Theological Commission that historical research demonstrates, while there were Deaconesses, from the earliest days a clear distinction was made between Deaconesses and Deacons. The historical Deaconesses were instituted into the ministry (and were derived from an order of widows), while Deacons were ordained into the Sacrement of Holy Orders. It must be noted that the ITC has no magisterial authority.

Nonetheless, Pope Benedict XVI has left a possibility open of allowing women to join the Diaconate by issuing a motu proprio distinguishing between the roles of deacons and the priests/bishops. Only priests/bishops can act in the Person of Christ.

What would be your position?
 
No. It worked, and was necessary, in the early Church. Not now. We already have mass confusion when it comes to distinction between laity and clergy. That line is already being blurred. A lot more could be said, but I thought I’d post to explain why I said no.
 
I think for many of the tasks that deacons do, lay women can do appropriately today. For example, taking communion to the sick or homebound. For other tasks the deacons do --like preach the homily, or purify the chalice–I do not think it would be prudent to have a woman in those roles. There are too many agitating for woman to be ordained priest, and not enough understanding of the difference between a priest and a permanent deacon.

In past times, when the roles of men and women were more stratified andf there was no such thing as a religious sister, it was important for the church to have “ordained” women who could take communion to a sick woman or otherwise visit women in situations where an unrelated man would not be welcome. Today, this role is not necessary enough to make the very likely confusion and fuss worth it. 😦
 
Soldier_Of_God said:
It is my understanding that women served as Deaconesses in early Church history. However, it was the conclusion of the the International Theological Commission that historical research demonstrates, while there were Deaconesses, from the earliest days a clear distinction was made between Deaconesses and Deacons. The historical Deaconesses were instituted into the ministry (and were derived from an order of widows), while Deacons were ordained into the Sacrement of Holy Orders. It must be noted that the ITC has no magisterial authority.

Nonetheless, Pope Benedict XVI has left a possibility open of allowing women to join the Diaconate by issuing a motu proprio distinguishing between the roles of deacons and the priests/bishops. Only priests/bishops can act in the Person of Christ.

What would be your position?
Click to expand...
Huh? Women can never be deacons.

Yes, only priests can act in the person of Christ. But only men can receive holy orders. While holy orders for a deacon is a different “level” than holy orders for a priest or bishop, it can still only be received by men. This isn’t up for debate. Can you please show me where B16 left holy orders open for women in any way?
 
Mrs_Sally said:
I think for many of the tasks that deacons do, lay women can do appropriately today. For example, taking communion to the sick or homebound.
Click to expand...
Yes, lay women can do it, but if a priest or deacon is able, he always should do it before a layperson does.
Mrs_Sally said:
For other tasks the deacons do --like preach the homily, or purify the chalice–I do not think it would be prudent to have a woman in those roles. There are too many agitating for woman to be ordained priest, and not enough understanding of the difference between a priest and a permanent deacon.
Click to expand...
Not to mention women never will be ordained to the deaconate. Is there really that much confusion about this? Only men con receive holy orders. End of story.
Mrs_Sally said:
In past times, when the roles of men and women were more stratified andf there was no such thing as a religious sister, it was important for the church to have “ordained” women who could take communion to a sick woman or otherwise visit women in situations where an unrelated man would not be welcome. Today, this role is not necessary enough to make the very likely confusion and fuss worth it. 😦
Click to expand...
That is exactly true. So called deaconesses were really only nuns.
 
I am not in favor of women joining the diaconate. The diaconate is one of the three major orders, diaconate, presbyterate and episcopacy.

With all due respect, I have my doubts that Pope Benedict XVI would have left the possibility open to women in the diaconate since, as prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he did not condone such action. I do not think that he would have changed his mind that quickly.
 
There’s not even a question here. The Council of Nicea, in canon 19, clarified that the women who were referred to as “deaconesses” don’t actually possess Holy Orders. The title is simply honorific (the term deacon means “servant” or “server,” so in the same way we might call a female saint “Servant of God” without meaning that to mean she was a Deacon of God).

Here’s the canon in question:
Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.
Click to expand...
 
TheMc said:
Yes, lay women can do it, but if a priest or deacon is able, he always should do it before a layperson does.

Not to mention women never will be ordained to the deaconate. Is there really that much confusion about this? Only men con receive holy orders. End of story.

That is exactly true. So called deaconesses were really only nuns.
Click to expand...
Yep. I agree completely.
 
I am in favor of following the teaching of our Magisterium - 100%.

That means women cannot be deacons.

Entertaining the idea could be considered propagation of error, schism, even maybe heresy. This is risking our eternal reward, and for what?
 
TheMc said:
Huh? Women can never be deacons.

Yes, only priests can act in the person of Christ. But only men can receive holy orders. While holy orders for a deacon is a different “level” than holy orders for a priest or bishop, it can still only be received by men. This isn’t up for debate. Can you please show me where B16 left holy orders open for women in any way?
Click to expand...
Here is a link that contains some additional information:
protectthepope.com/?p=1924

Here is a link to the referenced Verbum Domini:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

Note, I did not indicate that Deaconesses were open to the Sacrement of Holy Orders.
 
Samuel63 said:
I am in favor of following the teaching of our Magisterium - 100%.

That means women cannot be deacons.

Entertaining the idea could be considered propagation of error, schism, even maybe heresy. This is risking our eternal reward, and for what?
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s what I’m in favor of.

Why are we even discussing this?
 
While I’m ok with some roles for women that people shudder at such as altar girls, lectors, and EMHC’s.

I’m not in favor of (and never will be) women as deacons or priests.

END of story…
 
Not in favor.

Anyway, are we in desperate need of deacons or something, where this issue would even come up? Because some people argue for the ordination of women or for priests to get married because of the shortage of priests. Far as I know, there isn’t the same problem with deacons.
 
Soldier_Of_God said:
It is my understanding that women served as Deaconesses in early Church history. However, it was the conclusion of the the International Theological Commission that historical research demonstrates, while there were Deaconesses, from the earliest days a clear distinction was made between Deaconesses and Deacons. The historical Deaconesses were instituted into the ministry (and were derived from an order of widows), while Deacons were ordained into the Sacrement of Holy Orders. It must be noted that the ITC has no magisterial authority.

Nonetheless, Pope Benedict XVI has left a possibility open of allowing women to join the Diaconate by issuing a motu proprio distinguishing between the roles of deacons and the priests/bishops. Only priests/bishops can act in the Person of Christ.

What would be your position?
Click to expand...
Can you give us a link or source of your information regarding the “motu proprio?” Although there were women “deaconesses” in the Early Church, none of the received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I think the confusion has to do with the original meaning of “deacon,” which comes from the Greek word “diaconos” which means “servent.” “Deaconesses” were servants in that they assisted other women who were getting baptized. People were much more concerned about purity, etc., back then. (too bad for us)
 
Scoobyshme said:
Can you give us a link or source of your information regarding the “motu proprio?” Although there were women “deaconesses” in the Early Church, none of the received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I think the confusion has to do with the original meaning of “deacon,” which comes from the Greek word “diaconos” which means “servent.” “Deaconesses” were servants in that they assisted other women who were getting baptized. People were much more concerned about purity, etc., back then. (too bad for us)
Click to expand...
Here is a link that discusses the role of the Deacon in the motu proprio:

blog.beliefnet.com/deaconsbench/2009/12/pope-issues-motu-proprio-on-deacons.html
 
Unless we’re baptizing adult females naked again, as was in the past, whats the use of Deaconesses? They were a necessity back in the day for moral reasons in order to perform the practices of the time. Unless there is a function that would need all-women only, there is no need for an instituted Deaconess.
 
Scoobyshme said:
Can you give us a link or source of your information regarding the “motu proprio?” Although there were women “deaconesses” in the Early Church, none of the received the Sacrament of Holy Orders. I think the confusion has to do with the original meaning of “deacon,” which comes from the Greek word “diaconos” which means “servent.” “Deaconesses” were servants in that they assisted other women who were getting baptized. People were much more concerned about purity, etc., back then. (too bad for us)
Click to expand...
I wish, for the sake of this discussion, we could come up with another name besides “deaconess”. It is very deceiving, and on the surface, it means “female deacon.” Yes, I’m aware that “a deacon” is “a servant”, but when you say deacon, most people think “a cleric ranking below a priest”, not “a servant”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top