Chicago Women trying to become Deacon

[Michelle9]

So, you think you are called to Holy Orders. I wonder what your thoughts are on other aspects of Church teaching, such as:

The Pope and the Magisterium:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9736181&postcount=2

Marriage:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9682472&postcount=113
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9678014&postcount=95
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9674114&postcount=41

Masturbation:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9673831&postcount=152

Exactly how many ares of Church teaching do you disagree with?

You think that masturbation is not a sin, that the Church is wrong on her teachings of marriage, and think that it would be better to replace the hierarchy of the Church with a council of laypersons, and lets not forget women’s ordination. Yet, despite all of this, you think you are called to be a Deacon?

Unreal.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=8063&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=911607

Thank you for reading all my posts. I feel so popular now, lol.

Ask a lot of Catholics what they really believe not the ones here obviously and you will probably be shocked.

Actually I am quite conservative. I say no to female priests because I really think that would make the Church too feminine. Also I say no way to openly homosexual priests too. Nothing wrong with the Pope as well. If I minded that much I wouldn’t consider going to a Catholic Church. A preference is just a preference not an absolute.
Oh and I also think premarital sex is a sin.

 

[Mickey]

I have suggested multiple times, that if the Church wishes to bring back the office of deaconess as it stood in ancient times in the Roman tradition, I would be open to the possibility.

Great. There should be no more debating here since we all agree. I believe the bishop’s article reiterated this position.

If you are going to jump in, please make sure you know that context of the discussion.

I have not read her positions on other subjects. I am addressing the subject of this thread. If you have a problem with her posts, perhaps you should private message her. For my part, I will reiterate one more time from one of the Great Councils.

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]

If you ordain a woman a deacon you make as well have a woman Pope. That’s where it leads to, as the protestants have found out.

Not to mention, I believe Canon law allows for Deacons to be elected Pope by the College of Cardinals. It has only happened once that I remember, but to my understanding, it is still possible.

 

[jwinch2]

It is impossible to reinstitute Deaconesses today because the role of a deacon has evolved.

This is an important point that I think ought to be considered. What Deacons do today, is different than what Deaconesses did in ancient times. In addition, we need to consider specific Traditions. For example, what role of a Deaconesses was seems different in Eastern and Western Traditions, with the East appearing to have used Deaconesses in more roles, and perhaps in greater numbers, than in the Latin Church. There is some evidence that there was some sort of laying on of hands, but what exactly this means is in dispute, particularly between Eastern and Western sources. In addition, there is a legitimate question of whether Deaconesses were their own thing or, as Jim mentioned above, simply the wives of Deacons.

This brings up some questions to my mind that should be answered before anything could go further regarding the restoration of the ancient Deaconess:

1. Were Deaconesses their own office, or the wives of Deacons?
   Was there a difference in the Eastern and Latin Tradition on this issue?
2. What specifically were the roles that Deaconesses provided in the Latin Church?
   We should hold to our own Traditions on this just as we expect the East to hold to their traditions on things like Married Clergy.
3. Once those roles from the Latin Church are defined, do we have need of a Deaconess to do them today?
   In other words, what would this bring to the table that we do not currently have in today’s Catholic Church?

If those questions are answered, then we would know far more about where this idea is going, if anywhere.

 

[adrift]

Great. There should be no more debating here since we all agree. I believe the bishop’s article reiterated this position.
I have not read her positions on other subjects. I am addressing the subject of this thread. If you have a problem with her posts, perhaps you should private message her. For my part, I will reiterate one more time from one of the Great Councils.

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).

  [TEXTS ON ORDINATION OF WOMEN](http://www.ewtn.com/library/liturgy/womord.txt)

Council of Chalcedon (531 AD. Harduin II, 1714, cols. 607-08. Canon 15 from
Greek text):

 "A deaconess is not to be ordained "cheirotoneisthai"] before
 the age of forty and this with diligent examination. But if she
 received the imposition of hands and for some period has stayed
 in the ministry, she gives herself to marriage, she has scorned
 the grace of God. Such a one is to be anathematized along with
 the one joined to her."

COMMENTS: The Council of Nicea, canon 19, specified Deaconesses are not
ordained. Of course,we do not assume that one General Council contradicts
another. Rather, the terminology is not yet fully stabilized, cf. the word
“sacramentum,” which was not settled until the 12th century into its
present precise meaning. Here Chalcedon does use the word that can mean
ordain, “cheirotoneisthai,” whose basic meaning is to choose, by a show of
hands, as in an election. Thus in the “Didache” 15, the people chose the
Bishop. In some texts the word is “kathistanai/kathistemi,” whose meaning
is quite broad, as can be seen from a Greek Concordance to the NT.

Further, the theology of the deaconate took long to settle. Today we know
it is the beginning of the Sacrament of Orders. Yet St. Hippolytus, in
“Apostolic Tradition,” from c. 2l5, said in P9 about a deacon: “He has no
part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and
is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. He does not
receive that Spirit which the presbytery possesses and in which the
presbyters share.” (cited.From W.Jurgens, “The Faith of the Early Fathers,”
Liturgical Press, 1970, I.P 394c. In 394d: “If a confessor has been in
chains for the name of the Lord, hands are not imposed on him for the
diaconate or presbyterate; for he has the honor of the presbyterate by the
fact of his confession. But if he is to be ordained a bishop, hands are to
be imposed on him.” We add: The words “episkopos” and “presbyteros” were
interchangeable for a long time, cf. Acts 20:17 & 28, and Pope Clement I,
“Epistle” 44 & 54.

 

[20wldct]

Roma locuta, causa finita.

 

[Dirt]

Yes.

Also, is it not wrong for a Catholic to tell a fellow Catholic, “if you don’t like it, go to the protestants”?

In my defense, the “Protestants” started with a refusal to give Obedience to Rome, and then spiraled downwards through Calvin and his ilk to what we now see today. If one is not willing to adhere to the Teachings of Holy Mother Church, one should at least have the courage to seek out a Faith community which has what one might be looking for rather than to sow dissent within Holy Mother Church.

 

[adrift]

TEXTS ON ORDINATION OF WOMEN
Council of Chalcedon (531 AD. Harduin II, 1714, cols. 607-08. Canon 15 from
Greek text):

“A deaconess is not to be ordained “cheirotoneisthai”] before
the age of forty and this with diligent examination. But if she
received the imposition of hands and for some period has stayed
in the ministry, she gives herself to marriage, she has scorned
the grace of God. Such a one is to be anathematized along with
the one joined to her.”

COMMENTS: The Council of Nicea, canon 19, specified Deaconesses are not
ordained. Of course,we do not assume that one General Council contradicts
another. Rather, the terminology is not yet fully stabilized, cf. the word
“sacramentum,” which was not settled until the 12th century into its
present precise meaning. Here Chalcedon does use the word that can mean
ordain, “cheirotoneisthai,” whose basic meaning is to choose, by a show of
hands, as in an election. Thus in the “Didache” 15, the people chose the
Bishop. In some texts the word is “kathistanai/kathistemi,” whose meaning
is quite broad, as can be seen from a Greek Concordance to the NT.

Further, the theology of the deaconate took long to settle. Today we know
it is the beginning of the Sacrament of Orders. Yet St. Hippolytus, in
“Apostolic Tradition,” from c. 2l5, said in P9 about a deacon: “He has no
part in the council of the clergy, but is to attend to his own duties and
is to acquaint the bishop with such matters as are needful. He does not
receive that Spirit which the presbytery possesses and in which the
presbyters share.” (cited.From W.Jurgens, “The Faith of the Early Fathers,”
Liturgical Press, 1970, I.P 394c. In 394d: “If a confessor has been in
chains for the name of the Lord, hands are not imposed on him for the
diaconate or presbyterate; for he has the honor of the presbyterate by the
fact of his confession. But if he is to be ordained a bishop, hands are to
be imposed on him.” We add: The words “episkopos” and “presbyteros” were
interchangeable for a long time, cf. Acts 20:17 & 28, and Pope Clement I,
“Epistle” 44 & 54.

 

[Michelle9]

In my defense, the “Protestants” started with a refusal to give Obedience to Rome, and then spiraled downwards through Calvin and his ilk to what we now see today. If one is not willing to adhere to the Teachings of Holy Mother Church, one should at least have the courage to seek out a Faith community which has what one might be looking for rather than to sow dissent within Holy Mother Church.

I don’t know of any Christian faith community that I agree 100% with. I can accept the Church’s teaching without agreeing 100% with them. Changes do occur in the Church albeit very slowly. When I was growing up I never saw a female altar girl and look now I see them in my local parish Church. And the Church has made mistakes in the past think of Galileo and the Inquistion. The ability it has for change is very appealing to me.

 

[Mickey]

In my defense, the “Protestants” started with a refusal to give Obedience to Rome, and then spiraled downwards through Calvin and his ilk to what we now see today. If one is not willing to adhere to the Teachings of Holy Mother Church, one should at least have the courage to seek out a Faith community which has what one might be looking for rather than to sow dissent within Holy Mother Church.

And yet no one is sayin that they want to be “disobedient to Rome.” And no one is saying that the deaconess receives Holy Oders according to the sacrament of the permanent male diaconate. However, it was a unique ordination by laying on of hands (Chalcedon tells us that).

Yet y’all seem to be real paranoid that to bring back this ancient order would be tantamount to disobedience to the Pope of Rome. Even to the point of telling someone to leave the Catholic Church. How odd and uncharitable.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Roma locuta, causa finita.

Quite Right!

Roma locuta, causa finita!

 

[Mickey]

TEXTS ON ORDINATION OF WOMEN
Council of Chalcedon (531 AD. Harduin II, 1714, cols. 607-08. Canon 15 from
Greek text):

**"A deaconess is not to be ordained “cheirotoneisthai”] before
the age of forty and this with diligent examination.
**
COMMENTS: **Here Chalcedon does use the word that can mean
ordain, “cheirotoneisthai,” whose basic meaning is to choose, by a show of
hands, as in an election. **

 

[Mickey]

Adrift posts: **The Council of Nicea, canon 19, specified Deaconesses are not
ordained. **

Canon 19 is often misunderstood in this regard. It is about deaconesses (and male clergy) who convert from the Paulician heresy. Here it is in context:

Canon XIX of the Council of Nicea

“With regard to Paulianists who take refuge in the Catholic Church, it has been decided that they definitely need to be baptized. If, however, some of them have previously functioned as priests, if they seem to be immaculate and irreprehensible, they need to be baptized and ordained by a bishop of the Catholic Church. In this way one must also deal with the deaconesses or with anyone in an ecclesiastical office. With regard to the deaconesses who hold this position we remind that they possess no ordination*, but are to be reckoned among the laity in every respect.”

 

[Mickey]

Adrift posts: **The Council of Nicea, canon 19, specified Deaconesses are not
ordained. **

Canon 19 is often misunderstood in this regard. It is about deaconesses (and male clergy) who convert from the Paulician heresy. Here it is in context:

Canon XIX of the Council of Nicea

“With regard to Paulianists who take refuge in the Catholic Church, it has been decided that they definitely need to be baptized. If, however, some of them have previously functioned as priests, if they seem to be immaculate and irreprehensible, they need to be baptized and ordained by a bishop of the Catholic Church. In this way one must also deal with the deaconesses or with anyone in an ecclesiastical office. With regard to the deaconesses who hold this position we remind that they possess no ordination*, but are to be reckoned among the laity in every respect.”

 

[Mickey]

Roma locuta, causa finita.

This comes from St. Augustine’s Sermo 131. It’s a misquote of Augustine’s words… if I had a dollar for every time I have heard it misquoted…

Here is what he really wrote:

Iam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem Apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est; utinam finiatur error!

“For already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts have come back from there. The case is ended; would that the error may end likewise!”

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I don’t know of any Christian faith community that I agree 100% with. I can accept the Church’s teaching without agreeing 100% with them. Changes do occur in the Church albeit very slowly. When I was growing up I never saw a female altar girl and look now I see them in my local parish Church. And the Church has made mistakes in the past think of Galileo and the Inquistion. The ability it has for change is very appealing to me.

Sure, changes can occur in outward small t tradition ways. “Coffee and donuts” is a change. But this is not a change in doctrine or dogma. You will not see the Church change its teachings on contraception or marriage for example. And altar girls are not ‘mandated’. Any bishop (such as the Bishop of Arlington) can state that only boys may serve at the altar. Come to that, any PRIEST can make the judgment that he only wishes to have boys serve at the altar. So it’s not as big a ‘change’ and in fact may completely die out in years to come. And even if it stays and becomes something that everybody ‘does’, it’s just girls serving. There will NEVER be a change where Girls will become priests. Ever. Not because the Church ‘decided’, but because GOD chose to have men only, and the Church simply states what God said. It’s GOD’s decision, not men’s.

And please, not the tired old "The Church made mistakes, think of Galileo and the Inquisition’. The Church did not make ‘mistakes’ in that the Church did not change its teachings on faith and morals. Any individual errors (and Galileo made his own, not everything he insisted was true was in fact true!) are not “the Church”. Same with the Inquisition --it was not “The Church” who tried and executed people (and by no means the ‘millions’ claimed), it was THE STATE. For STATE reasons. We don’t do that today because we have 400 years of history of ‘tolerance’ to give us insight, but people back then didn’t have that knowledge. They were operating as best they could with the knowledge they DID have.

 

[jwinch2]

I don’t know of any Christian faith community that I agree 100% with. I can accept the Church’s teaching without agreeing 100% with them. Changes do occur in the Church albeit very slowly. When I was growing up I never saw a female altar girl and look now I see them in my local parish Church. And the Church has made mistakes in the past think of Galileo and the Inquistion. The ability it has for change is very appealing to me.

Female altar servers are not a doctrine of the Church, neither is Galileo or the Inquisition.

On the other hand, marriage, sin, the Pope and the Magisterium, and the sacrament of Holy Orders, are. Church doctrine is not a buffet that you get to pick and choose what you like and leave what you do not.
Vatican II:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Vatican II:

When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed. When the Magisterium proposes “in a definitive way” truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held. When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

Vatican II:

Finally, argumentation appealing to the obligation to follow one’s own conscience cannot legitimate dissent. This is true, first of all, because conscience illumines the practical judgment about a decision to make, while here we are concerned with the truth of a doctrinal pronouncement. This is furthermore the case because while the theologian, like every believer, must follow his conscience, he is also obliged to form it. Conscience is not an independent and infallible faculty. It is an act of moral judgement regarding a responsible choice. A right conscience is one duly illumined by faith and by the objective moral law and it presupposes, as well, the uprightness of the will in the pursuit of the true good.

Setting up a supreme magisterium of conscience in opposition to the magisterium of the Church means adopting a principle of free examination incompatible with the economy of Revelation and its transmission in the Church…

catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-a-cafeteria-catholic
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_benedict_decries_cafeteria_catholicism/
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7184&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=911722

You said earlier that I might be surprised at the positions which some Catholics take that are in disagreement with the Church. No, I am afraid I would not. However, I have rarely come across one who dissents from Church teaching in so many areas at once. I honestly cannot understand why you chose to come back to the Catholic Church in the first place.

As Catholics we are called to embrace all of Church teaching, not just the part we happen to like, is easy, or agree with. If our conscience is leading us away from the truth, then our conscience is improperly formed and it is up to us to to fix that. Following an improperly formed conscience, particularly when one has been told of proper teaching, is an act which can and will lead to condemnation. If you doubt this, I strongly suggest you brush up on your Thomas Aquinas.

 

[jwinch2]

I know you are not and I know Mickey is not. However, she is. And she is not advocating for a return to the ancient office of deaconess, she is advocating that women be allowed to receive Holy Orders to the office of Permanent Deacon as it stands in today’s Catholic Church. This is the genesis of my comments to her, and the comments she is receiving from others.

 

[Michelle9]

Sure, changes can occur in outward small t tradition ways. “Coffee and donuts” is a change. But this is not a change in doctrine or dogma. You will not see the Church change its teachings on contraception or marriage for example. And altar girls are not ‘mandated’. Any bishop (such as the Bishop of Arlington) can state that only boys may serve at the altar. Come to that, any PRIEST can make the judgment that he only wishes to have boys serve at the altar. So it’s not as big a ‘change’ and in fact may completely die out in years to come. And even if it stays and becomes something that everybody ‘does’, it’s just girls serving. There will NEVER be a change where Girls will become priests. Ever. Not because the Church ‘decided’, but because GOD chose to have men only, and the Church simply states what God said. It’s GOD’s decision, not men’s.

And please, not the tired old "The Church made mistakes, think of Galileo and the Inquisition’. The Church did not make ‘mistakes’ in that the Church did not change its teachings on faith and morals. Any individual errors (and Galileo made his own, not everything he insisted was true was in fact true!) are not “the Church”. Same with the Inquisition --it was not “The Church” who tried and executed people (and by no means the ‘millions’ claimed), it was THE STATE. For STATE reasons. We don’t do that today because we have 400 years of history of ‘tolerance’ to give us insight, but people back then didn’t have that knowledge. They were operating as best they could with the knowledge they DID have.

Altar girls may be up to the priest nevertheless I am very happy to see them in my Church.
I was taught about the Inquisition in my 11th grade religion class in a Catholic school. The Inquisition was a blight on the Church. You are attempting to make the Church look perfect. It wasn’t then, Doesn’t matter if it was not millions. It could have been only 10 people still doesn’t look good.
Blind faith is not a good thing.

 

[Michelle9]

Female altar servers are not a doctrine of the Church, neither is Galileo or the Inquisition.

On the other hand, marriage, sin, the Pope and the Magisterium, and the sacrament of Holy Orders, are. Church doctrine is not a buffet that you get to pick and choose what you like and leave what you do not.

catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-a-cafeteria-catholic
catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope_benedict_decries_cafeteria_catholicism/
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7184&repos=1&subrepos=0&searchid=911722

You said earlier that I might be surprised at the positions which some Catholics take that are in disagreement with the Church. No, I am afraid I would not. However, I have rarely come across one who dissents from Church teaching in so many areas at once. I honestly cannot understand why you chose to come back to the Catholic Church in the first place.

As Catholics we are called to embrace all of Church teaching, not just the part we happen to like, is easy, or agree with. If our conscience is leading us away from the truth, then our conscience is improperly formed and it is up to us to to fix that. Following an improperly formed conscience, particularly when one has been told of proper teaching, is an act which can and will lead to condemnation. If you doubt this, I strongly suggest you brush up on your Thomas Aquinas.

And I say you get yourself to a confessional pronto because you are not following Jesus at all. Who are you to say where I belong? How dare you!