Deaconesses, really ordainable?

[batteddy]

So, just a few questions to all good Catholics out there:

Do you consider the issue of female deacons (not priests) definitively answered? Do you consider it heresy to say that they could be ordained deacons? Or simply an undecided issue that you may have your own opinion on, but you respect the opinions of others on until a final pronouncement is made?
Would you leave the Church and get all nervous if the Church claimed to ordained women to the diaconate…or would you not care because these women deacons, if they were not really ordained, would not effect the validity of any sacraments?

 

[jimmy]

ByzCath:

Please show proof, what canon from the Council of Nicea does this?

Not that I doubt you, I just wish to add this to my notes for the next time this issue comes up.

Canon 19

"…We refer to deaconesses who have been granted this status, for they do not receive any imposition of hands, so that they are in all respects to be numbered among the laity. "

Council of Nicea

 

[Catholic2003]

Ann Cheryl:

While this was generally true there was one exception when the woman married another Catholic.

Good point. I wasn’t thinking about it in these terms. Deaconesses were also an exception in this regard; see below.
Ann Cheryl:

You are misinterpeting the evidence. It is the constant teaching of the Church. newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm It is clear that that women were never ordained. The words used in the installation were different than those used for men.

You are missing the point here. The Catholic Encyclopedia shows what the Church taught in 1907. I’m discussing what the Church taught in, say, 451, when the Council of Chalcedon uses the term cheirotoneisthai in discussing a women becoming a deaconess.

Both deacons and deaconesses received a laying on of hands from the bishop, and both stood in the same spot in the sanctuary to receive their office. The words used by the bishop were only slightly different, in that the words for a deacon admitted the possibility that the deacon “may be counted worthy of a higher standing,” such as priesthood or the episcopate. On the on the hand, subdeacons, lectors, and cantors were instituted in a simple ceremony that took place outside the sanctuary.

Now, it is one thing if the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907 found a way to somehow claim that these deaconesses did not receive the Sacrament of Orders, while the deacons did. But this is different than asking what the Church taught in 451.
Ann Cheryl:

I think you have a wrong date it was March 1994.

A better place to debate this would be this thread. See posts #20, #30, #31, #32, #49, #54, #56, #59, #60, #61, #79, and #81.

 

[Story]

Not to interupt the movement of the thread at all, but I have a question…or more along the line of an idea that I have carried since I was a kid…

I was told that the job of ‘deaconess’ was to assist women where it would not be prudent for a man to fill the job…i.e. Baptisms…

I always thought that ‘deaconesses’ were more like a prototypical nun that served a church or group of men in these certain exercises…

and the reason why I say that is that nuns or sisters are not mentioned in Acts while this position of deaconess is and they appear during the time frame of Paul and his ‘better to be a single person’ writing…

Story

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Story:

Not to interupt the movement of the thread at all, but I have a question…or more along the line of an idea that I have carried since I was a kid…

I was told that the job of ‘deaconess’ was to assist women where it would not be prudent for a man to fill the job…i.e. Baptisms…

I always thought that ‘deaconesses’ were more like a prototypical nun that served a church or group of men in these certain exercises…

and the reason why I say that is that nuns or sisters are not mentioned in Acts while this position of deaconess is and they appear during the time frame of Paul and his ‘better to be a single person’ writing…

Story

Story, you hit the nail on the head.

The deaconess was around before the advent of the uncloistered nun. Most of what a deaconess did for the community outside of the liturgy, as they had no function in the liturgy except for baptism as you state, was taken over by the uncloistered nun.

Hence there is no reason to restore this “office”.

No one has yet given a good arguement for its restoration other than that they were present in the early Church, which is not a reason for bringing it back.

 

[ncjohn]

batteddy:

So, just a few questions to all good Catholics out there:

Do you consider the issue of female deacons (not priests) definitively answered? Do you consider it heresy to say that they could be ordained deacons? Or simply an undecided issue that you may have your own opinion on, but you respect the opinions of others on until a final pronouncement is made?
Would you leave the Church and get all nervous if the Church claimed to ordained women to the diaconate…or would you not care because these women deacons, if they were not really ordained, would not effect the validity of any sacraments?

My wife and I have discussed this issue on a few occasions. I visited this thread to see if anyone was going to provide evidence that women are prohibited from being deacons as they infallibly are from being priests.

I have not seen that evidence presented here, nor had I found it anywhere else. That would indicate to me that it is an undecided issue at this time, although another one on which there are going to be very heated opionions and preferences.

I can respect either side and can see why people would prefer one or the other decision. I personally don’t really care, and if the Church says tomorrow that women can be deacons I’m sure I’ll be able to live with that. If the Church says (or has said already and I just don’t know it yet) definitively that they can’t, I can live with that too.

As a final note, I do see the roles of priest and deacon being totally different, thus eligibility for being a deacon not needing to be the same because they can’t become a priest. I believe that is a major reason why we have a Permanent Diaconate to which married men have been ordained with no intention of their becoming priests, and a Transitional Diaconate through which future priests pass. So far, as an impartial observer, I haven’t seen anything that should preclude a woman from being a Permanent deacon.

Peace,
John

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ncjohn:

As a final note, I do see the roles of priest and deacon being totally different, thus eligibility for being a deacon not needing to be the same because they can’t become a priest. I believe that is a major reason why we have a Permanent Diaconate to which married men have been ordained with no intention of their becoming priests, and a Transitional Diaconate through which future priests pass. So far, as an impartial observer, I haven’t seen anything that should preclude a woman from being a Permanent deacon.

Peace,
John

John,
I do not really see in what way the role matters.

We have priests who fill different roles but we do not say that they are different kinds of priests. We have priests who teach, who are chaplins, who are pastors, who are any number of things, but over all they are part of major Holy Orders.

That is the issue with me, if women are bared from recieving major Holy Orders then they are bared from them all.

As for the permanent diaconate issue, there is nothing baring a man who was ordained a deacon in the permanent diaconate from moving on to the priesthood at some later date. Other than the discipline of celibacy in the Western Church (which the Holy Father has waved on some occasions).

So please explain how a woman could be a deacon but not a priest.

 

[ncjohn]

ByzCath:

John,
As for the permanent diaconate issue, there is nothing baring a man who was ordained a deacon in the permanent diaconate from moving on to the priesthood at some later date. Other than the discipline of celibacy in the Western Church (which the Holy Father has waved on some occasions).

So please explain how a woman could be a deacon but not a priest.

As I’m sure you’re aware, the office of the Permanent Deacon is defined to be one of service. It is not intended as a stepping stone to the priesthood. While you are correct that nothing would prevent a male Permanent Deacon from pursuing the priesthood at a future time if his circumstances met the requirements, that is not the intent of the office, and nothing prevents any male in the same circumstances from doing the same. I would assume if he was to do that however, that he would transfer (may not be the best term, but I think you understand what I mean) to the Transitional Diaconate pending ordaination to the priesthood.

Given the definition and intent of the Permanent Diaconate however, there is no reason that a woman could not be able to serve in that capacity since it is not an office being used as a stepping stone to priesthood. It is a wholly different office.

Peace,
John

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ncjohn:

As I’m sure you’re aware, the office of the Permanent Deacon is defined to be one of service. It is not intended as a stepping stone to the priesthood. While you are correct that nothing would prevent a male Permanent Deacon from pursuing the priesthood at a future time if his circumstances met the requirements, that is not the intent of the office, and nothing prevents any male in the same circumstances from doing the same. I would assume if he was to do that however, that he would transfer (may not be the best term, but I think you understand what I mean) to the Transitional Diaconate pending ordaination to the priesthood.

Given the definition and intent of the Permanent Diaconate however, there is no reason that a woman could not be able to serve in that capacity since it is not an office being used as a stepping stone to priesthood. It is a wholly different office.

Peace,
John

There really is no such thing a permanent diaconate and transitional diaconate. They are just deacons.

There is no separation between the two or their roles. It is just that one is only a deacon for a short time, usually no more than a year, while they finish up the requirements for the priesthood.

It is not a “wholly different office” in the sense that it is major Holy Orders. You are trying to define the “office” by its role, which I do not think can be done.

I would be interested in seeing the explination that would be necessary for a “female deacon” in regards to preaching. A deacon’s main role is the proclimation of the Gospel, which can be followed by the Homily (as deacons are clergy they can give the Homily). How would we have to understand the Bible prohibition against this sort of thing?

Continued in next post with Catechism paragraphs.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ByzCath:

Continued in next post with Catechism paragraphs.

Here is what the Catechism has to say, for me it shows that the diaconate is part of Holy Orders and only men may be ordained into Holy Orders. Note the parts I have underlined.

1142 But “the members do not all have the same function.” Certain members are called by God, in and through the Church, to a special service of the community. These servants are chosen and consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the members of the Church. The ordained minister is, as it were, an “icon” of Christ the priest. Since it is in the Eucharist that the sacrament of the Church is made fully visible, it is in his presiding at the Eucharist that the bishop’s ministry is most evident, as well as, in communion with him, the ministry of priests and deacons.

**1570 **Deacons share in Christ’s mission and grace in a special way. The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint (“character”) which cannot be removed and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the “deacon” or servant of all. Among other tasks, it is the task of deacons to assist the bishop and priests in the celebration of the divine mysteries, above all the Eucharist, in the distribution of Holy Communion, in assisting at and blessing marriages, in the proclamation of the Gospel and preaching, in presiding over funerals, and in dedicating themselves to the various ministries of charity.

1554 “The divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees by those who even from ancient times have been called bishops, priests, and deacons.” Catholic doctrine, expressed in the liturgy, the Magisterium, and the constant practice of the Church, recognizes that there are two degrees of ministerial participation in the priesthood of Christ: the episcopacy and the presbyterate . The diaconate is intended to help and serve them. For this reason the term sacerdos in current usage denotes bishops and priests but not deacons. Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are all three conferred by a sacramental act called “ordination,” that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders:

Let everyone revere the deacons as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image of the Father, and the presbyters as the senate of God and the assembly of the apostles. For without them one cannot speak of the Church. . Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Trall. 3,1:SCh 10,96.

1538 Integration into one of these bodies in the Church was accomplished by a rite called ordinatio, a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. Today the word “ordination” is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, and goes beyond a simple election, designation, delegation, or institution by the community, for it confers a gift of the Holy Spirit that permits the exercise of a “sacred power” (sacra potestas) which can come only from Christ himself through his Church. Ordination is also called consecratio, for it is a setting apart and an investiture by Christ himself for his Church. The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination.

 

[DIT]

Genesis315:

Are deacons allowed to marry after they have been ordained.

Deacon candidates, who are unmarried at the time of their ordination, must take the promise of celebacy. Just like a priest, a deacon who is not married cannot marry after ordination.

A Permanent Deacon who becomes a widower after ordination cannot re-marry and instantly takes a promise of celebacy. The reason for this is that a married deacon candidate takes a promise of conditional celebacy at his ordination that states if his wife should proceed him in death, he will not remarry.

I hope that helps you Genesis315. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

 

[ncjohn]

**1570 **Deacons share in Christ’s mission and grace in a special way. The sacrament of Holy Orders marks them with an imprint (“character”) which cannot be removed and which configures them to Christ, who made himself the “deacon” or servant of all. Among other tasks, *it is the task of deacons to assist the bishop and priests * in the celebration of the divine mysteries, above all the Eucharist, in the distribution of Holy Communion, in assisting at and blessing marriages, in the proclamation of the Gospel and preaching, in presiding over funerals, and in dedicating themselves to the various ministries of charity.

1554 “The divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is *exercised in different degrees * by those who even from ancient times have been called bishops, priests, and deacons.” Catholic doctrine, expressed in the liturgy, the Magisterium, and the constant practice of the Church, recognizes that there are two degrees of ministerial participation in the priesthood of Christ: the episcopacy and the presbyterate . The diaconate is intended to help and serve them. For this reason the term sacerdos in current usage denotes bishops and priests but not deacons. Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are all three conferred by a sacramental act called “ordination,” that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders:

I have highlighted a couple areas in the text you quote as they are to me the relevant points to the discussion. As I understand it, your argument is that a woman cannot be a deacon because by definition deacons are ordained, and you are not arguing that there is any function that a deacon performs that a woman is not allowed to perform if she was in that role. I assume we agree also that the diaconate role is one of *service and assistance * (what I was highlighting above) rather than celebration of the mysteries.

If I am right there, then the only question is whether there is a prohibition against ordaination for women in and of itself in all cases. I agree ordaination as you are defining it is Holy Orders, but there are ordainations to two separate offices with completely different functions. It is possible that there is something in the canon law that says in effect that ordaination in and of itself is not allowed to women, but I have still seen no evidence of that. I have seen ample evidence that ordaination *to the priesthood * is off limits to women, but none whatsoever that the diaconate is similarly forbidden.

You are correct that I am defining the office by the role, because it is the role that creates the prohibition to women being priests. The role of deacon is completely different however, so while the process for being designated as one may be the same, the process does not make a deacon a priest. Therefore unless there is a definition of ordaination itself that sets it aside, I don’t see any conflict.

Peace,
John

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ncjohn:

I have highlighted a couple areas in the text you quote as they are to me the relevant points to the discussion. As I understand it, your argument is that a woman cannot be a deacon because by definition deacons are ordained, and you are not arguing that there is any function that a deacon performs that a woman is not allowed to perform if she was in that role. I assume we agree also that the diaconate role is one of *service and assistance *(what I was highlighting above) rather than celebration of the mysteries.

Actully I am arguing that women can not be part of major Holy Orders as two of the offices within major Holy Orders are infallibly unavalable to women, that is priest and bishop, and no one has shown that the major Holy Order of deacon is substantualy different in nature from the others.

Also I do question if a woman can proclaim the Gospel and preach givin the prohibition in the Bible against women speaking in Church. I have heard that this only applies in a liturgical setting, which is one of the main roles the deacon fulfills, it is his job to proclaim the Gospel and at times preach the homily.

You are correct that I am defining the office by the role, because it is the role that creates the prohibition to women being priests. The role of deacon is completely different however, so while the process for being designated as one may be the same, the process does not make a deacon a priest. Therefore unless there is a definition of ordaination itself that sets it aside, I don’t see any conflict.

I am not so sure it is the role that creates the prohibition.

After all in the CCC entries I put up it also says that the deacon acts in the person of Christ in his ministry to the Church.

Please explain how we are to “revere deacons as Jesus Christ” as St Ignatius commands if the deacon is not a male.

Also, why does the Church not ordain women to the minor orders but instead ordains no one to the minor orders so that women can be readers and altar servers.

 

[ncjohn]

ByzCath:

Actully I am arguing that women can not be part of major Holy Orders as two of the offices within major Holy Orders are infallibly unavalable to women, that is priest and bishop, and no one has shown that the major Holy Order of deacon is substantualy different in nature from the others.

Wow, there are a lot of questions here! I’ll do the best I can and address them individually, but I have to admit I’m not trained in this so please bear with me if I make some gross misstatement.

I’m not sure why you thiink the office of deacon is not substantially different. It is a completely different role of assisting and service. Even the passage you quoted a couple posts down expressly stated that there were two degrees–that of priestly participation and that of service. The bishop (and probably the priest, I’m not positive by definition) “act in the person of Christ.” To the best of my knowledge, the deacon only assists them in doing so, but does not act in this way him/herself. There is also the statement that the term “sacerdos” only applies to bishops and priests, not deacons, which again clearly differentiates them.

Also I do question if a woman can proclaim the Gospel and preach givin the prohibition in the Bible against women speaking in Church.

I assume you are here referring to Paul’s statement. I don’t know of anyone who has ever taken that as a literal prohibition on women speaking in Church or that the Church has any such prohibition. Women speak in church all the time, including as readers, which we both know. If a woman can legitimately be a deacon, there would be no reason she couldn’t perform those functions.

As I’m sure you recall from another thread on communion services, I believe a woman could lead one of those, read the gospel and at the least give a “meditation.” Since we agreed at the time that that was not a homily, even though it could still take the form of “preaching,” women already have the ability to do that as far as I know.

After all in the CCC entries I put up it also says that the deacon acts in the person of Christ in his ministry to the Church.

I don’t recall seeing anything that said that and I don’t think that is true.

Please explain how we are to “revere deacons as Jesus Christ” as St Ignatius commands if the deacon is not a male.

I can revere a woman the same as I revere Christ. I revere ALL of the people of God as I revere Christ since we are all part of the Body of Christ and Christ is present in each of us. Even if a statement from Ignatius had the force of law, which I don’t think it does, I don’t think it is meant that only males can be revered. I think it applies to revering the office.

Also, why does the Church not ordain women to the minor orders but instead ordains no one to the minor orders so that women can be readers and altar servers.

I’m not that familiar with the minor orders, although I assume this is addressing things like instituted acolyles and lectors and such. I’m not sure why those haven’t been used, and I doubt it’s just so women can do things, but realistically it’s only been a recent development that the diaconate was really recognized for its value and returned, so maybe minor orders might be on the horizon also.

I have to say it is a pleasure being able to discuss something like this in a respectful way. That’s not always an easy thing to do around here. Even if we end up “agreeing to disagree” I will have considered it a pleasure and will thank you for the insights you’ve passed along and for causing me to reflect deeper on the subject and my faith.

Peace,
John

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ncjohn:

I assume you are here referring to Paul’s statement. I don’t know of anyone who has ever taken that as a literal prohibition on women speaking in Church or that the Church has any such prohibition. Women speak in church all the time, including as readers, which we both know. If a woman can legitimately be a deacon, there would be no reason she couldn’t perform those functions.

I am at work right now so I am only going to address this one, I will look at the rest when I get home.

I never said that it means that women shouldn’t speak, please point ot where I said that.

What I said is that this passage is taken to mean that women are not to teach/preach during the liturgy.

Now as the primary role of the deacon is the proclimation of the Gospel and preaching, how do you balance these?

 

[ncjohn]

I never said that it means that women shouldn’t speak, please point ot where I said that.

What I said is that this passage is taken to mean that women are not to teach/preach during the liturgy.

Now as the primary role of the deacon is the proclimation of the Gospel and preaching, how do you balance these?

ByzCath:

Also I do question if a woman can proclaim the Gospel and preach givin the prohibition in the Bible against women speaking in Church.

This was your direct quote. The only place I remember where women speaking in church is addressed is in one of Paul’s letters, although I am also at work so I can’t go look up which one. If there is another place can you tell me where so I can refresh my memory?

Not any hurry on responses. I actually should spend a little more time tending my duties also! I’ll be out tonight as we’re meeting with our Franciscan spiritual advisor tonight so it might be tomorrow before I can get back to you anyway.

Peace,
John

 

[Catholic2003]

From the official commentary to Inter Insigniores (emphasis added):

In some writers of the Middle Ages however, there was a certain hesitancy, reported by Saint Bonaventure without adopting it himself and noted also by Joannes Teutonicus in his gloss on Caus. 27, q.1, c.23. This hesitancy stemmed from the knowledge that in the past there had been deaconesses: had they received true sacramental ordination? This problem has been brought up again very recently. It was by no means unknown to the 17th and 18th century theologians who had an excellent knowledge of the history of literature. In any case, it is a question that must be taken up fully by direct study of the texts, without preconceived ideas; hence the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has judged that it should be kept for the future and not touched upon in the present document.

I don’t see how “no women deacons” could be the constant, infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium if the CDF (which is part of the Magisterium) thought that whether historical deaconesses had recieved true sacramental ordination was something that needed to be studied.

 

[Catholic2003]

From canon law:

Canon 1024 Only a baptised man can validly receive sacred ordination.

For priests and bishops, this requirement comes from divine law and cannot be changed.

For deacons, it is possible that this requirement could be from divine law, or it could be mere ecclesiastical law. In the latter case, it could be changed in the future.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

ncjohn:

I never said that it means that women shouldn’t speak, please point ot where I said that.
What I said is that this passage is taken to mean that women are not to teach/preach during the liturgy.
Now as the primary role of the deacon is the proclimation of the Gospel and preaching, how do you balance these?

ByzCath:

Also I do question if a woman can proclaim the Gospel and preach givin the prohibition in the Bible against women speaking in Church.

This was your direct quote. The only place I remember where women speaking in church is addressed is in one of Paul’s letters, although I am also at work so I can’t go look up which one. If there is another place can you tell me where so I can refresh my memory?

John,
After this reply by you I think this will be my last reply to you based on my feeling that you are being very disingenuous in this discussion.

You seem to only take the second half of my comment.

I said “I never said that it means that women shouldn’t speak, please point ot where I said that.”

You go back and quote me as saying, “Also I do question if a woman can proclaim the Gospel and preach givin the prohibition in the Bible against women speaking in Church.” which I did say, but you highlight the last part “prohibition in the Bible against women speaking in Church.” while totally leaving out the frist part which was “Also I do question if a woman can proclaim the Gospel and preach”.

So yes, with your selective reading you are correct but if you read fully in context, you will see that I did not say what you are saying I said.

 

[ncjohn]

ByzCath:

John,
After this reply by you I think this will be my last reply to you based on my feeling that you are being very disingenuous in this discussion.

You seem to only take the second half of my comment.

I said “I never said that it means that women shouldn’t speak, please point ot where I said that.”

You go back and quote me as saying, "Also I do question if a woman can proclaim the Gospel and preach givin the prohibition in the Bible against women speaking in Church.

" which I did say, but you highlight the last part “prohibition in the Bible against women speaking in Church.” while totally leaving out the frist part which was “Also I do question if a woman can proclaim the Gospel and preach”.

So yes, with your selective reading you are correct but if you read fully in context, you will see that I did not say what you are saying I said.

David, you really lost me on that one. I’m not being disingenuous at all. I highlighted that part because that was where you said women weren’t supposed to speak. I put the whole quote because I didn’t understand what the relationship was. I certainly wasn’t implying that you literally thought women weren’t supposed to speak. I think I did address my feelings about women proclaiming and preaching relative to women speaking in the previous post

As I said, the only place in the Bible I know of that addresses women speaking in church is the letter from Paul, and I don’t recall it having anything to do with preaching or proclaiming of the Gospel. Apparently I’m either not understanding what you’re referencing, I’m not seeing the relationship, or there’s another different point you’re trying to make based on something else. I’m not sure which, but I am definitely not playing games with you or anything. If I wasn’t serious, I quite frankly wouldn’t be wasting my time or yours with this. I apologize if it seemed like I was.

John