Holy Orders For Women--Women Deacons?

[LilyM]

I really, really dislike this argument because it’s a non sequitur. It does not follow that a woman cannot be a priest (or a deacon, for that matter - the topic of this thread) because a man cannot be a mother. You don’t have to tell me that a man cannot be a physical mother that a woman cannot be a physical father - that’s quite obvious. But, as Christians, we are all called at some point to spiritual parenthood. Sometimes it’s toward our children, other times toward our friends, and even sometimes toward our own parents. I suppose spiritually, we are all male in the sense that we are to plant and tend seeds of holiness in others, an exterior evangelization. And likewise, we are all female in the sense that we are to nourish and bring those seeds to fruition in ourselves, an interior evangelization. We all have to do both types of work to bear Christ in the world.

Being a priest is not just a matter of ‘spiritual parenthood’ of the vague type you mention. A priest acts directly in persona Christi or as an alter Christus when celebrating Mass or administering the other sacraments. This is a role that men and only men are properly fitted to do.

Our Lord very clearly demonstrated as much. There were clearly any number of very faithful and capable women around him - who more faithful and capable than Our Lady herself? Or Mary Magdalene? And he had no problems breaking the social taboos surrounding women - for example when talking to the Samaritan woman or the woman with a hemmorhage, or appearing first to the women after the Resurrection.

If he’d wanted them as priests he would have no problems specifying such, and it certainly would have been recorded if they HAD been so specified! And the Gentile nations to which Christ was about to send his Apostles had long and distinguished lines of priestesses for their various deities, so it wasn’t an issue there. But NOWHERE are the women recorded as baptising, breaking bread, preaching - nothing.

And fitness for such a task is not merely to do with physical or mental ability to do the job. I dare say a man wouldn’t really need a lot of physical tweaking to be able to carry a pregnancy, for example. And mentally would be just as capable of raising a child as any woman. Still wouldn’t make him a mother even if he did so. Clearly being a priest is indeed one of those jobs which by its very nature and definition is reserved for men only in a similar way.

 

[apriltherese]

Though you might roll your eyes at this, I would say Childbirth, first and foremost. Before you discount this as being simply “within marriage,” remember that marriage, properly ordered (that is licit, valid and sacramental) is a sacrament of the Church, and that the sacrament is ordered toward procreation, its purpose.

When I talk about marriage as a sacrament, I don’t just mean the nuptial Mass and the vows, I mean marriage taken in its entire context- two people remaining together their entire lives, hopefully loving one another, remaining faithful to one another, supporting each other in their faith, raising children who do the same and are decent, upstanding individuals, and receiving special grace from God through this process. Do you know who is the minister of the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony? It’s not the priest. It’s the husband, who administers the sacrament to his wife in the consumation of marriage, the marital act.

Maybe this doesn’t seem all that significant until you consider that the greatest of the Saints is a woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that she is venerated first and foremost because she gave birth to Our Lord.

Nope, no eye-rolling here. Good answer… but then, where does that leave women who are married but unable to bear children (such as myself) or unmarried women? Using that line of thought, someone may think women are only considered equal if they are mothers. Remember - I’m not arguing for women priests. I’m simply curious.

 

[ChemicalBean]

Being a priest is not just a matter of ‘spiritual parenthood’ of the vague type you mention. A priest acts directly in persona Christi or as an alter Christus when celebrating Mass or administering the other sacraments. This is a role that men and only men are properly fitted to do.

Okay, now we’re getting to the fuzzy area that nobody can seem to explain without going in circles. You mentioned that scripture does not tell of Jesus appointing his mother Mary, or friend Mary Magdala as a successor to his ministry in the way that he did the Twelve. That does not demonstrate that he did not want any women ever to receive Holy Orders - maybe that just wasn’t their particular call or wasn’t necessary (at that point, they’d already done some pretty evangelical stuff, like giving birth to God or announcing his Resurrection to the world.)

Please explain just how men and only men are properly fitted to celebrate Mass or administer the other sacraments, to act directly “in persona Christi” or as an “alter Christus.” Through baptism, we are all “other Christs”; the reason monastics bow to each other in procession is because they are reverencing the real presence of Christ in the people of their community.

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**GENERAL NOTICE:

The question posed by the OP in this thread is:

How can I debunk this?

Those having other questions/issues should feel free to refer to past threads on the specific topic they wish to discuss, or initiate a new thread in the appropriate forum. Thank you for your assistance in keeping on the original question.**

Previous threads on the topic here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=143597
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=135263
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=132024

 

[LilyM]

Okay, now we’re getting to the fuzzy area that nobody can seem to explain without going in circles. You mentioned that scripture does not tell of Jesus appointing his mother Mary, or friend Mary Magdala as a successor to his ministry in the way that he did the Twelve. That does not demonstrate that he did not want any women ever to receive Holy Orders - maybe that just wasn’t their particular call or wasn’t necessary (at that point, they’d already done some pretty evangelical stuff, like giving birth to God or announcing his Resurrection to the world.)

That argument can’t apply to all of Christ’s other female disciples (and he had plenty of them), nor to the communities founded by the Apostles, the Apostles’ followers or their followers followers and so on … no female priests existed at all in the early Church. It can be pretty clearly accepted, then, as Apostolic teaching that women were and are not to be priests.

Please explain just how men and only men are properly fitted to celebrate Mass or administer the other sacraments, to act directly “in persona Christi” or as an “alter Christus.” Through baptism, we are all “other Christs”; the reason monastics bow to each other in procession is because they are reverencing the real presence of Christ in the people of their community.

If we were all properly ‘alter Christus’ or ‘in persona Christi’ (which expressions, by the way, are never appropriately applied to laity!) then Christ would have commissioned all his disciples, male and female (and by extension all of us) to perform ALL of the Sacraments. He did not, so we do not and cannot.

He DID commission a number of specially selected followers to do these things. They each specially selected several followers of their own and so on. down the line. All male. Very pointedly so in view of the small size of the earliest Christian communities! You think they could afford to let any able-bodied person sit idle if they were fitted and able to help out as priests (priestesses)? I really doubt it.

Priests are in a very unique and special way representative of Christ when they administer the Sacraments - and, as I showed, His selection was clearly not based on personal holiness, capability for the task or willingnss to do it (all of which, of course, women possess in spades). What then? Priests (as I said, in a unique way NOT shared by the general community) are PHYSICALLY representative of Christ - hence why he very pointedly only chose males. And why priests CAN only possibly be males.

For more detail read the document Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.

 

[THurifer2]

How can I debunk this?

Either the church IS the pillar and foundation of Truth or it isn’t

If it isnt then this is all a big waste of time…

If it is then we must assume that it is our guide in matters of faith and morals. With that in mind the reason there are no deaconesses is twofold

1. Christ by operating via his magesterially designed church did not will it.
2. Becuase the Church says so. (see #1)

If one freely chooses to disagree with the Holy Father on the issue then one must assume that they themselves are more Catholic than the pope.

It is an authority issue.

Either one trusts in the divinely guided authority of the magesterial church or one does not. If one does not rely on the authority of the church on such matters then I wonder why they are wasting their time being Catholic.

Remember it is impossible…absolutely impossible to deny just one Catholic doctrine. To deny one is to deny two.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

You see, for those who struggle with peace on this issue (and for their family and pastoral ministers), it’s not so “Black and White” after all. I believe that the high majority of people who advocate for women’s ordination are not out to destroy the church. They are just people who do listen to God for their vocation, and in their discernment process have discovered that God could call women to priesthood through a similar journey of discernment.

I think your humble opinion should consider this: For a woman in particular who heard the call, it would be very painful. She’d either have to choose to turn away from her true vocation and stay in the Catholic Church who gave it to her (but will not recognize it), or leave the church that she loves to ‘satisfy’ that calling in a church that does not have the fullness of the priesthood. Either way, it’s disintegrating, painful, and damaging. When one of us is hurt, we all hurt.

I’m glad to hear you say that the faithful have a RIGHT to the sacraments. Holy Orders is a sacrament.

You’ve gone and confused feelings with the objective situation. Women have not discovered that God calls women to the priesthood as their true vocation (after all, I don’t remember seeing news stories about the invention of a scientific instrument measuring the graces acting on an individual); rather, women have discovered that they feel called to the priesthood. That feeling need not tell them anything about whether they actually are called or even whether such a calling is possible.

I don’t doubt the sincerity of some women who believe they are called to the priesthood, but I do think that sincerity is only possible when the combined testimony of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium - which should govern, not serve, private opinions - is ignored.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

How to debunk the site?

Pose the question, “Does ordination always involve the conferral of Holy Orders?” The answer, to anyone with a knowledge of clerical orders prior to 1967 is a clear and resounding “NO!”

There exist early liturgical documents for the ordination of deaconesses, which certain “scholars” feel blatantly contradict the Church’s infallible teaching on the (non)ordination of women, but those same “scholars” seem never to have seen the rite for the ordination of a subdeacon - same word, and here with centuries of teaching that it is not the sacrament of Holy Orders. The ordination of deaconesses proves exactly nothing about the conferral of Holy Orders on women. All it proves is that women were ordained as deaconesses. The teaching of the Church makes clear that this ordination did not effect a sacrament.

Arguing from the ordination of deaconesses to Holy Orders for women involves equivocation. If I pulled out a rite for the baptism of bells (fairly standard traditional Catholic practice) and argued that the fact of our baptizing the bells meant they must have original sin and be capable of salvation, I would get laughed at for not having the sense to learn how the word was being used…

 

[CollegeKid]

How to debunk the site?

Pose the question, “Does ordination always involve the conferral of Holy Orders?” The answer, to anyone with a knowledge of clerical orders prior to 1967 is a clear and resounding “NO!”

There exist early liturgical documents for the ordination of deaconesses, which certain “scholars” feel blatantly contradict the Church’s infallible teaching on the (non)ordination of women, but those same “scholars” seem never to have seen the rite for the ordination of a subdeacon - same word, and here with centuries of teaching that it is not the sacrament of Holy Orders. The ordination of deaconesses proves exactly nothing about the conferral of Holy Orders on women. All it proves is that women were ordained as deaconesses. The teaching of the Church makes clear that this ordination did not effect a sacrament.

Arguing from the ordination of deaconesses to Holy Orders for women involves equivocation. If I pulled out a rite for the baptism of bells (fairly standard traditional Catholic practice) and argued that the fact of our baptizing the bells meant they must have original sin and be capable of salvation, I would get laughed at for not having the sense to learn how the word was being used…

This is a very good point about ordination and holy orders that needed to be made. Thank you.

 

[CollegeKid]

Nope, no eye-rolling here. Good answer… but then, where does that leave women who are married but unable to bear children (such as myself) or unmarried women? Using that line of thought, someone may think women are only considered equal if they are mothers. Remember - I’m not arguing for women priests. I’m simply curious.

Before I go on, please understand that there are far better qualified persons to answer your questions than myself. As my nickname indicates, I’m just an ignorant college kid, so concerning a lot of things I basically know diddly squat. I’ve done a bit of research on vocations to holy orders and the consecrated life (religious brothers and sisters) but there are vast layers of history and theology underlying the spiritualities associated with these calls in life, especially if you read up on some of the Saints, and my learning curve has only just begun. Furthermore, I’m a convert to the faith and only 2 years in at that.

That being said, have you looked into becoming a Consecrated Virgin of the Church and/or working for an apostolate, such as the Legion of Mary? I don’t know if you’re interested in missionary work, but they go door-to-door asking people if they have any questions about the Catholic faith; they even make missionary trips to South America to try and keep the fundamentalist protestant sects from taking people out of the Church.

 

[CollegeKid]

Sorry for suggesting you look into Consecrated Virginity, I just re-read you’re post and realized you’re married. That being said, this is a valid option for women who are unmarried and don’t feel called to marriage.

 

[CollegeKid]

I think that even if you’re married, you could still look into certain apostolates.

 

[DIT]

Two, his scholarly research shows that from what we know about these matters in the early church, a rite was performed on women which was nearly identical to the rite of ordination for deacons. Considering the work that we know these women would have done (baptisms, catechesis, home visits, etc) is work that we could properly identify with the diaconate today, the evidence strongly suggests that women were, in fact, ordained to the diaconate. The logical extension of this is that it would debunk the assertion that women somehow cannot be configured to Christ in the way that Holy Orders does it; therefore, there is nothing preventing the church from ordaining women to priesthood.

You are incorrect in saying that “early church deaconesses were ordained.” Facts show that they were appointed and never were ordained. They did not function as deacons except to help women proceed to go through Baptism for modesty sake. They never received the minor orders of the time nor were hands laid on them by the bishop in the ritual of ordination. They did not function as the diaconate of today because the diaconate back then was different than it is today. The premise that women were ordain - truly ordained - is incorrect.

 

[stbruno]

I think a good explanation of why there are no women deacons can be summed up in the letter to women by our late pope.

In there he discusses the “genius of women.” A good read. Here’s the link.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women_en.html

 

[DallasCatholic]

I’m glad to hear you say that the faithful have a RIGHT to the sacraments. Holy Orders is a sacrament.

As our Judicial Vicar just told a class of Diaconal aspirants:
“No one has a right to Holy Orders.”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

The Service of Ordination of a Deaconess
in the Roman Catholic Church
in the 10th century

From the Ordo Romanus in Hittorp:

“Ordo ad Diaconam faciendam”

Bit too long to post here. If anybody would like the text of the Service please drop me a line.