Chicago Women trying to become Deacon

[Mickey]

Actually, he said that there was a laying on of hands.

It was mentioned a very long time ago.

Concerning the Deaconess—The Constitution of Bartholomew.

XIX. Concerning a deaconess, I Bartholomew make this constitution: O bishop, thou shalt lay thy hands upon her in the presence of the presbytery, and of the deacons and deaconesses, and shall say:—

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 didst replenish with the Spirit Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna, and Huldah; who didst not disdain that Thy only begotten Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, didst ordain women to be keepers of Thy holy gates,—do Thou now also look down upon this Thy servant, who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess, and grant her Thy 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 Thy glory, and the praise of Thy Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to Thee and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.

 

[jwinch2]

It was mentioned a very long time ago.

Concerning the Deaconess—The Constitution of Bartholomew.

XIX. Concerning a deaconess, I Bartholomew make this constitution: O bishop, thou shalt lay thy hands upon her in the presence of the presbytery, and of the deacons and deaconesses, and shall say:—

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 didst replenish with the Spirit Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna, and Huldah; who didst not disdain that Thy only begotten Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, didst ordain women to be keepers of Thy holy gates,—do Thou now also look down upon this Thy servant, who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess, and grant her Thy 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 Thy glory, and the praise of Thy Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to Thee and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.

How do you balance that with the authority of the Nicene Council which seems to suggest the opposite?

Even if hands were laid, which I am still unsure of, it is obvious that deacons and deaconesses were different and thus, there should be no ordaining women to be deacons today (I know you are not suggesting that anyway, but others are, so I want to make it clear). With that said, I am unaware of anything authoritative which suggests that deaconesses did anything but watch the door and help with nude baptisms. If you have that evidence, I would be quite interested in seeing it.

 

[AnotherVoice]

I wonder if her pastor has formally proposed her for acceptance into a diaconate program of study? And then if the Cardinal, has approved her placement into such a program?

 

[Mickey]

How do you balance that with the authority of the Nicene Council which seems to suggest the opposite?

Seems to?

With that said, I am unaware of anything authoritative which suggests that deaconesses did anything but watch the door and help with nude baptisms. If you have that evidence, I would be quite interested in seeing it.

Now you are being obtuse. Go back into Church history and find out for yorself. I believe that St John Chrysostom had deaconesses…perhaps you could start your research there?

Chalcedon 451 A.D. (the fourth general council). The ordination of Deaconesses is expressly called both cheirotoneisthai and cheirothesia—ordination by imposition of hands (canon XV).

 

[Mickey]

There was no laying on of hands when they were appointed.

Chalcedon 451 A.D. (the fourth general council). The ordination of Deaconesses is expressly called both cheirotoneisthai and cheirothesia—ordination by imposition of hands (canon XV).

 

[jwinch2]

Seems to?

Yes, that is how it appears to me.

Now you are being obtuse. Go back into Church history and find out for yorself. I believe that St John Chrysostom had deaconesses…perhaps you could start your research there?

No I am not. Claims were made that deaconesses did more than assist with baptisms and watch the door. In fact, specific claims of catechesis, visiting the home bound, etc. were made. I am simply asking for evidence to support those claims.

As I said above, women can do all of the things which were listed and more in the Catholic Church without being a deaconess, and there is obviously no issue of scandal with baptism and confirmation as there would have been in ancient times. As such, I do not really see a legitimate reason to have them. I recognize that this last bit is open to interpretation at some level and that other might disagree.

 

[jwinch2]

It is impossible to reinstitute Deaconesses today because the role of a deacon has evolved. Remember in the past the Deacons were selected by the Apostles to run their ministries, such as serving the tables (ie. soup kitchens). They did not have Liturgical ministries or functions. Liturgical ministries were given to men, the Apostles. The Apostles then passed it on to bishops. Eventually as the Church grew, it necessitated that the bishops delegate some of their authority to other men in the Church. Remember in Acts that the deacons were selected because the Apostles wanted to concentrate on proclaiming the Word. Today, that very function falls on the deacon. Even the priesthood existed solely on the bishops in the first few centuries until presbyters were given the role to be priests.

So given what Deacons are today, it is impossible to give that ministry to women unlike in the past where deacons and deaconesses did not have the Liturgical function that deacons have today.

Interesting observations.

Thanks!

 

[jwinch2]

1. Dr. Macy makes a destinction between Deacon and the Priesthood. Rome has come out against the ordination of women as PRIESTS. Nothing has come out of Rome against the ordination of women as DEACONS.

Dr. Macy is wrong on this issue. While the Church has spoken specifically on the priesthood, she has also stated clearly that women cannot receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Deacons are ordained ministers in the Catholic Church, women cannot be ordained, women cannot be deacons.

 

[jwinch2]

If the Pope decides that women can become deacons, I will accept it as being God’s will.

We can’t accept that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit only with the things we agree with, but not with the things we don’t agree with.

I’m with you,

I’d certainly be very surprised if Rome allowed for Deaconesses and it would take some real geting used to but the Pope was the authority so. . . .

I believe the documents discussing the ordination of women state that the Church has no authority to ordain females. I understand where you are coming from but we have to remember that the Church herself, to include the Pope, does not have the authority to overturn what Christ insituted.

Someone can correct me if I am way off here, but my understanding of Sacramental Theology is that the Pope can no more allow for the ordaining of women than he can allow for the consecration of a hotdog and a diet coke into the body and blood of Christ. The sacrament of the Eucharist requires valid matter, and so does the sacrament of Holy Orders. Even if the Holy Father were to give permission for such a thing, when the Bishop attempted to perform the sacrament, nothing would happen. Women, as wonderful and dignified as they are, are not valid matter for the sacrament.

If the Holy Father were inclined to bring back Deaconesses as in the life of the Early Church that would be something else entirely of course, and then I would agree with both of you.

This thread however, is about a woman trying to be ordained to the Diaconate, which is not possible regardless of who is in support of it.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

As much as this is a topic that I care about, is this news? The article does not seem to have a single line that can be considered news in my opinion. It has some details that I was unaware of, but nothing new.

 

[adrift]

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, did ordain women to be keepers of your holy gates - look down now upon this your servant who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess, and grant her your Holy Spirit, that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her to your glory, and the praise of your Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to you and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen."

-Apostolic Constitutions, No. 8 (late fourth century)

It was mentioned a very long time ago.

Concerning the Deaconess—The Constitution of Bartholomew.

XIX. Concerning a deaconess, I Bartholomew make this constitution: O bishop, thou shalt lay thy hands upon her in the presence of the presbytery, and of the deacons and deaconesses, and shall say:—

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 didst replenish with the Spirit Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna, and Huldah; who didst not disdain that Thy only begotten Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, didst ordain women to be keepers of Thy holy gates,—do Thou now also look down upon this Thy servant, who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess, and grant her Thy 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 Thy glory, and the praise of Thy Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to Thee and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.

I don’t know why you posted this twice. I would point out that despite the usage of Apostolic Constitutions and The Constitution of Bartholomew they were not written by nor came from the apostle’s. I suppose that is why my question about if they were accepted by the Pope remains unanswered.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

That is quite insulting to your Catholic sister in Christ.

Re-introducing the deaconess to the Catholic Church has nothing to do with liberlism. I think it would be a great benefit.

Why?

The Orthodox Church doesn’t have women Deacons, does it?

Why would you want women Deacons in the Catholic Church, if your own Orthodox Church doesn’t allow them?

 

[Tony_the_mad]

Yes, that is how it appears to me.

No I am not. Claims were made that deaconesses did more than assist with baptisms and watch the door. In fact, specific claims of catechesis, visiting the home bound, etc. were made. I am simply asking for evidence to support those claims.

As I said above, women can do all of the things which were listed and more in the Catholic Church without being a deaconess, and there is obviously no issue of scandal with baptism and confirmation as there would have been in ancient times. As such, I do not really see a legitimate reason to have them. I recognize that this last bit is open to interpretation at some level and that other might disagree.

The same argument about needing a ‘legitimate’ reason to have deaconesses can apply to having deacons and full time priests since the vast majority of their work has nothing to do with the sacraments. The real importance of deacons in the Church is that they are a tool that can be directly shaped and used by a diocese. Deacons are trained significantly more than the average ‘lay minister’ (not just in the sacraments) and are responsible directly to the Bishop. Female deacons would be just as effective in that role as male.

In the end, though, having female deacons will make as much difference as having altar girls, either way.

 

[adrift]

The same argument about needing a ‘legitimate’ reason to have deaconesses can apply to having deacons and full time priests since the vast majority of their work has nothing to do with the sacraments. QUOTE]

I am going to accept at face value your statement that the majority of their work has nothing to do with the Sacaraments but that doesn’t mean that all of their work does not involve the Sacraments. We already have women who assist the parish priest in many of the things that the Deacon does. There are many things that the Deacon does that is not open to women. Could it be Yes but it isn’t. So the argument for why have Deacons cannot be applies equally to a woman.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

I believe the documents discussing the ordination of women state that the Church has no authority to ordain females. I understand where you are coming from but we have to remember that the Church herself, to include the Pope, does not have the authority to overturn what Christ instituted.

Except Christ did not institute the priesthood. He instituted the all male (and all Jewish) group called the twelve. The fact that Christ appointed only Jews to the twelve did not stop the early church from appointing non-Jews to lesser roles such as what would later become bishops, priests and deacons. Nor did it stop the Church from limiting the priesthood to married men when married men were included in the twelve.

The early (but not necessarily the ancient Church) had very strong views against women priests. Some of the vehemence came because the Church at that time was fighting for its life against gnostic and other heretics. Since these heretical groups included women prominently in their leadership attacking the concept of women priests made a convenient club to pound the heretics into submission.

Any advocate for woman priests has a long row to hoe. They have to prove that the Church has been wrong for thousands of years. If it wasn’t for the fact that both the Gospels and Christian traditions emphasizes that women are equal co-heirs (with men) to the kingdom there would be no one to question limiting the priesthood to men at all. The gospels go way out of their way, especially for their time, to show women as equal to men. Christ appears first to Mary Magdalene, for instance, and send her to tell the twelve the good news.

Personally, I believe that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene not just as a message to her but like a letter in a 2000 year time-capsule as a message for us. Further, the fact that the Church has felt the need to defend against women priests even when it should not have to, such as during much more paternalistic societies than ours, tells me that even people in these much more paternalistic societies have felt that there was something wrong with limiting the office of the priesthood to men. Further this belief comes not from an outside source, there were none, but the gospel and the traditions of the Church itself.

The Papacy, and the College of Bishops, obviously disagree with my assessment . And, quite frankly, it is their call not mine.

 

[Dirt]

I must still wonder why some within the Church continue to strain and parse and obfuscate to attempt to re-write Church Tradition in order to attain what THEY want. What THEY have a RIGHT to. What THEY know to be THE WAY it SHOULD be.
If some would use the same enthusiasm to evangelize, fight abortion and promote the Sacraments that they use to fight Church teaching, we would all be in a better place.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The main theology against women being ordained is the fact that during the Mass, the priest becomes Christ en persona, and Christ was a male. It’s the main sticking point on why women can not be ordained.

As far as the men the apostles chose to become Bishops, priest and deacons having lesser roles, this is not the case, as St. Paul ended up instructing St Peter on the issue of whether gentile converts would have to observe Jewish dietary laws. St. Peter gave the final say on it, but he at first had a different opinion than St Paul. After hearing St Paul, he sided with him.

Also, despite all the political correctness and social engineering we’re going through, males still reject participating in a function which they view as being female.

Girl altar servers in many dioceses became a problem where boys were no longer volunteering, because as they grew up seeing girls serving on the altar, they viewed it as a girls function.

My own dioceses, which is very liberal, the Bishop asked the pastors the begin recruiting boys to be altar servers, because as he was traveling throughout the dioceses, he saw only girls serving in many of the parishes.

I believe a female priesthood would have the same effect.

Jim

 

[jwinch2]

Except Christ did not institute the priesthood. He instituted the all male (and all Jewish) group called the twelve. The fact that Christ appointed only Jews to the twelve did not stop the early church from appointing non-Jews to lesser roles such as what would later become bishops, priests and deacons. Nor did it stop the Church from limiting the priesthood to married men when married men were included in the twelve.

The early (but not necessarily the ancient Church) had very strong views against women priests. Some of the vehemence came because the Church at that time was fighting for its life against gnostic and other heretics. Since these heretical groups included women prominently in their leadership attacking the concept of women priests made a convenient club to pound the heretics into submission.

Any advocate for woman priests has a long row to hoe. They have to prove that the Church has been wrong for thousands of years. If it wasn’t for the fact that both the Gospels and Christian traditions emphasizes that women are equal co-heirs (with men) to the kingdom there would be no one to question limiting the priesthood to men at all. The gospels go way out of their way, especially for their time, to show women as equal to men. Christ appears first to Mary Magdalene, for instance, and send her to tell the twelve the good news.

Personally, I believe that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene not just as a message to her but like a letter in a 2000 year time-capsule as a message for us. Further, the fact that the Church has felt the need to defend against women priests even when it should not have to, such as during much more paternalistic societies than ours, tells me that even people in these much more paternalistic societies have felt that there was something wrong with limiting the office of the priesthood to men. Further this belief comes not from an outside source, there were none, but the gospel and the traditions of the Church itself.

The Papacy, and the College of Bishops, obviously disagree with my assessment . And, quite frankly, it is their call not mine.

They have zero road to hoe. It has been infallibly defined, and for different reasons than you stated above. Those reasons might have played a role, I am not suggesting otherwise, but they are not the primary ones. In addition, Church Tradition is that Christ did in fact institute the priesthood. The priesthood in the Catholic Church is a fuller sacramental version of the priesthood throughout salvation history. The Jewish kingdom, back to David, and even before the kingdom all the way back to Melchizedek, did not have women priests, while nations around them did. There are several legitimate theological and ontological reasons for limiting the priesthood to validly baptized men.

peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/ORDIN.TXT

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFRESPO.HTM

catholic.com/tracts/women-and-the-priesthood

ewtn.com/library/ISSUES/WHYWOMEN.TXT

 

[Mickey]

The Orthodox Church doesn’t have women Deacons, does it?

The Greeks might.

Why would you want women Deacons in the Catholic Church,

Did I say I want Deaconesses in the Catholic Church? No. I am merely pointing out that the early Church had Deaconesses…and to re-introduce them would not be opposed to Tradition or heretical in any sense.
I am wondering why it is such a sore spot with so many Catholics here?

 

[jwinch2]

The main theology against women being ordained is the fact that during the Mass, the priest becomes Christ en persona, and Christ was a male. It’s the main sticking point on why women can not be ordained.

Agreed. It is the main reason that women cannot be priests or bishops. However, that in and of itself would not prevent them from being deacons. For a sacrament to be valid it must have form, intent, and matter. In this case, women do not possess valid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders.

As far as the men the apostles chose to become Bishops, priest and deacons having lesser roles, this is not the case, as St. Paul ended up instructing St Peter on the issue of whether gentile converts would have to observe Jewish dietary laws. St. Peter gave the final say on it, but he at first had a different opinion than St Paul. After hearing St Paul, he sided with him.

I would suggest that the Apostles did not choose St. Paul to be a bishop, Christ chose him to be an Apostle.

Also, despite all the political correctness and social engineering we’re going through, males still reject participating in a function which they view as being female.

Girl altar servers in many dioceses became a problem where boys were no longer volunteering, because as they grew up seeing girls serving on the altar, they viewed it as a girls function.

My own dioceses, which is very liberal, the Bishop asked the pastors the begin recruiting boys to be altar servers, because as he was traveling throughout the dioceses, he saw only girls serving in many of the parishes.

I believe a female priesthood would have the same effect.

Jim

I agree with that assessment as well.