Disciplinary council for the founder of the Ordain Women movement in the LDS church

[TexanKnight]

Mormons find support for their beliefs in their sacred scriptures, just like you do in yours. When someone argues against misogyny, they respond just like you do with a rhetorical question “are you suggesting that the great prophets in the latter days are wrong?” To answer the question honestly. Yes. Paul was wrong in maintaining that women needed to wear head coverings for the sake of the angels. To his credit, he asked his readers to judge for themselves whether or not it was fitting for women not to do so.

Prophets in lkatter days? There have been none. And no, Paul was not wrong.

We were talking about the Church since its inception?

lol…my bad. I assumed you would understand the differences in a different century, country, culture, etc. Forgive me for that

You reject the Old Testament for the same reason, I gather? Or do you have any examples where women had many men in the OT?

Do I reject it? Nope. Nor will I be silly enough to compare the practices of 2000 bc in the middle east with the year 1830 in the United States.

Not more marginalizing than this text:

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. 1Timothy 2.

Thankfully, the majority of biblical scholars today, agree that Paul did not write this. But it is still considered canonical in the CC.

Ah…so you compare a verse in the Scripture with actual vows women must say out loud in the temple. Interesting.

I think it is. But the Bible is filled with stuff like that, and much worse.

I see. Your comparisons lack much. I was hoping you could understand the differences between things written and done thousands of years ago in the Middle East with the practices of Americans in the 1800s and 1900s. I see I was wrong. I do not often overestimate people. I apologize for doing so now

 

[iepuras]

I don’t think they have marginalized women more since its inception than the CC. At the moment, the CC is treating women more as equals than in the past in some areas, but not all.

However, the Vatican is still mostly run by men. There are no women cardinals, although there certainly could be, since it is a mere honorary title and has been given to laity before. There were deaconesses in the CC, not so anymore. Women could hear sacramental confessions in the past, not so anymore.

The current definition of ordination was cooked up somewhere in the 1200’s (previously ordination merely meant being appointed by the bishop), and the idea that an ordination given to a woman wouldn’t “stick” was invented with it.

The LDS Church has, to my knowledge, not demanded that women wear head coverings during the sacrament meeting. Nor have they denied women access to the sacrament meeting when they are menstruating. It has not burned women at the stake as witches.

Could you please provide citations for your assertions that women were able to hear confession and give absolution and that ordination was “cooked up” in the 1200’s? I am already familiar with deaconesses who assisted in the baptisms of women in the early Church.

 

[anon99031074]

Your previous posts show a lack of understanding of LDS theology, history and temple ceremonies. I am a former Mormon and am very knowledgeable of LDS theology, history and temple ceremonies.

I also never brought relativism into the discussion. I agree that the LDS beliefs on continuous revelation through the prophet are not relativism but you are wrong to assume that I believe such.

Then what is the point in stating that they could just receive a revelation tomorrow that would give women the priesthood? Also, I do not know you, and you do not know me. So don’t be so quick to judge what I know about mormonism, or my experience in the cult.

Less than one year before priesthood ordination was extended to blacks, Byron Marchant was excommunicated for publicly advocating the ordination of black men. Very few Mormons felt sorry for him, but when the “revelation” came, it was celebrated. If and when the LDS prophet “receives a revelation” to extend priesthood ordination to women, it would be accepted and celebrated by the same people who are now taking pleasure in Ms. Kelly’s excommunication. LDS ordination of women would not be an invention because elite LDS women are already ordained in the second anointing. The fact is very few LDS even know about this.

He was excommunicated for opposing the brethren and not waiting for the Lord. If the pope or an ecumenical council tomorrow declared infallibly that women could be priests, and that anyone who dares question this definition has shipwrecked his or her faith, Catholics (except for traditionalists) would embrace it and Catholic Answers would begin defending female ordination. You would probably do so too. The history of the CC is not clear cut when it comes to this issue either. The Abbess heard sacramental confessions within monasteries for a few hundred years. It was, in fact, her duty to do so. If males, such as gardeners, lived on the monastery property, they confessed to her as well. There have been deaconesses in the CC, and their ordination rite is extremely similar to that of men. Our current understanding of ordination had not yet developed at the time, so claiming that they weren’t ordained in our sense of the word is first of all anachronistic, second of all, there is absolutely no good evidence that their ordination was of a different kind than male ordination.

And since you brought up veiling and menstruation, LDS women are required to wear a veil and cover their faces during certain parts of the ceremony. Also, LDS women are buried in their temple clothes and their faces are covered by the veil before the casket is closed. I was also prevented from participating in temple ordinances for the dead because I was menstruating but that is probably TMI.

Not really. I knew all of this, apart from the menstruating part, which I suspect had to do with baptism for the dead or another ritual where bleeding could become a problem. My point is, why argue against the very things the CC has been doing? Because the LDS Church might be 50 or 100 years behind the times? Is whatever level of equality that happens to exist in the CC at this point in history the yardstick for all other religions?

 

[anon99031074]

Could you please provide citations for your assertions that women were able to hear confession and give absolution and that ordination was “cooked up” in the 1200’s? I am already familiar with deaconesses who assisted in the baptisms of women in the early Church.

There are references in “The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West” p. 83 (Gary Macy, Oxford University Press, 2007). The book on the whole is very balanced, and does not try to make the evidence stronger than it is. But Church history when it comes to female ordination is not as clear cut as it may seem.

EDIT: On the second question, there is a whole chapter in the book dealing with it, called “Defining Women out of Ordination”.

 

[anon99031074]

Prophets in lkatter days? There have been none. And no, Paul was not wrong.

Mormons think there have been latter day prophets, and that one is living now. And when challenged on their backwards beliefs, they will answer just like you do. “ARE you saying that XXX is WRONG?!” If Paul was not wrong, why are women not wearing head coverings during mass anymore? Or during readings?

lol…my bad. I assumed you would understand the differences in a different century, country, culture, etc. Forgive me for that

I find it amusing how conservative Catholics suddenly become moral relativists when dealing with history, but when arguing contemporary morals, they are absolutists.

Do I reject it? Nope. Nor will I be silly enough to compare the practices of 2000 bc in the middle east with the year 1830 in the United States.

Relativism again. It is ok if you are a relativist, but you should be so consistently. I don’t think you are.

Ah…so you compare a verse in the Scripture with actual vows women must say out loud in the temple. Interesting.

Sure I do. It is read aloud in Churches, sometimes by women. And of course, women had to promise to be obedient to their husbands in previous marriage ceremonies.

I see. Your comparisons lack much. I was hoping you could understand the differences between things written and done thousands of years ago in the Middle East with the practices of Americans in the 1800s and 1900s. I see I was wrong. I do not often overestimate people. I apologize for doing so now

I certainly do. Which is why I don’t use such writings to argue against female clergy today, for instance.

 

[iepuras]

Then what is the point in stating that they could just receive a revelation tomorrow that would give women the priesthood? Also, I do not know you, and you do not know me. So don’t be so quick to judge what I know about mormonism, or my experience in the cult.

He was excommunicated for opposing the brethren and not waiting for the Lord. If the pope or an ecumenical council tomorrow declared infallibly that women could be priests, and that anyone who dares question this definition has shipwrecked his or her faith, Catholics (except for traditionalists) would embrace it and Catholic Answers would begin defending female ordination. You would probably do so too. The history of the CC is not clear cut when it comes to this issue either. The Abbess heard sacramental confessions within monasteries for a few hundred years. It was, in fact, her duty to do so. If males, such as gardeners, lived on the monastery property, they confessed to her as well. There have been deaconesses in the CC, and their ordination rite is extremely similar to that of men. Our current understanding of ordination had not yet developed at the time, so claiming that they weren’t ordained in our sense of the word is first of all anachronistic, second of all, there is absolutely no good evidence that their ordination was of a different kind than male ordination.

Not really. I knew all of this, apart from the menstruating part, which I suspect had to do with baptism for the dead or another ritual where bleeding could become a problem. My point is, why argue against the very things the CC has been doing? Because the LDS Church might be 50 or 100 years behind the times? Is whatever level of equality that happens to exist in the CC at this point in history the yardstick for all other religions?

Apologies for making assumptions.

My point was to illustrate the fluidity of LDS theology and that it is not out of the realm of possibility for the LDS church to ordain women.

Please don’t make assumptions yourself about how I would react to a theoretical council that declared women could be ordained. My husband is Byzantine Catholic and has very close ties to Eastern Orthodoxy. Many family members are EO. So in this theoretical exercise, we would likely head east to Eastern Orthodoxy.

So why argue against the poor treatment of women in the LDS church? Because I have sisters and nieces who are in the LDS church and if they are unwilling to learn they follow a false prophet and leave, I want them to be treated better. My desire has nothing to do with now being Catholic. It comes from being a former LDS woman who loves my family despite the fact that most of them now shun me.

By the way, I was not only forbidden from doing baptisms for the dead while menstruating, I was forbidden from doing confirmations even while wearing a tampon and pad. I was loudly shamed in front of the entire youth group and had to sit apart from everyone. I was told I should not have even come to the temple. I was humiliated during a difficult time in life in a church where I never felt like I fit in anyway.

 

[iepuras]

There are references in “The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West” p. 83 (Gary Macy, Oxford University Press, 2007). The book on the whole is very balanced, and does not try to make the evidence stronger than it is. But Church history when it comes to female ordination is not as clear cut as it may seem.

EDIT: On the second question, there is a whole chapter in the book dealing with it, called “Defining Women out of Ordination”.

Thank you for the reference.

 

[anon99031074]

Apologies for making assumptions.

My point was to illustrate the fluidity of LDS theology and that it is not out of the realm of possibility for the LDS church to ordain women.

Please don’t make assumptions yourself about how I would react to a theoretical council that declared women could be ordained. My husband is Byzantine Catholic and has very close ties to Eastern Orthodoxy. Many family members are EO. So in this theoretical exercise, we would likely head east to Eastern Orthodoxy.

So why argue against the poor treatment of women in the LDS church? Because I have sisters and nieces who are in the LDS church and if they are unwilling to learn they follow a false prophet and leave, I want them to be treated better. My desire has nothing to do with now being Catholic. It comes from being a former LDS woman who loves my family despite the fact that most of them now shun me.

By the way, I was not only forbidden from doing baptisms for the dead while menstruating, I was forbidden from doing confirmations even while wearing a tampon and pad. I was loudly shamed in front of the entire youth group and had to sit apart from everyone. I was told I should not have even come to the temple. I was humiliated during a difficult time in life in a church where I never felt like I fit in anyway.

Ok. That sounded like a painful episode. I am sorry to hear it. But having been raised in the LDS Church myself (and left it years ago), I have never head about any such event. I have two sisters. Of course, there are things I don’t know as well. so this could be standard practice for all I know

As for the fluidity of LDS beliefs, yes. I agree. They have changed a lot. Mormons, however, don’t know this. Catholics beliefs have also changed a lot, and in ways that would surprise many readers of Catholic Answers. I don’t think it is unlikely that there will be women priests in the future, both in the EO and Catholic Churches, since the arguments against women clergy are generally quite poor, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see through them. But it may take some time, since change in these Churches is very slow. That gives the impression that they have always taught the same thing, and that is necessary to safeguard beliefs about infallibility etc.

 

[iepuras]

Ok. That sounded like a painful episode. I am sorry to hear it. But having been raised in the LDS Church myself (and left it years ago), I have never head about any such event. I have two sisters. Of course, there are things I don’t know as well. so this could be standard practice for all I know

As for the fluidity of LDS beliefs, yes. I agree. They have changed a lot. Mormons, however, don’t know this. Catholics beliefs have also changed a lot, and in ways that would surprise many readers of Catholic Answers. I don’t think it is unlikely that there will be women priests in the future, both in the EO and Catholic Churches, since the arguments against women clergy are generally quite poor, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see through them. But it may take some time, since change in these Churches is very slow. That gives the impression that they have always taught the same thing, and that is necessary to safeguard beliefs about infallibility etc.

I’m glad that you got out and welcome to CAF.

Sisters don’t usually speak of such things to brothers (if you are a guy). My brother wouldn’t have wanted to hear about such things. It is standard to not allow menstruating girls to do baptisms but they can do confirmations (I used to be an ordinance worker at the temple during my YSA days). I just learned to lie, like many other LDS youth.

The main thing that always bothered me as a woman in the LDS church was that I had to have a husband and that I had to go through him to get to God. Men just need Jesus. Yes, both the LDS church and the Catholic Church provide ordinances/sacraments through a male priesthood. I don’t have a problem with that. In orthodox Christianity, I don’t need a husband or go through him to get to God. All I need is Jesus Christ. This is fundamentally different from the LDS church where a woman must be married and go through him to get to Jesus. This is inherently unequal.

 

[anon99031074]

I’m glad that you got out and welcome to CAF.

Sisters don’t usually speak of such things to brothers (if you are a guy). My brother wouldn’t have wanted to hear about such things. It is standard to not allow menstruating girls to do baptisms but they can do confirmations (I used to be an ordinance worker at the temple during my YSA days). I just learned to lie, like many other LDS youth.

Ahh, now we know why you lost your testimony! just kidding At any rate, it seems to me this has to do with fear that menstruating women will bleed into the baptismal font, and not some ritual impurity. I might be wrong though. But if I am not mistaken, there are still EO Churches that do not allow menstruating women to attend the liturgy, and certainly not to receive communion. This, to my mind, is pure misogyny.

The main thing that always bothered me as a woman in the LDS church was that I had to have a husband and that I had to go through him to get to God. Men just need Jesus. Yes, both the LDS church and the Catholic Church provide ordinances/sacraments through a male priesthood. I don’t have a problem with that. In orthodox Christianity, I don’t need a husband or go through him to get to God. All I need is Jesus Christ. This is fundamentally different from the LDS church where a woman must be married and go through him to get to Jesus. This is inherently unequal.

Yeah, that is a good point. I don’t think we have any New Testament analogues to such a teaching. Although I do think the passage from 1Tim2 quoted above is quite degrading towards women, it doesn’t provide a mediator between Jesus and women. I find the teachings and morals of the LDS Church to be lacking. I think it is a religion created by a con man. But it is more than that as well. As time passes, religion changes, and sincere believers within Mormonism who have genuine spiritual experiences are slowly changing it, as is inevitable. I don’t think there are any perfect religions on this planet, they all have their share of unhelpful customs and morals, and Catholics criticizing Mormons on the issue of women priests? I think we should ordain women ourselves first.

 

[TexanKnight]

Mormons think there have been latter day prophets, and that one is living now. And when challenged on their backwards beliefs, they will answer just like you do. “ARE you saying that XXX is WRONG?!” If Paul was not wrong, why are women not wearing head coverings during mass anymore? Or during readings?

The difference is, I can show the lds prophets are false. In fact, I have already done so. And, some women still DO wear coverings during Mass…most of them do where I attend.

I find it amusing how conservative Catholics suddenly become moral relativists when dealing with history, but when arguing contemporary morals, they are absolutists.

I love it when people without an argument try to compare BC in another country and culture with current times in our culture. It is truly amusing.

Relativism again. It is ok if you are a relativist, but you should be so consistently. I don’t think you are.

In fact, I am…when people try to ridiculously compare ancient times in a foreign land to current times in this one.

Sure I do. It is read aloud in Churches, sometimes by women. And of course, women had to promise to be obedient to their husbands in previous marriage ceremonies.

Ah…so reading aloud the words of the past is the same, to you, as making vows. So, when I read nursery tales, it is the same as making a vow to do something. I get it!

I certainly do. Which is why I don’t use such writings to argue against female clergy today, for instance.

Actually, based on your arguments, you do not.

 

[anon99031074]

The difference is, I can show the lds prophets are false. In fact, I have already done so. And, some women still DO wear coverings during Mass…most of them do where I attend.

There are Mormons who know everything you and I do about Mormonism, who still believe. I doubt you can dig up any issue that would convince a FAIR apologist that Mormon prophets are false. All true believers in any religion think they have (or need to convince themselves that they have) overwhelming evidence on their side. People belonging to different religions are either ignorant, self delusional, brainwashed and/or stupid. Also, you dodged the issue. Paul says women should wear head coverings for the sake of the angels. So to Paul, it has to do with heaven, and is not some cultural thing. So, is the CC wrong in allowing women not to wear head coverings during mass or when doing readings?

I love it when people without an argument try to compare BC in another country and culture with current times in our culture. It is truly amusing.

You already made that clear. And yet, you will happily quote those old texts from different cultures against gay rights, women priests etc.

In fact, I am…when people try to ridiculously compare ancient times in a foreign land to current times in this one.

Interesting. But you haven’t actually explained how you reconcile an inerrant/inspired text that is the written revelation from an unchanging God, with outdated (and sometimes horrible) morals found in that text. Your criticism of Mormon culture seems to be entirely arbitrary. You pit your Catholic 21st century cultural beliefs against a different culture: that of 19th century Mormonism.

Ah…so reading aloud the words of the past is the same, to you, as making vows. So, when I read nursery tales, it is the same as making a vow to do something. I get it!

I think you do get it. “This is the word of the Lord” is said after the the text is read. It is read as being authoritative and true. You respond “Thanks be to God” to the reading. Of course, you could deal with the content of the text instead of engaging in cheap sarcasm. It is interesting how you compare the alleged “Word of the Lord” to nursery tales. Perhaps you don’t actually believe in an inspired Bible. If that is the case, I am sorry. My bad.

Actually, based on your arguments, you do not.

I believed my discussion was with someone who believes the Bible is the word of God, and that an unchanging God has revealed eternal moral principles within that text. If you don’t think the Bible is the word of God, but that it rather is a man made and uninspired religious text, like any other, and that it is filled with outdated and harmful morals and customs I have no argument with you.

 

[TexanKnight]

There are Mormons who know everything you and I do about Mormonism, who still believe. I doubt you can dig up any issue that would convince a FAIR apologist that Mormon prophets are false. All true believers in any religion think they have (or need to convince themselves that they have) overwhelming evidence on their side. People belonging to different religions are either ignorant, self delusional, brainwashed and/or stupid. Also, you dodged the issue. Paul says women should wear head coverings for the sake of the angels. So to Paul, it has to do with heaven, and is not some cultural thing. So, is the CC wrong in allowing women not to wear head coverings during mass or when doing readings?

yawn. As I said, I have already proved it.

You already made that clear. And yet, you will happily quote those old texts from different cultures against gay rights, women priests etc.

Really? Where have I done that? I can;t wait for you to show me

Interesting. But you haven’t actually explained how you reconcile an inerrant/inspired text that is the written revelation from an unchanging God, with outdated (and sometimes horrible) morals found in that text. Your criticism of Mormon culture seems to be entirely arbitrary. You pit your Catholic 21st century cultural beliefs against a different culture: that of 19th century Mormonism.

I have not criticized anything, except your need to make faulty comparisons. I simply showed where LDS women are demeaned.

I think you do get it. “This is the word of the Lord” is said after the the text is read. It is read as being authoritative and true. You respond “Thanks be to God” to the reading. Of course, you could deal with the content of the text instead of engaging in cheap sarcasm. It is interesting how you compare the alleged “Word of the Lord” to nursery tales. Perhaps you don’t actually believe in an inspired Bible. If that is the case, I am sorry. My bad.

lol…you have not said anything truly worthy of discussing. You make faulty comparisons and say reading a book is the same as making a vow. Odd.

I believed my discussion was with someone who believes the Bible is the word of God, and that an unchanging God has revealed eternal moral principles within that text. If you don’t think the Bible is the word of God, but that it rather is a man made and uninspired religious text, like any other, and that it is filled with outdated and harmful morals and customs I have no argument with you.

Nice ploy…deflecting from odd comparisons to an even odder conclusion. But, it seems you popped in just to fight and not truly add anything substantial. You know, if you can read, what I believe.

 

[Brendan]

There are references in “The Hidden History of Women’s Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West” p. 83 (Gary Macy, Oxford University Press, 2007). The book on the whole is very balanced, and does not try to make the evidence stronger than it is. But Church history when it comes to female ordination is not as clear cut as it may seem.

EDIT: On the second question, there is a whole chapter in the book dealing with it, called “Defining Women out of Ordination”.

So since the Orthodox split from the Church in 1058 (well prior to your claim that ordination was cooked up in the 1200’s) do the Orthodox Churches still have the concept of ordination that you claim the Church had prior to 1200?

 

[anon99031074]

…But, it seems you popped in just to fight and not truly add anything substantial…

Nah, I don’t usually engage in discussion with people to fight. Such a wrestling match approach to discussions is what ruins them. Particularly the egoic need to be “right” all the time, and engaging in intellectual dishonesty, personal attacks and sarcasm in order to escape bothersome questions.

But I do agree that continuing this discussion with you is pointless. I agree with you that Mormons should ordain women and treat them as equals. I also think the CC should do the same. Although I do think the CC is slightly closer to that ideal than the Mormon Church, I don’t think it is at a point where it gets to point fingers without violating Matthew 7:3.

 

[anon99031074]

So since the Orthodox split from the Church in 1058 (well prior to your claim that ordination was cooked up in the 1200’s) do the Orthodox Churches still have the concept of ordination that you claim the Church had prior to 1200?

I was imprecise and speaking from memory. I see that the change in the meaning of ordination began to develop slightly earlier than that. Being ordained meant simply being appointed to an order in the early centuries of the Church. According to the “Hidden History of Women’s Ordination: Female Clergy in the Medieval West”, mentioned previously, signs of the development process into a new understanding of the term, began with a synod in Benevento, convened by Urban III in 1091. I do not know if the idea that an ordination given to a women would not “stick”, so to speak, also developed within Eastern Orthodoxy. Further, I doubt that the schism initially created an absolute separation between east and west. To my knowledge, Orthdox participated at Catholic councils, etc… long after the initial split. So a certain amount of syncretism is to be expected.

EDIT: There is a whole chapter dealing with the issue in the book. Looking at it now, it is far too long and detailed for me to even attempt to reproduce here. I recommend picking up the book if you are interested. It is not a work advocating the ordination of women, but it is very interesting, since it contains a lot of facts that you don’t usually read about on the average Catholic website.

 

[anon99031074]

@Brendan,

I don’t know very much about the issue of female ordination within EO today. I have tried to look at the issue briefly now, with the aid of good old Google. Bishop Kallistos Ware says it is an open question that has not been decided by a pan-orthodox council, he also argues that the ordination of Deaconesses in the eastern Church was a real sacramental ordination, and that the view that these women were laypeople is untenable. Furthermore, he argues that the order has not been abolished, but simply fallen into disuse. As I understand him, he thinks it is possible that the Orthodox Church will ordain women in the future. I also see no mention of the peculiar idea that if a bishop actually laid hands on a woman and ordained her to the priesthood, that ordination would not stick.

At any rate, I don’t know enough about the theology of ordination in EO to give you a good answer. But I suspect that like the Eucharist, it is more of a mystery in EO Church. I also happen to think that transubstantiation as an explanation for how the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ was also cooked up late, and it is wedded to an erroneous philosophy of accidents and substances. However, the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and not just a symbolic presence, is an ancient tradition that goes back to the apostles. I think the western Church has a tendency to overthink things.

 

[LivingWaters7]

@Brendan,

I don’t know very much about the issue of female ordination within EO today. I have tried to look at the issue briefly now, with the aid of good old Google. Bishop Kallistos Ware says it is an open question that has not been decided by a pan-orthodox council, he also argues that the ordination of Deaconesses in the eastern Church was a real sacramental ordination, and that the view that these women were laypeople is untenable. Furthermore, he argues that the order has not been abolished, but simply fallen into disuse. As I understand him, he thinks it is possible that the Orthodox Church will ordain women in the future. I also see no mention of the peculiar idea that if a bishop actually laid hands on a woman and ordained her to the priesthood, that ordination would not stick.

Can you please link to the specific reference that you read?

 

[anon99031074]

Can you please link to the specific reference that you read?

But I see them also as questions that are posed to us Orthodox. For example, the question of women priests and bishops. Most Orthodox would say, we should not ordain women. But if you ask them why not, they will say that it has never been done; they will appeal to tradition. But you press them a little farther, and say that there must be a reason why women have never been ordained as priests. The argument from tradition merely tells you that they have never been ordained as priests, but it does not tell you why. Surely there must be some theological reason. On the one hand, the Orthodox are certain and clear in their answer. Most of us would say, no, we could not ever ordain women. Yet others would say, it is for us essentially an open question. We are not proposing to do so in the near future, but we need to reflect more deeply on it. If all we say is, “impossible, never,” we perhaps should ask ourselves, what are the implications for our understanding of human nature , of the difference between male and female, for our understanding of the priesthood and the relationship of the priest to Christ. That is an example of how your questions are perhaps to some extent also our questions.

virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=8803

*The order of deaconesses seems definitely to have been considered an “ordained” ministry during early centuries in at any rate the Christian East. … Some Orthodox writers regard deaconesses as having been a “lay” ministry. There are strong reasons for rejecting this view. In the Byzantine rite the liturgical office for the laying-on of hands for the deaconess is exactly parallel to that for the deacon; and so on the principle lex orandi, lex credendi—the Church’s worshipping practice is a sure indication of its faith—it follows that the deaconesses receives, as does the deacon, a genuine sacramental ordination: not just a χειροθεσια (chirothesia) but a χειροτονια (chirotonia). *

• From the wikipedia article on female ordination, and also quoted in other web articles.

EDIT: I dug up an ordination text as well:

“Lord, Master, you do not reject women who dedicate themselves to you and who are willing, in a becoming way, to serve your Holy House, but admit them to the order of your ministers λειτουργων]. Grant the gift of your Holy Spirit also to this your maid servant who wants to dedicate herself to you, and fulfil in her the grace of the diaconate διακονιας], as you have granted to Phoebe the grace of your diaconate διακονιας], whom you had called to the work of the ministry λειτουργιας]. Give her, Lord, that she may persevere without guilt in your Holy Temple, that she may carefully guard her behaviour, especially her modesty and temperance. Moreover, make your maid servant perfect, so that, when she will stand before the judgement seat of your Christ, she may obtain the worthy fruit of her excellent conduct, through the mercy and humanity of your Only Son.”

womendeacons.org/rite/hobart.shtml

 

[zaffiroborant]

Oh what a ghastly threat! To think that women would be treated as equal to men and not some subspecies within humanity. I do agree that it is hypocritical to bash the LDS Church for excommunicating this woman, though. If there is a difference between the Catholic and LDS Churches on this issue, it is one of degree and not substance.

There is a chasm separating the Catholic church and the LDS church in the treatment of Kate Kelly. No Catholic woman has been thrown out of the Catholic church for advocating women’s ordination.