JP2 was going to allow women to be priest?

[Rolltide]

… But Vatican has already confirmed, that married Anglican priests will be accepted into Catholic priesthood. So we will probably have instances of married Catholic priests very soon.

There are currently well over one hundred married Catholic priests in the US, all of which are converts from other faiths. It’s not just Anglicans though. There are former Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and at least one Baptist.

There is, of course, the entire issue of the Eastern Catholic Churches, most of which have always permitted the use of married priests. This was suppressed for years in the US (but not in other countries), but still remains common worldwide.

 

[kage_ar]

We already do. Not far from my home there’s an Anglican parish that converted en masse to Catholicism, including the married priest.

And he’s not the only one.

My associate pastor is a married convert Anglican.

And female “priestesses” do not have valid orders, only priests with valid orders may be ordained if they convert.

 

[kage_ar]

One should note, however, that Deaconesses were ordained in the early church (apostolic constitutions), and were ordained like deacons. (ibid.)

Can you provide a lick of official evidence???

catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp

 

[Mrs_Sally]

We already do. Not far from my home there’s an Anglican parish that converted en masse to Catholicism, including the married priest.

And he’s not the only one.

Even before this recent ruling on the conservative Anglican group, married priests/pastors from Protestant denominations were sometimes, after a discernment period and proper instruction, ordained as Catholic priests. Also married Orthodox priests could potentially have become married Roman Catholic priests.

The process hasn’t changed much for any priests from this specific Anglican group. They still need to undergo a period of discernment and appropriate instruction. The real difference is that they can potentially keep their congregation (if the members also convert) and have the option of saying Mass according to the Anglican-use Rite.

 

[Aramis]

There are currently well over one hundred married Catholic priests in the US, all of which are converts from other faiths. It’s not just Anglicans though. There are former Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and at least one Baptist.

There is, of course, the entire issue of the Eastern Catholic Churches, most of which have always permitted the use of married priests. This was suppressed for years in the US (but not in other countries), but still remains common worldwide.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (which is Catholic) largely ignored the Baltimore Plenary Council’s suppression of the Married Priesthood in the US; further, as the metropolia was in Canada, it largely ignored instructions for Eastern Rite Churches operating in the US.

There are dozens of UGCC married clerics in the US.

Can you provide a lick of official evidence???

Apostolic Constitutions, Bk VIII § XIX–XX

newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm

Lebbæus Thaddeus instructs treating them as minor orders. AC Bk VIII § XXVIII

Matthias makes it clear they are clergy (But so also are lectors, subdeacons and acolytes) Bk VIII §XXXI

And read the second section of newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm

There is much debate over whether deaconesses were minor or major orders, but the same was true of Roman Subdeacons as well…

 

[kage_ar]

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (which is Catholic) largely ignored the Baltimore Plenary Council’s suppression of the Married Priesthood in the US; further, as the metropolia was in Canada, it largely ignored instructions for Eastern Rite Churches operating in the US.

There are dozens of UGCC married clerics in the US.

Apostolic Constitutions, Bk VIII § XIX–XX

newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm

Lebbæus Thaddeus instructs treating them as minor orders. AC Bk VIII § XXVIII

Matthias makes it clear they are clergy (But so also are lectors, subdeacons and acolytes) Bk VIII §XXXI

And read the second section of newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm

There is much debate over whether deaconesses were minor or major orders, but the same was true of Roman Subdeacons as well…

Again, not an official document.

 

[Seatuck]

One should note, however, that Deaconesses were ordained in the early church (apostolic constitutions), and were ordained like deacons. (ibid.)

The use of deaconesses, however, has faded from use. In this case, either JP II was wrong, or the majority of the early church were licitly but invalidly ordaining women, or one is misreading what HH JP II wrote. I suspect the later.

His holiness makes clear that women can not be ordained priests (as he used “sacerdotalis”), but that wording doesn’t include deacons, and definitely doesn’t include the minor orders (Subdeacons, Lectors, Acolytes, Candlebearers*, Cantors*, Exorcists*, Thurifers*, Porters*).

The issue of the Deaconess is one that Rome isn’t willing to touch. I suspect the reasoning is that the specific role is vague, and that, even if it is a female subdeacon, rather than female deacon, people would see it as a step towards the sacerdotal presbyterate, which we “know” is in fact impossible to do validly. We know it because female priests were in fact anathematized by one of the councils.

• The various minor orders asterisked were not universal.

There is documentation attesting to the “laying on of hands” used for women deaconesses not being the same rite as used for male deaons. So it was not an ordination rite at all.

 

[Digitonomy]

Can you provide a lick of official evidence???

catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp

Again, not an official document.

I’m a little confused. You’re challenging the source Aramis cited for his claim, yet that same source is considered authoritative at the link you provided. In fact, the only “official document” on that page, in the sense of an undisputed magisterial proclamation, would be the citation from the Council of Nicaea.

 

[Aramis]

I’m a little confused. You’re challenging the source Aramis cited for his claim, yet that same source is considered authoritative at the link you provided. In fact, the only “official document” on that page, in the sense of an undisputed magisterial proclamation, would be the citation from the Council of Nicaea.

Many don’t accept the 1917 Encyclopedia as official; in many ways, it isn’t. It does, however, provide citations of accepted patristic documents (including the apostolic constitutions) which document a praxis that rubs a great many the wrong way. Most would prefer those documents never surface, because they show several things uncomfortable:

1. Women at the altar during the Consecration.
2. Women receiving before male subdeacons
3. no clear dividing line between major and minor orders; they are all called clerics (including deaconesses)
4. non-clerics at the altar during the consecration (widows and consecrated virgins)

Further, the interesting notes on the various ordinations in Book VIII § X-XXX show that the male minor orders do not need to be done before the assembled presybters and deacons, but deaconal, presbyteral, episcopal, and oddly enough, deaconessal ordination does.

Roman praxis in the later period (documented elsewhere than the AC) is very different from male anything… but it was a form of consecration akin to religious orders, and was not for service at the altar.

The Byzantine praxis in the first half-millenium shows the deaconess and subdeacon ordained to assist the deacon, and to serve at the altar. Their role declined, and fell out of use in the second millenium… and was restored in the Greek Orthodox church in the 3rd. We still, as Catholics, recognize the GO as having valid ordinations, both major and minor; Pope Benedict hasn’t commented on that restoration, and the rest of the Eastern Orthodox, whom Pp. Benedict calls “the other lung,” haven’t dropped communion over it, either.

It is important also to note that, in Byzantine praxis, the Distribution of Communion is limited to priests as normative, deacons as a regular extraordinary minister, and subdeacons as a second tier extra-ordinary minister of holy communion; Acolytes are not, and laymen borders on blasphemy to the Byzantine theology… but Deaconesses were extraordinary ministers of communion; they could take Communion to housebound women without scandal, and teach women privately without scandal. Further, if a deacon was unavailable, the deaconess could assist in communion. And when neither Deacon nor deaconess was, the subdeacon.

But many would try to marginalize that Roman praxis was decidedly different by 500, and extremely so by 800.

 

[Just_Lurking]

The Catholic Church has no official position on whether early deaconesses received the sacrament of Holy Orders. There are Catholic theologians on both sides of the issue.

That said, Pope Paul VI set up a commission to investigate the question, and based on the composition of that commission, it seemed likely they would decide that early deaconesses had received Holy Orders. However, when Pope John Paul II first became pope, he disbanded the commission before it could issue a report. A few decades later, he set up another commission that was stacked in the opposite direction. The second commission finished deliberations and issued a report, but the strongest thing they could say was that the historical evidence did not unequivocally prove that early deaconesses had received Holy Orders. Thus, the question remains an open issue in Catholic sacramental theology.

 

[otjm]

What would happen if an Anglican priest, being a woman, decided to convert to Catholic. I have heard that the Catholic Church guarantees all Anglican priests, who decide to convert, to preserve their clerical status.

Perhaps you were listening to the same source of misinformation the OP’s subject was?

The Catholic Church has not made such guarantees. If a woman Anglican who serves as a minister (and I don’t care if she calls herself a priest) converts to the Catholic Faith, she will be a Catholic.

She will not be ordained. Period.

 

[1ke]

What would happen if an Anglican priest, being a woman, decided to convert to Catholic.

She would become a Catholic lay person.

I have heard that the Catholic Church guarantees all Anglican priests, who decide to convert, to preserve their clerical status.

You have heard incorrectly. There is no **guarantee **of anything.

The Pastoral Provision, created by John Paul II, makes it **possible **for married Anglican Communion priests to become Catholic priests-- meaning the pastoral provision exempts them from the requirement of celibacy. It does not guarantee that they will become Catholic priests, merely that they can apply to become priests.

And, a female is not valid matter for the sacrament of Holy Orders, so a female Anglican priest could not become a Catholic priest.

An Anglican/Episcopal priest would have to apply to be ordained and be accepted as a candidate for ordination. They would then go through formation and would then be ordained.

Additionally, a married Anglican Communion bishop could not become a Catholic bishop, as in both the Latin and Eastern Rites (and Orthodoxy) bishops come only from the celibate ranks. He could become a priest, though.

 

[otjm]

One should note, however, that Deaconesses were ordained in the early church (apostolic constitutions), and were ordained like deacons. (ibid.)

The use of deaconesses, however, has faded from use. In this case, either JP II was wrong, or the majority of the early church were licitly but invalidly ordaining women, or one is misreading what HH JP II wrote. I suspect the later.

His holiness makes clear that women can not be ordained priests (as he used “sacerdotalis”), but that wording doesn’t include deacons, and definitely doesn’t include the minor orders (Subdeacons, Lectors, Acolytes, Candlebearers*, Cantors*, Exorcists*, Thurifers*, Porters*).

The issue of the Deaconess is one that Rome isn’t willing to touch. I suspect the reasoning is that the specific role is vague, and that, even if it is a female subdeacon, rather than female deacon, people would see it as a step towards the sacerdotal presbyterate, which we “know” is in fact impossible to do validly. We know it because female priests were in fact anathematized by one of the councils.

• The various minor orders asterisked were not universal.

Are you sure about the issue of ordaining women deacons? I have not followed it closely, but some time ago I read that there was no evidence of them being ordained - that is, by the laying on of hands - but rather that they were appointed, for the purpose (apparently primary) of assisting in baptism of women - issues of modesty and full immersion. Then again, what I read was some time ago.

Oops - sorry, posted first, then read further. Thank you for the longer explanation.

 

[otjm]

My associate pastor is a married convert Anglican.

And female “priestesses” do not have valid orders, only priests with valid orders may be ordained if they convert.

other than priests in the Orthodox Church, it would be a rare individual who had valid orders. Neither the Lutheran nor the Epioscopal/Anglican have valid orders, unless they were ordained by some bishop who was validly ordained (I think there may have been some few through Old Catholic lineage). so what we have are ministers, not priests, converting and then presenting themselves to the Church for ordination - which ulitmately may result in a call from the Church to be ordained.

 

[MIKE46]

At work today, this girl who had returned to the church was informing me about this lady who was preaching from the pulpit during the homily. According to my friend, she is a theologian and a deacon. I asked her what Church she went to, and I looked it up and is authentic teaching. I gave a comment how I never heard of women deacons, but assured her that if this was true, then that’s as far a woman would ever get. She got mad! She told me how the next big change in the church would be to allow women to become priest. I am sorry, but I had to chuckle. I told her that the rule of priest being celibate would change before women could become priest. I tried to explained to her the reason for not having women as clergy, but she just kept blasting me on how women would do better, and how the sexual abuses could have been prevented if women were allowed to be priest. Now she stated to me that JP2 was considering allowing women to be ordained I’ve never heard anything about this, so I wonder where did she get the idea?

John Paul II was not only firmly against the idea of female ordinations it is said that he considered invoking Papal Infallibility in speaking against the issue.

It is somewhat telling though that many liberal minded folks in the Church will invoke the name of John Paul II as justification for doing whatever it is they are doing in defiance of Church law. I suppose they feel that the mere mention of his name is enough to convince others of his stand on many issues.

 

[Aramis]

Are you sure about the issue of ordaining women deacons? I have not followed it closely, but some time ago I read that there was no evidence of them being ordained - that is, by the laying on of hands - but rather that they were appointed, for the purpose (apparently primary) of assisting in baptism of women - issues of modesty and full immersion. Then again, what I read was some time ago.

Oops - sorry, posted first, then read further. Thank you for the longer explanation.

There’s plenty of evidence of Ordination… there is conflicting evidence of whether it was to major or minor orders.

What there isn’t any of is any evidence of presbyteral ordination. There are even anathemas for it.

 

[otjm]

There’s plenty of evidence of Ordination… there is conflicting evidence of whether it was to major or minor orders.

What there isn’t any of is any evidence of presbyteral ordination. There are even anathemas for it.

I am surprised I don’t hear more about it; considering how some people would/could use it to “stir the pot”. Thanks!

 

[Aramis]

I am surprised I don’t hear more about it; considering how some people would/could use it to “stir the pot”. Thanks!

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis makes pretty clear, and authoritatively, that the Canons anathematizing female priests are still in force, and are dogmatic.

One can only stir a pot so hard before one sends the contents flying.

 

[archangel04]

I don’t know if this is the church your friend mentioned, because their deacons do not include a woman.

One of the reasons someone might have brought up the Epsicopal church is that some of the call themselves Catholic–they will say “Anglo-Catholic” to differentiate themselves from “Roman Catholics” but at other times I have heard them call themselves only Catholic.

Nope, that is the church that she goes to. She told me the “theologian” was a guest speaker and did the homilies for that week. I showed her the documents of JP2 and the cannon laws, but it made her more angry than satisfied.

 

[otjm]

Ordinatio Sacerdotalis makes pretty clear, and authoritatively, that the Canons anathematizing female priests are still in force, and are dogmatic.

One can only stir a pot so hard before one sends the contents flying.

Ah, yes. “Flying nuns”!

Except that I don’t think Sally Fields had such antics in mind.

I am constantly amazed at how some people can get so far off track as those who insist that ordination is part of the future of the Church. They seem to think they have a big paddle… not.