C
Canterbury
Guest
I agree. Look at what happened in the Episcopal Church - women given the diaconate and soon ordained as priests and, Lord forbid, “bishops,” thus severing the connection to the Apostolic succession.
- Status
P
PetraG
Guest
but the Body has many parts, not all are the same, and that is by design.
E
edwest
Guest
Jesus Christ established things in this way as God.
C
Canterbury
Guest
But there is an order of authority in the Church: Husbands over wives, Male priests as pastors. This is the way Jesus “set it up.”
P
PetraG
Guest
Since he was debating with unbelievers, it is very clear it was not being done within the context of the Holy Mass, correct?
Again: Laypeople can be preachers and teachers, even at seminaries or to assemblies of the ordained. It is not forbidden. It is only preaching within the context of the Holy Mass that is reserved to priests and bishops.
C
Canterbury
Guest
There is a “slippery slope,” and I well remember back in the 70’s conservative Episcopal clergy using that very term: they were right!
P
PetraG
Guest
Well, yes, but in the same sense that Our Lord has authority over the Church
They came to Capernaum and, once inside the house, he began to ask them, “What were you arguing about on the way?” But they remained silent. They had been discussing among themselves on the way who was the greatest. Then he sat down, called the Twelve, and said to them, “If anyone wishes to be first, he shall be the last of all and the servant of all.” Mark 9:33-35
This is what was understood to have been meant by that:
Have among yourselves the same attitude that is also yours in Christ Jesus,
Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness;
and found human in appearance, he humbled himself,
becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.
Phil 2:5-8
It is not just that these positions are reserved for men, but that they are no doubt intended to be instrumental in the transformation of the masculine from that which dominates according to fallen nature into that which serves and is poured out according to the nature of Christ Himself.
Last edited:
C
Canterbury
Guest
I respect your opinon, but as a former Episcopalian I know what it will lead to: female priests and finally bishops; furthermore, then the practicing homosexual will demand the same. The Roman Catholic Church has suffered much from homosexual relationships in their clergy.
Last edited:
P
PetraG
Guest
Who are you replying to?
Let me clarify: I was not implying that women ought to be ordained. I was reiterating that this instance of putting males in a position of leadership was meant by Our Lord to have a 180 degree different result than when the same is done in the World, because they are meant to carry that authority as He Himself does.
Let me clarify: I was not implying that women ought to be ordained. I was reiterating that this instance of putting males in a position of leadership was meant by Our Lord to have a 180 degree different result than when the same is done in the World, because they are meant to carry that authority as He Himself does.
Last edited:
T
thistle
Guest
Here in the Philippines females are not allowed to be altar servers or EMHCs as this might be construed by some as that first step.
D
dochawk
Guest
Not “instituting”, but “still has”.
However, my googling of “deaconess catholic site:byzcath.com” has two many hits to read them all. I found references to Maronite deaconesses through the 14th century.
And then there’s the possibility that I’ve crossed this with the bit of both EO and EC having had cases where priests with young children were permitted second marriages for the children’s sake.
I’ve started a new thread there to check . . .
I did get the disturbing ad of
hawk
C
chessnerd321
Guest
Fair enough. But I do want to clarify what I said. You seem to be saying that women being ordained deacon has not been ruled out, and thus the Pope is at least possibly considering “returning” to that practice.
However, He did rule all types of ordination out. In his interview with Reuters on the question he was asked if there should be more women in church administration. He said yes, and then was asked how he would do that. This is an excerpt of what he said.
The parentheticals were added context by Reuters. I could not find the full unaltered transcript. So it seems that they took “Holy Orders” narrowly to mean ordination to the priesthood. But of course deacons are ordained too! They necessarily receive Holy Orders, or they aren’t a deacon. Thus if you want to be in agreement with the Pope, I think you have to say that “deaconess” must refer to something else.
And so that people can decide for themselves on the quote I used: source. If anyone finds a full manuscript with more context that shows I’m misreading let me know, but I think there’s enough context to be pretty sure.
I also found the below comment you made and wanted to respond.
Perhaps we believe He wants to preserve the church through us (us being Catholics not literally us). Righteous Catholics need to stand up for the truth. We believe in a God who uses men. God used twelve men to teach the whole world about him, but it worked. God used one man to defend the doctrine of the trinity. I don’t think it’s wrong to believe that God will call some men and women to protect His church. I just refuse to believe that burying our heads in the sad and expecting the Holy Spirit to save us is how this is supposed to work.
Although you are right I suppose that if we did, He would still find a way. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t fight by His side.
Last edited:
C
chessnerd321
Guest
Well, to be fair, if we ever end up with female priests (and Lord help us if we do. It’d be the end of the Catholic church’s authority) then it was the first step, wasn’t it?
C
CTBcin
Guest
I have rarely heard deacons preach, let alone “mansplain.”
Or, are you being sarcastic?
Last edited:
M
mrsdizzyd
Guest
Again, I was summarizing a talk given by the professor at Fordham. This thread is supposed to be about this panel discussion at Fordham.
In the Professor’s presentation she was clear that according to the historical records, these rituals for women deacons were called ordination. She was clear that these women were not “ordained” in the same sense as Deacons are ordained today. In her presentation, she presented the two tracks (priesthood and diaconate) as entirely distinct never crossing paths before the 12th century. Her argument was that Deacons did not become clerics with Holy Orders, per se, until the 12th century, and she suggests that this might be the reason we see women deacons disappear from the record around that same point in the 12th century.
We know that Benedict XVI made some reforms regarding the permanent diaconate including a change to cannon law that made clear that permanent deacons are not on the same track as priests.
This distinction is the entire reason why the issue with women deacons has never been a closed issue. There have been two previous commissions to study this issue. JPII had a commission and ruled that women could not be priests, but did not specifically rule on women in the diaconate. Pope Benedict also had the issue studied, but never issued a ruling. Pope Francis called a third commission on this issue. The fact that Pope Francis convened the commission (after two had already been convened) tells you that the issue is not a closed one. Therefore, we have to wait for his decision.
We don’t know what the commission recommended. We only know that two members from the commission sound very hopeful about the return of the female diaconate. For all we know, they could have been the only two who had such hope.
The commission’s report is on the Holy Father’s desk.
And, again, I do not have a position on whether or not the female diaconate should return or what form it should take or who should be admitted or whether they can be “ordained”. Summaries do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the person doing the summarizing.
To pull the curtain back a bit (so to speak) I come from a religious tradition where deacons never became pastors and deaconesses were never confused for deacons because they did not do the same tasks. As a result, it’s easy for me to imagine the diaconate and the priesthood as entirely distinct. In fact, it was difficult for me to wrap my head around why the transitional diaconate even existed or why being a deacon was seen as a step to priesthood in Catholicism.
Last edited:
L
Lea101
Guest
Would that justify preventing women from serving in small ways that the Church has already allowed?
P
prayerrider
Guest
Yes they were.
Among the laity, the push for ordained female deacons is leftist -feminist in origin. These same people will push for priestesses in the Roman Catholic Church as well as active homosexuals in the clergy and Church officiated same sex “marriage.” It has happened time after time in Protestant denominations and the result is always the same.
Among the laity, the push for ordained female deacons is leftist -feminist in origin. These same people will push for priestesses in the Roman Catholic Church as well as active homosexuals in the clergy and Church officiated same sex “marriage.” It has happened time after time in Protestant denominations and the result is always the same.
Last edited:
P
prayerrider
Guest
Yes your assessment is absolutely correct. It’s not about Christ and His Church; it’s about radical concepts of “social justice.”
P
prayerrider
Guest
Absolutely. It is all about the individual.
H
HeDa
Guest
Professor Phyllis Zagano is, as far as what I have read, pretty lonely in her views regarding how to interpret what is written regarding women in the church. She is leaning more to the “feminist side” of things.
- Status