Can there be female deacons?

[Bookcat]

And why would they use the same name for a completely different role?
That’s confusing, that they did that.

.

I would not say “completely different”

but as to the name …well it comes from as I recall “to serve” we use the basic word in other ways too.

Paul used the term “deaconess” in on of his letters.

 

[Bookcat]

“… the Apostle mentions a certain “Phoebe”, described as “a deaconess of the Church at Cenchreae”, the port town east of Corinth (Rom 16: 1-2). Although at that time the title had not yet acquired a specific ministerial value of a hierarchical kind, it expresses a true and proper exercise of responsibility on the part of this woman for this Christian community. Paul recommends that she be received cordially and assisted “in whatever she may require”. Then he adds: “for she has been a helper of many and of myself as well”.”

~ Pope Benedict XVI 14 February 2007

 

[Markus2007]

“Holy orders” comprises the ordinations to the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate, which are three separate but related ordinations.

Things have gotten quite confusing for me as the thread progressed

To summarize, let me ask these two questions:

1st Was the ordination of deaconesses part of the sacrament of holy orders (or thought to be part of the sacrament of holy orders) or was it a different type of ordnination independet of the sacrament?

2nd Is it therefore impossible for women to receive the sacrament of holy orders period, or is it only impossible for women to receive the sacrament of holy orders unto the priesthood (as opposed to the diaconate)?

I thought the second question was answered by Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, however due to the differences in the (even official) translations, I am not sure anymore.

 

[capablanca911]

It is not just a matter of canon law.

The Church herself says that she has no power nor any authority to ordain women. Women cannot be deacons because women cannot recieve the sacrament of Holy Orders.

The word deacon literally means servant. There were “Deaconesses” in the early Church but these were not ordained into the order of the diaconate. They were not deacons as we know them today. They did not recieve the sacrament of Holy Orders, they were not ordained as described in Acts.

Therefore, brethren, pick out from among you seven men of good repute, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom we may appoint to this duty. But we will devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." And what they said pleased the whole multitude, and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit, and Philip, and Proch’orus, and Nica’nor, and Ti’mon, and Par’menas, and Nicola’us, a proselyte of Antioch. These they set before the apostles, and they prayed and laid their hands upon them. (Acts 6:3-6)

Acts 6 is the scriptural basis for the diaconate. The deaconesses did not undergo the sacrament of Holy Orders.

The Church acknowledges that it has no authority or power to ordain women.

-Tim-

Perhaps you didn’t read my previous posts closely.

Females were “ordained” to the “diaconate.”

The Form of Prayer for the Ordination of a Deaconess.XX . O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of man and of woman, who replenished with the Spirit Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna, and Huldah; 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, ordained women to be keepers of Your holy gates—do Thou now also look down upon this Your servant, who is** to be ordained to the office of a deaconess**

In all of the Greek texts, when a deaconess is to be ‘ordained’ there are two ways to say ‘ordained.’ There’s ‘ordained’ for bishops, priests, deacons, and deaconesses, and there’s a general ‘blessing’ for exorcists, consecrated widows, virgins etc.

The word used for ordaining bishops, priests, deacons, and deaconesses is CHEIROTONIA (ordained) not Cheirothesia (blessed) like for the minor orders like the widows and virgins.

Here is a question for you skeptics (have fun with it):

Let’s say that the author of the Apostolic Constitutions indeed WANTED to make it explicit that there were truly validly licitly ordained females to the diaconate. What could be added to the AC to make this point more clear?

“Well if they were vested for liturgy then we would know they were actually ordained…”

They were vested for liturgy.

“If they had hands laid on them…”

They had hands laid on them.

“If they were given a stole…”

They were given an orarion stole.

“If they were equal to deacons in their duties…”

Subdeacons aren’t equal to deacons in their duties but no one says they didn’t receive Holy Orders to the diaconate.

Come on guys, let’s play pretend. What change could be made to the Apostolic Constitutions that would have been necessary to prove my position?

 

[Bookcat]

Things have gotten quite confusing for me as the thread progressed

To summarize, let me ask these two questions:

1st Was the ordination of deaconesses part of the sacrament of holy orders (or thought to be part of the sacrament of holy orders) or was it a different type of ordnination independet of the sacrament?

2nd Is it therefore impossible for women to receive the sacrament of holy orders period, or is it only impossible for women to receive the sacrament of holy orders unto the priesthood (as opposed to the diaconate)?

I thought the second question was answered by Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, however due to the differences in the (even official) translations, I am not sure anymore.

At the end of the document from the International Theological Commission From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles* it is stated:

"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 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."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_05072004_diaconate_en.html

 

[aemcpa]

Things have gotten quite confusing for me as the thread progressed

To summarize, let me ask these two questions:

1st Was the ordination of deaconesses part of the sacrament of holy orders (or thought to be part of the sacrament of holy orders) or was it a different type of ordnination independet of the sacrament?

2nd Is it therefore impossible for women to receive the sacrament of holy orders period, or is it only impossible for women to receive the sacrament of holy orders unto the priesthood (as opposed to the diaconate)?

I thought the second question was answered by Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, however due to the differences in the (even official) translations, I am not sure anymore.

1. No, the ordination of deaconesses was not the conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, nor was it thought to be at the time.
2. Yes, it is impossible for women to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, period.

With regards to OS, it should first be stated for clarity that a man can be ordained as many as three times - always first to the order of deacon, second to the order of priest, and third to the order of bishop. OS declared infallibly that the second ordination - priestly ordination - is reserved to men only, which by necessary connection also provides an infallible declaration that the third ordination - episcopal ordination - is reserved to men only. Although OS did not declare infallibly that the first ordination - diaconal ordination - is reserved to men only, it is nonetheless the constant teaching of the Church.

 

[Markus2007]

At the end of the document from the International Theological Commission From the Diakonia of Christ to the Diakonia of the Apostles* it is stated:

"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 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."

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_05072004_diaconate_en.html

Yes I have read the ending to that document now several times, however I don’t see a clear answer to my final two questions stated in my last post. The 1. point seems to indicate that deaconesses and deacons were not idendtical, the 2. however indicates that deacons are and were not identical to priests and bishops. But what does this mean for the sacrament of holy orders, and who can and does in fact receive it?

 

[Markus2007]

1. No, the ordination of deaconesses was not the conferral of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, nor was it thought to be at the time.
2. Yes, it is impossible for women to receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders, period.

With regards to OS, it should first be stated for clarity that a man can be ordained as many as three times - always first to the order of deacon, second to the order of priest, and third to the order of bishop. OS declared infallibly that the second ordination - priestly ordination - is reserved to men only, which by necessary connection also provides an infallible declaration that the third ordination - episcopal ordination - is reserved to men only. Although OS did not declare infallibly that the first ordination - diaconal ordination - is reserved to men only, it is nonetheless the constant teaching of the Church.

Thank you for the clear answers.

It was (and still is to a degree) particularly confusing to me because in my native language, OS does not make such a distinction as it speeks generally of the term “Priesterweihe” (which theologically means the sacrament of holy orders, yet literally means priestly ordination).

Do you (or somebody else) speak latin so that you can confirm what you wrote regarding OS from the original text?

 

[MarcoPolo]

You are misinformed.

As far as ordained to an ‘office’ consider another translation of the Apostolic Constitutions

“look now upon your servant before you,proposed for the diaconate: grant her the Holy Spirit and purify her of all defilement of flesh and spirit so that she may acquit herself worthily of theoffice*which has been entrusted to her…”

This is not evidence that holy orders were conferred, regardless of translation or use of the term “deaconess” or “diaconate” as it would relate to females. See more below.

As far as Nicea, you are misreading the canon. Also note the ITC’s important clarification: “The compiler additionally distinguishes betweencheirotonia andcheirothesia, which is simply a gesture of blessing (cf. 8, 16, 3 and 8, 28, 2-3).”

In footnote 63, referring to the compiler you cite, it states:The compiler was attentive to the nuances of vocabulary. At CA 2, 11, 3 he says, “We do not allow the priests to ordain [cheirotonein] deacons, deaconesses, lectors, servants, cantors or door-keepers: that belongs to the bishops alone.” However, he reserves the term cheirotonia to the ordination of bishops, priests, deacons and sub-deacons (8, 4-5; 8, 16-17; 8, 21). He employs the expression epitithenai ten (tas) cheira(s) for deaconesses and lectorsI’m seeing nowhere that states females receive the sacrament of holy orders, but rather consistent evidence that the imposition of the Spirit on a deaconness is along the lines of that conferred, for example, on a lector, which is not an office of holy orders. As to your comment about the party of Paul of Samosata, as is noted above and below, the imposition of hands does not automatically indicate the sacrament of holy orders. And I think further evidence below and elsewhere shows this not to be the case regarding deaconesses.

The ITC document, at the end of chapter II, states:*The present historical overview shows that a ministry of deaconesses did indeed exist, and that this developed unevenly in the different parts of the Church. It seems clear that this ministry was not perceived as simply the feminine equivalent of the masculine diaconate. At the very least it was an ecclesial function, exercised by women, sometimes mentioned together with that of sub-deacon in the lists of Church ministries. Was this ministry conferred by an imposition of hands comparable to that by which the episcopate, the priesthood and the masculine diaconate were conferred? The text of the Constitutiones Apostolorum would seem to suggest this, but it is practically the only witness to this, and its proper interpretation is the subject of much debate.*The concluding paragraphs of the document read as follows:*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 by ecclesial tradition, especially in the teaching of the Magisterium.*In light of the evidence against the idea that “deaconesses” received the sacrament of holy orders in the ancient Church, I can’t agree with your reply to R_C that your opinions on Nicea are on a par. According to the ITC document, only the Apostolic Constitutions offer evidence of holy orders for deaconesses, and that’s if one interprets the Constitutions a certain way.

I would have no problem conceding that deaconesses received holy orders in the early Church, but I see no sound evidence of such, and I do not see the theological basis for the matter of a sacrament intertwined with the espiscopate and presbyterate to accommodate a female, because Christ, the bridegroom was an incarnate male. And the nature of the matter of a sacrament demands the natural resemblance to that signified. i.e. water for baptism (you can’t say we’ll use dirt now); or bread for Eucharist (you can’t say we’ll use bananas now); etc…

For anyone else interested, I did peruse an article over at Shameless Popery this morning on the subject of Nicea and deaconesses also. It seems well-sourced.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes I have read the ending to that document now several times, however I don’t see a clear answer to my final two questions stated in my last post. The 1. point seems to indicate that deaconesses and deacons were not idendtical, the 2. however indicates that deacons are and were not identical to priests and bishops. But what does this mean for the sacrament of holy orders, and who can and does in fact receive it?

1. Correct.
2. Correct- but all three are part of Holy Orders.
3. (but) It is completely certain women cannot receive the diaconate currently (see Canon Law). As to the question of “Is it possible for the Church to ordain women to the diaconate?” – as I understand it --the Church will have to get back to you on that one…the Document from Bl. Pope John Paul II addressed the Priesthood not the Deaconate.

 

[Markus2007]

1. Correct.
2. Correct- but all three are part of Holy Orders.
3. (but) It is completely certain women cannot receive the diaconate currently (see Canon Law). As to the question of “Is it possible for the Church to ordain women to the diaconate?” – as I understand it --the Church will have to get back to you on that one…the Document from Bl. Pope John Paul II addressed the Priesthood not the Deaconate.

Thank you for the clarification. As I mentioned earlier, John Paul II’s OS adresses (as you said) “the Priesthood” in the English translation, yet adresses “Holy Orders” in the German translation. My latin is not good enough to clarify which official translation is more accurate.

 

[Bookcat]

Thank you for the clarification. As I mentioned earlier, John Paul II’s OS adresses (as you said) “the Priesthood” in the English translation, yet adresses “Holy Orders” in the German translation. My latin is not good enough to clarify which official translation is more accurate.

I do not know if this will help at all or it is the same “language usage”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_ge.html

One will find too that “Holy Orders” can only be validly conferred upon men (vir). Such is stated in Canon Law and the Catechism.

And one will find it stated that the Church is bound by the choice of Jesus himself. But such is usually referring back to documents on Priesthood being reserved.

Now could there be a further “clarification” where the* deaconate* could be conferred upon women in the future? I could imagine that such could theoretically happen.

 

[Bookcat]

German translation.

Found a word: Weihesakrament for Holy Orders

 

[Markus2007]

I do not know if this will help at all or it is the same “language usage”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_ge.html

One will find too that “Holy Orders” can only be validly conferred upon men (vir). Such is stated in Canon Law and the Catechism.

And one will find it stated that the Church is bound by the choice of Jesus himself. But such is usually referring back to documents on Priesthood being reserved.

Now could there be a further “clarification” where the* deaconate* could be conferred upon women in the future? I could imagine that such could theoretically happen.

Thank you for the link but yes, the same translation issue occurs in this text also. If the German translation were literally true, it would be certain that women can not be “deacons” (in the sacramental sense) even in the future. I will try to decipher which term (holy orders or priestly ordination) the latin text uses

 

[Bookcat]

Thank you for the link but yes, the same translation issue occurs in this text also. If the German translation were literally true, it would be certain that women can not be “deacons” (in the sacramental sense) even in the future. I will try to decipher which term (holy orders or priestly ordination) the latin text uses

The Catechism uses: Sacerdotes for Priests (as well as presbyteratus)

It further notes:

“For this reason the term sacerdos in current usage denotes bishops and priests but not deacons.” CCC 1554

Which is the term you find in the Latin there in the dubium and the title of the Document from Bl. Pope John Paul II

Here is the English for the Dubium

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html

 

[Markus2007]

The Catechism uses: Sacerdotes for Priests (as well as presbyteratus)

It further notes:

“For this reason the term sacerdos in current usage denotes bishops and priests but not deacons.” CCC 1554

Which is the term you find in the Latin there in the dubium and the title of the Document from Bl. Pope John Paul II

Here is the English for the Dubium

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html

Yes, the latin version of the Dubium uses the term “ordinationem sacerdotalem” (that is also the term used in the encyclical).

The Catechism uses the term “Ordinatio presbyterorum” for “priestly ordination” and simply “ordinis” for “holy orders”. As you said the term “sacerdotes” as well as “presbyterorum” can both mean “priests” (presbyteratus is the priesthood). So I assume the encyclical is indeed specifically talking about the ordination of priests, not the sacrament of holy orders in general.

Still it is, as we have figured out during this thread, unlikely that women are able to receive the sacrament at all (currently they are not) but this has not been infallibly declared.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, the latin version of the Dubium uses the term “ordinationem sacerdotalem” (that is also the term used in the encyclical).

The Catechism uses the term “Ordinatio presbyterorum” for “priestly ordination” and simply “ordinis” for “holy orders”. As you said the term “sacerdotes” as well as “presbyterorum” can both mean “priests” (presbyteratus is the priesthood). So I assume the encyclical is indeed specifically talking about the ordination of priests, not the sacrament of holy orders in general.

Still it is, as we have figured out during this thread, unlikely that women are able to receive the sacrament at all (currently they are not) but this has not been infallibly declared.

Yes that is how it is used in the “Apostolic Letter”.

But that of course does not mean that women have received or can receive the Sacrament of Orders for the Deaconate. That document addressed the Priesthood.

 

[Bookcat]

The pertinent Canon in Canon Law:

Can. 1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3P.HTM

(that goes for the Order of Deacons, Priests and Bishops)

 

[R_C]

Perhaps you didn’t read my previous posts closely.

Females were “ordained” to the “diaconate.”

Ok, you don’t seem to understand: “ordained” was just a way of stating that they received a specific “ministry”. This was not a share in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Apostolic tradition is very clear on this, and the best evidence is that we currently do not have deaconesses, nor have we had them for the longest time (over a millennium if I am not mistaken).

So even if there was this lay ministry for women in the early Church, now we have different lay ministries for women and we don’t need to refresh a topic that clearly caused a certain degree of confusion in the early Church…for simplicity, some titles were used somewhat fluidly (f.ex. in Gospel we read the terms bishop and presbyter sometimes being interchanged, etc.) but by the II and III Century things were more strictly defined…and things should remain the way they are according to tradition. We don’t need the innovation of a “deaconess” in the Church…it’s already odd enough to have female lectors and EMHC, if you ask me.

 

[Porknpie]

I am Roman Catholic but have two best friends who are Eastern Orthodox they now live in Ireland but have lived in Russia, Greece and come from Latvia, they tell me there is no such thing as a Female deacon or female deaconess in the Orthodox Church, and she says if your friend tells you this where is the evidence there is none, someone is telling pork pies. The Orthodox are like ourselves, in fact more stricter, they don’t allow female altar servers even.
You need to go back to your friend and tell her not to be making things up. Priesthood is for men only, get over it, one can serve the Church as a layperson, or as a nun.