For All the Protestants That Care to Answer . . .

[Blue_Serenity]

Amen, the Lord is always with His faithful children, and will be until His glorious return, when we will finally see Him as He is!

And I am anxiously awaiting that day!!!

 

[Ladybug42]

Originally Posted by Ladybug42:
It would shake my doubts quite soundly if the RCC began to ordain deaconesses as were mentioned in the Epistles… explain very soundly why they stopped doing so.

I guess for some of the same reasons why we don’t have women priests.

The reason given for women not being ordained as priests is because the Church does not feel that it has the authority. That reason could not apply to deaconesses, as the Bible clearly shows that they ordained them in the beginning–which means that the Church originally had that authority.

 

[Ladybug42]

No Catholic person lessens or degrades the saving power of Christ. We do not add to Christ’s sacrifice in the way that you think we do. But God does allow us to participate along with Jesus in our own sacrifice as we are to give our lives to God.

6 I planted, Apollos watered, but God caused the growth.
7 Therefore, neither the one who plants nor the one who
waters is anything, but only God, who causes the growth.
8 The one who plants and the one who waters are equal,
and each will receive wages in proportion to his labor.
9 For we are God’s co-workers; you are God’s field,
God’s building.
1 Cor 3:6-9

By alligning our will with His, by using our free will to choose Him. God works through us to affect His saving grace in the world–one of many ways he does this.

And somehow I lost the other verse in copying and pasting, but in reference to the Scripture about Paul filling up where he is lacking, that is not a reference to Christ’s saving grace NOT being enough. It is a reference to Christ’s saving sacrifice, and saying that he still may use his own suffering to better himself. Not to save hisself. God does that. God would love for us to gladly suffer through our hardships for His sake. But what we do to improve ourselves, we only do with God’s grace, at His behest.

**later edit: I found it!

24 Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake,
and in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in
the afflictions of Christ on behalf of his body,
which is the church
Col 1:24

He is suffering in the afflictions of Christ, and filling up what is lacking, that is, the fact that we are still fallen, and still sinful. He is still running that good race for our sake, for the Church. That is not saying that Christ’s sacrifice is not sufficient enough for salvation.

/later edit

 

[Ladybug42]

Originally Posted by Ladybug42 :
And teachings on purgatory. Why in the world would God decide to somehow speed up someone’s time in there just because of a prayer, or our “merits”? Why wouldn’t he want to speed it up anyways? God wants us to pray for our own sakes, not to aid Him in any way.

Our prayers never “aid” God in any way and Catholics know this. We pray for each other because it’s scriptural and Jesus told us to pray for each other. So I obey. Just because a soul is in Purgatory does not mean that they are actually dead. Their souls are alive, they are called the “Church Suffering” and I certainly advise to pray for them as Jesus commanded that we pray for all our brothers and sisters.

So is it, or is it not, a Catholic teaching, that our prayers can speed up someone’s time in purgatory? I am getting answers that seem to contradict one another. But this has been really difficult to understand beliefs on purgatory, and merits.

I pray for those who are living and for those who are dead. I have no doubts whatsoever that prayers transcend time, as God transcends time, and He is the One that receives them.

 

[Ladybug42]

We can offer our own lives to God. We can offer sacrifices of our own. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard a Catholic say, “offer it up” or not, but that’s what it basically means, to offer up their own sufferings and sacrifices for God.

I agree. I offer myself to God. I strive to offer my joy, my suffering, every aspect of my life–to God. But this in no way has anything to do with earning salvation, or speeding up someone’s journey through Purgatory. It is done at God’s own prompting, to give thanks to Him in all things. For the suffering, that people may see God at work in adversity, see His hope shine through. In joy, for the evidence of the eternal life He offers.

 

[Mary3]

If it doesn’t cave into any worldy trends, like contraception, I might look into RCIA.

The odds of the Church caving in are nil. The best way to predict what the Church will do on contraception, or any other controversial doctrine, is to look at history. Has the Church ever caved on that issue before? Don’t forget, there are 2,000 years of past experience to draw on.

I hope you’ll look at RCIA now, not 5 years from now. Joining RCIA is not a committment to joining the Catholic Church. It is a process of learning about the Church. At the end, you can take it or leave it.

 

[jmcrae]

The reason given for women not being ordained as priests is because the Church does not feel that it has the authority. That reason could not apply to deaconesses, as the Bible clearly shows that they ordained them in the beginning–which means that the Church originally had that authority.

There is no evidence that deaconesses ever received Holy Orders or were ever administrators of parishes, and there is no evidence of them preaching at Mass. The only Sacrament we ever see them administering is the Sacrament of Baptism, and only to adult women; not to anyone else.

Lay people, including women, are certainly able to teach and spread the Gospel outside of Mass.

Just IMHO, I think that a modern-day nun or teaching sister has more “authority and power” than the deaconesses of that time did - and I also consider them to be the most likely “successors” to that role, if any exists.

 

[Ladybug42]

There is no evidence that deaconesses ever received Holy Orders or were ever administrators of parishes, and there is no evidence of them preaching at Mass. The only Sacrament we ever see them administering is the Sacrament of Baptism, and only to adult women; not to anyone else.

I’m not sure that we would see any evidence of Holy Orders, as that phrase probably was not used by the first generation of Christians. But they are singled out and called deaconesses, whereas no one is named a “priest”. We see bishops and elders mentioned in the same way as deacons, and deaconess is just a female variation of deacon. There are rules laid out for deacons, they are in a definitel leadership role.

 

[jmcrae]

I’m not sure that we would see any evidence of Holy Orders, as that phrase probably was not used by the first generation of Christians. But they are singled out and called deaconesses, whereas no one is named a “priest”. We see bishops and elders mentioned in the same way as deacons, and deaconess is just a female variation of deacon. There are rules laid out for deacons, they are in a definitel leadership role.

“Presbyters” were priests. “Elders,” as you know, were Bishops.

Obviously, yes, these women were set apart for special service, just as nuns and sisters are today.

But I’m not seeing where they did more than what nuns and sisters today do, or where they had any specific role at Mass, other than maybe what an Altar Society member or Sacristan does, today.

It would be incorrect to assume that a deaconess was a female deacon, since the roles seem totally different; the deaconesses that St. Paul refers to in the New Testament were doing things like setting up houses for Mass (Sacristan-type duties), preaching the Gospel to other women (Sisters and nuns do this; lay people also do this) and meeting the physical needs of the Apostles (one assumes they did this through fund-raising and by sewing garments and making/hosting dinners for them - for example, Dorcas was known to be an excellent seamstress.)

 

[Ladybug42]

The only difference between “deacon” and “deaconess” is that one word is feminine, and the other not. There is no reason to assume that they did different things. If they did, then those women would not have been called “deaconesses” but something else entirely.

It’s like saying that a mailman and a mailwoman have intrinsicallly different jobs. Sure, a postal clerk and a mailcarrier have different roles to play. But a mailman and a mailwoman do not. Why would the early Christians have given men and women the same title of office, but then given them differing tasks?

Also, I see no evidence that deaconesses were somehow the progenitors of today’s nuns. Then again, this is the first time I have addressed this problem–or debated it-with anyone else. I am open to being wrong.

It looks like deaconesses were discontinued at some point. I’d like to understand the reasoning why, if there is such a thing. Thanks to everyone for their patience, your answers really do make a difference!

 

[jmcrae]

The only difference between “deacon” and “deaconess” is that one word is feminine, and the other not. There is no reason to assume that they did different things. If they did, then those women would not have been called “deaconesses” but something else entirely.

Not necessarily, since the root word in both cases simply means “servant.” But as St. Paul so eloquently points out in I Cor. 12, there are wide varieties of service.

It’s like saying that a mailman and a mailwoman have intrinsicallly different jobs. Sure, a postal clerk and a mailcarrier have different roles to play. But a mailman and a mailwoman do not. Why would the early Christians have given men and women the same title of office, but then given them differing tasks?

Actually, up until the most recent wave of feminism, that was always the case. Women did different things than men, even if they held the same job title.

As recently as 1965, a female “advertising artist” at my father’s advertising agency was a person who did the filing and clerical work in an advertising art department - she did no actual artwork. That was “men’s work” even that recently. She was allowed to share the same title as her male colleagues, but on no account was she ever to touch the paint brushes, unless to clean them.

Of course, by 1968, she was not only doing the artwork, she was writing her own ad copy, as well, and a revolution was born.

Also, I see no evidence that deaconesses were somehow the progenitors of today’s nuns. Then again, this is the first time I have addressed this problem–or debated it-with anyone else. I am open to being wrong.

I don’t know for certain, either, but it just seems to me that sisters (not nuns, who are more related to the female followers of the Desert Fathers, I think) are the ones doing the role that deaconesses did then, today.

It looks like deaconesses were discontinued at some point. I’d like to understand the reasoning why, if there is such a thing. Thanks to everyone for their patience, your answers really do make a difference!

Perhaps it was related to greater equality of men and women in the Church over time, such that women converts didn’t need to be trained and baptized separately? That’s just my own hypothesis. But nuns/sisters were baptizing female infants and converts right up until the time of Trent; John Knox accuses them of being “feminists” and “wanna-be priests” (or words to that effect) in The Scots Confession and also in his diatribe against women of authority in the Church, the name of which has currently escaped me. (He recanted the second work when Queen Elizabeth I happened to read it, and was getting ready to take off his head for defying her authority as Queen of England. From what I understand, he personally burned several copies of it as she stood by, watching. It’s still in print, though, and I’ve even seen it circulating on the Internet - Rome’s “favouritism of women” during that era was a real bother to him, I guess - as it still is to a great many fundamentalist-style protestants today.)

 

[AlegreFe]

I’d be lost without Jesus in my life too! I’m happy to know that He walks beside me each and every day of my life, as Iong as I have faith in Him.

Amen!!

Jesus told us that He would be with us until the end of time. He doesn’t lie. He really is with us substantially. Jesus said that He is true food and true drink. He does not lie. I consume Him every Sunday and sometimes weekdays! He commands this of us. He is truly and substantially present in the Holy Eucharist.

Here is a good audio CD by Jeff Cavins called “I’m Not Being Fed.” Check it out. It’s not expensive at all and it’s well worth any amount anyway! :yup: Click on my siggy too!

 

[AlegreFe]

The reason given for women not being ordained as priests is because the Church does not feel that it has the authority. That reason could not apply to deaconesses, as the Bible clearly shows that they ordained them in the beginning–which means that the Church originally had that authority.

The Church has Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist which are both male and female. The Church also has Nuns.

 

[AlegreFe]

He is suffering in the afflictions of Christ, and filling up what is lacking, that is, the fact that we are still fallen, and still sinful. He is still running that good race for our sake, for the Church. That is not saying that Christ’s sacrifice is not sufficient enough for salvation.

You completely misunderstood me! :whacky: I never said that Jesus’ passion was not sufficient for our salvation. No Catholic would say that!

Here is my quote because it seems you did not read it.

We are all in the priesthood of Jesus Christ. But of course not as Ordained Priests because we cannot change the bread and wine into the Body & Blood of Jesus. But nonetheless we are all part of the priesthood in Jesus. Why? We can offer our own lives to God. We can offer sacrifices of our own. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard a Catholic say, “offer it up” or not, but that’s what it basically means, to offer up their own sufferings and sacrifices for God. There is nothing lacking, as far as His saving power, in the Passion of Christ but we can certainly add for the sake of the Body of Christ, the Church. We are to offer supplication on behalf of sinners in the hopes of their conversion. Of course we all know that only God the Holy Spirit can convert anyone’s heart.
(emphasis added)

That quote ^ is explaning Col 1:24 about rejoicing in our sufferings. Your explanation before saying that I said His saving power is not sufficient, is a good explanation too.

 

[Ladybug42]

Jesus said that He is true food and true drink. He does not lie. I consume Him every Sunday and sometimes weekdays! He commands this of us.

This statement really bothers me. Do you believe that Protestants do not consume Jesus because we do not eat wafers and drink wine in your type of church? Do we not consume Him in our own Eucharist? Do we not consume Him every time we drink in His words, and feed on Him in every way possible? I feed on Him in my heart. I don’t need to go to a Catholic Church in order to drink His blood and eat His body. In fact, when I go to a Catholic Church, I am told not to partake of the Eucharist because I don’t believe in or understand some completely peripheral things that have nothing to do with Christ’s message of salvation.

Perhaps some Protestant groups need to try to listen to that commandment. But the majority of us take that very seriously.

 

[Ladybug42]

You completely misunderstood me! I never said that Jesus’ passion was not sufficient for our salvation. No Catholic would say that!

If His passion is sufficient, then we need not add our sufferings to His for any other reason than to give glory to God.

 

[Ladybug42]

The Church has Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist which are both male and female. The Church also has Nuns.

This statement has nothing to do with deaconesses. I do not argue a feminist stance, that women have no ministry in the Church. All Christians, male and female, have a ministry. I want to know why the Catholic Church discontinued deaconesses, and if it was a valid reason or not.

 

[Ladybug42]

Actually, up until the most recent wave of feminism, that was always the case. Women did different things than men, even if they held the same job title.

That’s true of the modern era, but not of the old. Read in the Old Testament about women that ran their own businesses. I’m sure they did the same things as their male counterparts. If the roles are different, then they were given different names. So far as I know, after WWI, women entered the workforce with the idea of leaving it afterwards, and thus ensued a time of doublestandards, and prejudice, as women had to fight their way past glass ceilings and other obstacles to be allowed the chance to do the same sorts of jobs as men, and to be paid the same for the same kind of results. Once more, this is not an issue of feminism for me. I really don’t see that sort of problem in the first community of Christians. The reference you give is a reference to a time of prejudice and awkardness in working out who does what in the workforce between the sexes. It’s not at all the same situation as what was in Christ’s time.

 

[santaro75]

This is a VERY interesting question, as I’ve been contemplating Catholicism alot lately. I guess the one I have the biggest issue with is honoring Mary and the saints when Christ Himself said that “anyone who has seen me has seen the Father”. Who better to go to than God Himself with your prayers?

Hello blue,

I recently read Esther. That is an excellent window into Mary’s role in Catholic spirituality. Esther was Highly favored by the king and made Queen. Mary is as well. She is called blessed forever (lk1:49) and is highly favored by God (lk1:28)

An example of her favor is the wedding at Cana. where she asks the King to do something and he grants it to her even though he said his time has not yet come.

SHE HAS FAVOR WITH THE KING!!!

Take a peak at esther and tell me if you can see the connection.

As a protestant do you agree that Mary had more favor with the King than any human that ever lived?

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Hello blue,

I recently read Esther. That is an excellent window into Mary’s role in Catholic spirituality. Esther was Highly favored by the king and made Queen. Mary is as well. She is called blessed forever (lk1:49) and is highly favored by God (lk1:28)

An example of her favor is the wedding at Cana. where she asks the King to do something and he grants it to her even though he said his time has not yet come.

SHE HAS FAVOR WITH THE KING!!!

Take a peak at esther and tell me if you can see the connection.

As a protestant do you agree that Mary had more favor with the King than any human that ever lived?

I looked at Esther and saw where you get the connection and I agree that Mary was favored by God, more so than any of us, since she carried Jesus in her womb.