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.
Bear in mind the word deaconess means “helper” or “servant” of the Church and does not necessarily mean that a person has been granted official Church authority or ordination. Historical references to bishops laying hands on deaconesses via ritual does not mean they were granting a form of Sacramental Ordination. It was to indicate that her Office was not part of the official ministry of the Church but to show she was empowered to perform certain duties on behalf of the Church. The wording for initiating a Deacon was more strongly worded and clearly indicates their roles were not one in the same. A Deacon had higher ecclesiastical authority.
 
Women as leaders of church ministries, even as administrators of churches fill up active functions in the life of parishes. There are some sources proving the existence of deaconesses (to the extent of administering the last unction for females, also baptizing females) in the early Church: the Church has authorization to allow that.

This would not mean the way to presbyterate of episcopate. That never was authorized.
 
No, but that is not by my authority. Women by virtue of their form (female hence not male) are unable to be ordained to Holy Orders. Holy Orders is exclusive to men, women are virtually unable to pretend clerical office in the Church, for it is forbidden by God. The Church has no authority to pretend the ordination of women; it would not be an ordination to Holy Orders at all. Many heretics out there believe this disgusting doctrine, but it is their quarrel with Christ, and their everlasting hatred for Him being a man.
 
Rascalking said:
Awesome! There’s that open minded attitude!
Click to expand...
Rascalking said:
Yes, because murder is the moral equivalent to having females become deacons. What an odd thing to say.
Click to expand...
It is not the moral equivalent. It is equivalent in certitude. The canon speaks of validity, not licitness. Therefore, there can be no female ordained deacon. Any attempt to do so is nothing but misguided pretending. It is as if one consecrates an oreo cookie and pretends it is the Holy Eucharist.
 
pnewton said:
It is not the moral equivalent. It is equivalent in certitude. The canon speaks of validity, not licitness. Therefore, there can be no female ordained deacon. Any attempt to do so is nothing but misguided pretending. It is as if one consecrates an oreo cookie and pretends it is the Holy Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Interesting I said, in my original post-that I trust the church knows what they are doing on this issue.

The only difference is that I think people should be allowed to debate and discuss the issue.

In the long run though, it doesn’t matter to me.
 
TheMc said:
Anyways, no woman has ever been called to the ordained deaconate, or ever will. There’s nothing unfair about that.
Click to expand...
Yes, precisely what I stated. Ordination is a calling, not a right. “Rascalking” keeps parroting “I don’t think it’s fair to women” (while insisting he/she “doesn’t care”) even after I pointed out that the concept of “fairness” is based on justice, which is only applies when there is some kind of a right in existence. When it is a question of calling, our omnipotent and all-just God has chosen to call men to the ordained diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy exclusively. He set things up this way. If we continue to criticize the Church on this, they are basically criticizing Christ. “He who hears you, hears Me.”
 
drforjc said:
Yes, precisely what I stated. Ordination is a calling, not a right. “Rascalking” keeps parroting “I don’t think it’s fair to women” (while insisting he/she “doesn’t care”) even after I pointed out that the concept of “fairness” is based on justice, which is only applies when there is some kind of a right in existence. When it is a question of calling, our omnipotent and all-just God has chosen to call men to the ordained diaconate, priesthood, and episcopacy exclusively. He set things up this way. If we continue to criticize the Church on this, they are basically criticizing Christ. “He who hears you, hears Me.”
Click to expand...
Hmm…while I’m not in favor of women deacons or priests…it is interesting that some of the same people here will say…if you are criticizing the Church, then you are criticizing Christ on this issue…but have no problem critizing the Church when it comes to other things… Just an observation.🤷
 
Digitonomy said:
Canon 1024 slams the door shut on any current sacred ordination of women. I think almost everyone in this thread agrees that is the current rule. What some are suggesting is a change in rules to allow either sacred or non-sacred (whatever that may be) ordination of women. Canon law can be changed; the question in this case is whether there is an underlying divine law that precludes such a change.I would like to read these definitive answers. The most definitive statement I’m aware of is from John Paul, but I believe he only discussed priestly ordination.I don’t think your analogy is the best because murder is against natural law, while the qualities of the Sacrament of Holy Orders are a matter of divine law.
Click to expand...
I won’t argue that 1024 is the current rule and could be changed. However, despite Bl. John Paul II focusing his declaration (apostolic letter?) on priestly ordination, the sacraments are one in the same. What is invalid matter for priestly orders is invalid matter for diaconal orders. Same sacrament of Holy Orders, different degrees.

Catechism of the Catholic Church said:
1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68
Click to expand...

To encourage ordination of women to the diaconate is contrary to the teachings of the Church. Some may split hairs on whether the diaconate and the priesthood are different or the same, but what is closed to one is closed to the other.
 
The proper answer is no, no way, and no how. women shouldn’t be on the altar period.
 
rkrispies said:
I won’t argue that 1024 is the current rule and could be changed. However, despite Bl. John Paul II focusing his declaration (apostolic letter?) on priestly ordination, the sacraments are one in the same. What is invalid matter for priestly orders is invalid matter for diaconal orders. Same sacrament of Holy Orders, different degrees.
Click to expand...
This isn’t true. As the confirmation extends the baptism, so does the diaconate the confirmation, and so does the presbyterate the diaconate: the road to be united with Christ.

Blessed John Paul II was very careful to to list only the presbiterate and episcopate and impossible for women.

The Church is the judge, and only the Church.
 
po18guy said:
Deaconess was a position that existed when cultural taboos prohibited men from touching women during baptisms.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard this said a lot. Is there a reference for this? Do we really know all the duties that a deaconess had?
 
laszlo said:
This isn’t true. As the confirmation extends the baptism, so does the diaconate the confirmation, and so does the presbyterate the diaconate: the road to be united with Christ.
Click to expand...
Yes, but baptism, confirmation and holy orders are three different sacraments.

Only men can be clerics.
 
rkrispies said:
the sacraments are one in the same. What is invalid matter for priestly orders is invalid matter for diaconal orders. Same sacrament of Holy Orders, different degrees… Some may split hairs on whether the diaconate and the priesthood are different or the same, but what is closed to one is closed to the other.
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree with this line of thought. However, I have heard it argued that Christ did not establish the diaconate at the Last Supper, and instead the Church established it some months later. If we accept this, then it would call into question the principle that the Church cannot deviate from what Christ established.
 
I honestly think we should just trust the church on this one, even if there’s no record of Jesus starting the deaconate. The church says holy orders (deaconate included) was, is, and will be only for men.

Can we just accept that and move on? There’s nothing to discuss.
 
TheMc said:
I honestly think we should just trust the church on this one, even if there’s no record of Jesus starting the deaconate. The church says holy orders (deaconate included) was, is, and will be only for men.

Can we just accept that and move on? There’s nothing to discuss.
Click to expand...
St. Luke alludes to this when he states that Jesus sent out a group of 72 (in pairs) to the neighboring communities. In fact, it is this Gospel that is read when deacons are being ordained. Furthermore, in Acts, St. Peter and the Apostles select seven men, appointing them as deacons. Among these was St. Stephen, the first martyr.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top