No Salvation Outside the Church

[Lasting_faith]

Lot of quotes, words, and empty talk. Sorry if I offend someone now, but thinking like that mean that all before Christ will go straight to hell because there was no Church then. Following that logic we are on a very strange path. Anyone, also those who do not belong to The RCC are condemned? A good Christian is one who follow The Bible, have faith enough to separate right from wrong, pray and attend mass. Yes? OK guys, why should that person go to the hot place? Only because he/she are not Catholic?

Mercy is what God has given us. So no matter what Church we belong to are, as long as it follows the “golden” rules, namely “love thy neighbour as you love your self” and “love God above all”. A muslim belive in a God, this is a example, but will that person end up in hell? If he/she follow the rules? Nope. God judge us by what we do. God is love and God is forgiveness and He has created us all, everything around us is there because God see it fit and He want it to be around us. So you see, good folks, that everyone, not only Catholics, will be judged by deeds, not by what Church they go to.

I use to be a Lutheran, wich is very usual in northern Europe and in the land I live, I did convert because I wanted to find the “right” Church and beacuse I do agree with The CCC and the teaching given by The RCC and I do live in full communion with The Church. So, to a outside person I am a real good Christian, but am I? The RCC teach only what Christ want it to, but the main point, if there is one, is that more important is what I do and how I practice my faith, not that I am [devoted] Catholic. If I, as I try to, do Gods will all is fine and dandy, but if I don’t, here I come hell. **The important thing is not the Church I belong to, **even though it might help me a bit, **but what I do. **I would never like it to be different, I am a Catholic, and that is that, I do my best, pick up my cross each day, say a Rosary every day, Angelus three times a day, and pray a lot, but all this would be meaningless if I would not do what God want me to. And I did pray and did my best also when I still was a Lutheran. Deeds, my friends, deeds do judge us. (Having said that I am happy I am a Catholic because it is what God want me to be.) But I still highlight the [fact] that what we do are more important the what Church we belong to. There are many good people that don’t have faith but them God will judge by what they do, or don’t do. That is the TRUE salvation.

 

[adrift]

The doctrine that "Outside the Church there is no salvation

" is one that is **constantly misinterpreted **by those who won’t submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition - including “outside the Church no salvation.”

From the Catechism

Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it

Salvation Outside the Church

The following quotations from the Church Fathers give the straight story. They show that the early Church held the same position on this as the contemporary Church does—that is, while it is normatively necessary to be a Catholic to be saved (see CCC 846; Vatican II, Lumen Gentium 14), there are exceptions, and it is possible in some circumstances for people to be saved who have not been fully initiated into the Catholic Church (CCC 847).

 

[Vico]

I don’t see that Cantate Domine (or Unam Sanctam before it) is missing an understanding of “outside the Church”. It has a very clear understanding of what is required for salvation: either explicit membership in the Roman Church by water baptism, or “baptism by desire”, which required explicit acceptance of Roman teaching (i.e. being a catechumen). There was no idea of “invincible ignorance” as developed by Pope Pius IX, or “implicit faith” as developed prior to Vatican II. That explains the words about joining prior to death; if there was an idea of “implicit membership”, those words would be superfluous, since “implicit faith” means a certain disposition, not an act. Cantante Domine clearly has an act in mind.

If you mean that the understanding expressed in Cantante Domine is outside the mainstream of the thought of the patristic church, and at odds with the understanding presently held by Rome, I would agree. But, unfortunately for the dogma of Papal Infallibility, both Unam Sanctam and Cantante Domine are clearly dogmatic statements.

I do not mean a conflict in the teachings of the Church. Council of Trent did express that by divine institution, salvation can be obtained in certain circumstances with desire and longing, which is implicit consent. See Denzinger 797 and 807. No. 797 (“in adults the beginning of that justification must be derived from the predisposing grace …so that they who by sin were turned away from God, through His stimulating and assisting grace are disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and cooperating with the same grace”), and No. 807 (“eternal punishment, which is remitted together with the guilt either by the sacrament or the desire of the sacrament”).

denzinger.patristica.net/#n700

797 - SESSION VI (Jan. 13, 1547)

• Chap. 5. On the Necessity of Preparation for Justification of Adults, and Whence it Proceeds

807 - SESSION VI (Jan. 13, 1547)

• Chap. 14. The Fallen and Their Restoration

 

[R_C]

The Apostolic Canon XXXIV. (XXXV.) says this:

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

Yet Pastor Aeternus says:

Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So Pastor Aeternus already violated the very constitution written by the Apostles.

And…where is the contradiction?

The first one says he should act with the consent of all in order for there to be unanimity.

The second one says that it is because of him - and not because of the consent of all - that the definition is irreformable.

That makes perfect sense: if he speaks as the head, as the visible vicar of Christ (to whom Christ said: “Do you love me more than these? Take care of my sheep” - a primacy in charity), obviously it is through him that a teaching is affirmed for the entire Church. But This does not say that he enforce things without the consent of the Church…this has never happened in the history of the Church.

We see this clearly for the first time in the Council of Jerusalem: Peter brought forth a greater understanding of the universal salvation of Christ - not something new, solely a greater understanding - inspired by the Holy Spirit; in fact, he brought forth the first dogmatic definition (on cleanliness of all which has been purified by Christ and ought no longer to be called impure, including both animals condemned by the Mosaic Law and the Gentiles equally condemned). In and of itself, this teaching was infallible because it came through him (and Christ chose to reveal it to him first for excellent reasons). Yet he did submit it to the consent of all, before it acquired strength of unanimity in the universal Church. Had he not done so, what would have happened when the Holy Spirit would have told to Ananias: “Go! This man [Saul] is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles”, and then to Paul: “Go; I will send you far away to the Gentiles”? Nobody could have questioned that this was according to God’s will as revealed to Peter, but there would not have been universal consent on the topic. This is why it was prudent for Peter to present this at the Council, but not indispensable.

 

[JMJCatholic]

I appreciate all the thoughtful responses. I am still unsettled about my original observation, that is, that many popes previously condemned to eternal torments of hell, in no uncertain terms, anyone who was not Catholic, NO EXCEPTIONS, even one who dies for Christ is condemned to hellfire for eternity if he does not profess the Catholic faith. The Church no longer teaches this. The Church teaches that there are exceptions. I am unconvinced that the Church has not changed its position. Clearly it has. So I am calling into question whether the related teachings were infallibly defined. Seems to me, they couldn’t have been or the teaching could not have changed. If such condemnations of persons of all other faiths, including the Orthodox, who she now describes as “the other lung” of the one, true Church, and whose apostolic succession and sacraments are acknowledged as valid, was infallibly taught, then there exists a serious question regarding infallibility. The only comfort for a Catholic would be that these teachings were not infallibly taught. Two opposing statements can not both be true. So either one is true, the other is true, or both are not true. I believe that the problem with infallibility is discerning if a pope has erred, for if a pope does, in fact, err, then he is no longer the pope. Otherwise a Catholic must assent to any ex cathedra teaching on faith and morals. For example, for a pope to allow women priests would contradict previous teaching. There are those who would say that because a pope has said so infallibly that women can be ordained, it is to be accepted. Others would say that a pope would never define such a thing so he is no longer the pope.

I look forward to posts that will help to shed light on this for me. Thanks, once again.

JMJ

 

[JMJCatholic]

From the Catechism

Salvation Outside the Church

The encyclical Fides et Ratio, primarily treats the relationship between faith and reason.

The Pope (John Paul II) posits that faith and reason are not only compatible, but essential together. Faith without reason, he argues, leads to superstition. Reason without faith, he argues, leads to nihilism and relativism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fides_et_Ratio

 

[R_C]

I appreciate all the thoughtful responses. I am still unsettled about my original observation, that is, that many popes previously condemned to eternal torments of hell, in no uncertain terms, anyone who was not Catholic, NO EXCEPTIONS, even one who dies for Christ is condemned to hellfire for eternity if he does not profess the Catholic faith. The Church no longer teaches this.

Sticking with your (mis)understanding of previous teaching is not going to make things any clearer To begin with, the Popes did not condemn anyone who was not Catholic, but those who were not members of the mystical body of Christ, the Church - which is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic - outside of which, as we all know, there can be no salvation, for salvation comes through Christ and under no other name is man saved.

The Church does not teach that there are any exceptions to this, for such would be a heresy. If the Holy Spirit enlightened the Church towards greater understanding of the meaning of being a member of the mystical body of Christ, that does not contradict the previous teachings - it just makes it more clear. It is not a departure from tradition, nor is it an innovation. That would be heresy.

The Orthodox Church is still considered in schism, even though we do acknowledge its apostolicity and we call it a Church (while other Christian groups are called ecclesial communities). We do believe that the Church subsists in the Catholic Church governed by the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him - that does not include the Orthodox Church. However we now speak of “full communion” and “partial communion” in order to better understand what is going on.

It would be possibly true that, say, a certain papal document would not be covered by the charism of infallibility on matters of faith. However, these teachings are not the result of a random papal document. They are part of the Deposit of Faith. The Church Fathers speak about this. The Bible speaks about it: Acts 2:47, “the Lord added unto the Church daily such as should be saved”. Acts 13:46-48: “And Paul and Barnabas spoke out boldly, saying… behold, we are turning to the Gentiles. For so the Lord has commanded us, saying, I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth”. 1 Corinthians 13: “if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profited me in no way.”. If we don’t like it, then I guess we have a problem.

The Church has taught for a long time that there is such thing as “baptism of blood” - which is not, mind you, a sacrament, but a name given to one of the mysterious ways in which a man can receive sanctifying grace and be incorporated into the mystical body of Christ. However, if an extremist decides to murder someone in the name of Christ, or if a heretic were to seek death, believing that this would allow him to attain salvation, clearly the Church must point out that such ideas are gravely erroneous and that it is not in such ways that salvation is attained.

I think if we simply focus on accepting what the Church teaching giving - as we are called to do since the very beginning, when there was no such thing as a Bible yet - assent of mind and will to what the apostles and their successors teach on matters of faith and morals (rather than questioning the validity of the teaching as if we knew better), then understanding sips in more easily than if we do the opposite.

 

[R_C]

Let us be clear: it is a basic tenet of faith that outside of the Church there is no salvation. The Ark of Noah was a type of the Church: outside there is certain death. How people enter the Ark is different, and ultimately it’s not up to us to judge who is condemned, only to point at the ordinary means of salvation. The Church Fathers were not trying to be politically correct or indulging in a sense of false charity when teaching these truths…

St. Ignatius of Antioch, disciple of John said:

Let no man deceive himself. Unless he believes that Christ Jesus has lived in the flesh, and shall confess His cross and passion, and the blood which He shed for the salvation of the world, he shall not attain eternal life … Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Origen said:

Let no man deceive himself. Outside this house, that is, outside the Church no one is saved

St. Cyprian of Cartage wrote:

He can no longer have God for his Father who has not the Church for his mother; . . . he who gathereth elsewhere than in the Church scatters the Church of Christ; nor is there any other home to believers but the one Church…Can the power of baptism be greater or of more avail than confession, than suffering, when one confesses Christ before men and is baptized in his own blood? And yet even this baptism does not benefit a heretic … because there is no salvation outside the Church

St. John Chrysostom wrote:

We know that salvation belongs to the Church alone, and that no one can partake of Christ nor be saved outside the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith.

st. Augustine wrote:

No man can find salvation except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church one can have everything except salvation. One can have honour, one can have the sacraments, one can sing alleluia, one can answer amen, one can have faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and preach it too, but never can one find salvation except in the Catholic Church.

Fast forward over a thousand years.

 

[R_C]

s. Pius X (1903-1914) :

it is Our duty to recall to everyone… the absolute necessity which is ours to have recourse to this Church to effect our eternal salvation…

Benedict XV (1914-1922) :

Such is the nature of the Catholic faith that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole, or as a whole rejected: This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

Pius XI (1922-1939) :

Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this is the house of Faith, this is the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.

Pius XII (1939-1958):

By divine mandate the interpreter and guardian of the Scriptures, and the depository of Sacred Tradition living within her, the Church alone is the entrance to salvation…No one can depart from the teaching of Catholic truth without loss of faith and salvation.

John XXIII (1958-**1963) :

The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: “I am the door of the sheep.” Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth. …] Here is the old Profession of Faith made by converts at their reception into the Church: "I N. N., having before my eyes the holy Gospels, which I touch with my hand, and knowing that no one can be saved without that faith which the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church holds

II Vatican Council - 1965:

Since no one can be saved who has not first believed, priests, as co-workers with their bishops, have as their primary duty the proclamation of the gospel of God to all.

John Paul I (1978):

According to the words of Saint Augustine, who takes up an image dear to the ancient Fathers, the ship of the Church must not fear, because it is guided by Christ and by His Vicar…it alone carries the disciples and receives Chris…outside it, one would immediately perish. Only in the Church is salvation. Outside it one perishes.

John Paul II (1978-2005):

[T]here is salvation only and exclusively in Christ. The Church inasmuch as it is the Body of Christ, is simply an instrument of this salvation …] People are saved through the Church, they are saved in the Church, but they always are saved by the grace of Christ. Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the Church. Paul VI expressed this same teaching in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, when he spoke of the various circles of the dialogue of salvation, which are the same as those indicated by the Council as the spheres of membership in and of relation to the Church. This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’.

Joseph Ratzinger (before his election):

a great deal of thought had been devoted in theology, both before and after Ignatius, to the question of how people, without even knowing it, in some way belonged to the Church and to Christ and could thus be saved nevertheless. And still today, a great deal of perspicacity is used in such reflections. …]

Benedict XVI (2005-2013):

What Christ willed, we also will. What was, still is. What the Church has taught down through the centuries, we also teach. In simple terms that which was assumed, is now explicit; that which was uncertain, is now clarified; that which was meditated upon, discussed and sometimes argued over, is now put together in one clear formulation …]

Christ “established here on earth” only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual community”, that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted. “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic …]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him”

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. Nevertheless [the] “one” Church subsists in the Catholic Church.

The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth” which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unity”.

Francis (2013 - …):

Christian identity is belonging to the Church, because all of these belonged to the Church, the Mother Church. Because it is not possible to find Jesus outside the Church. The great Paul VI said: “Wanting to live with Jesus without the Church, following Jesus outside of the Church, loving Jesus without the Church is an absurd dichotomy.” …] let us ask the Lord for this “parresia”, this apostolic fervor that impels us to move forward, as brothers, all of us forward! Forward, bringing the name of Jesus in the bosom of Holy Mother Church, and, as St. Ignatius said, “hierarchical and Catholic.”

**

 

[clem456]

"No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."
This is radically different from more recent interpretations. It is airtight with no room for exceptions that later developed. That is why I am hoping to find that such statements were not infallible.

Thanks, R_C.

JMJ

Really the question is not whether papal statements are infallible,the question that concerns us all is what do these words truly mean in their full understanding?:

unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church."

Note we are not asking what does it mean to MY understanding, but how does the Church interpret this teaching of “unity of the Catholic Church”. That’s all that matters. Many people interpret this teaching in a radically exclusive and punitive way, as if salvation is similar to holding a key-card to the local Elk’s club: who’s in, who’s out, easily defined by an external criteria. That is not what the Church itself teaches. Anything other than what the Church teaches is just personal interpretation. (Have I been sufficiently repetitive?)

Lumen Gentium
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

The Church’s teaching on salvation requires some thought and prayer, and a heart that is open to the potential salvation of all people, as Christ wills.

 

[clem456]

John Paul II (1978-2005):

Quote:
[T]here is salvation only and exclusively in Christ. The Church inasmuch as it is the Body of Christ, is simply an instrument of this salvation …] People are saved through the Church, they are saved in the Church, but they always are saved by the grace of Christ. Besides formal membership in the Church, the sphere of salvation can also include other forms of relation to the Church. Paul VI expressed this same teaching in his first encyclical, Ecclesiam Suam, when he spoke of the various circles of the dialogue of salvation, which are the same as those indicated by the Council as the spheres of membership in and of relation to the Church. This is the authentic meaning of the well-known statement ‘Outside the Church there is no salvation’.

JP2! So precise, so exhaustive in his thinking and teaching. Making the faith approachable for every human being.

 

[JMJCatholic]

I am a Roman Catholic, and as one, I must accept the doctrine of papal infallibility, however, I am as of yet unable to reconcile the old teaching with the new, and I am hoping that perhaps someone who has studied this dilemma and resolved it will provide a more reasonable explanation than that in essence one must assent to the interpretation of the Magesterium. Once again, our faith is a reasonable one. There is no doubt that the newer interpretation is saying something entirely different from the old. We are reading English, not trying to interpret a teaching in tongues! I am hoping that perhaps the contradictory statements seen in their full context somehow leave room for the new interpretation.

As in my previous example regarding the doctrine forbidding women priests. The Church has infallibly declared through the ages that women may never be ordained to the priesthood under any circumstances. With the same “reasoning”, the Church can later infallibly proclaims that women may be ordained. This reversal might be justified as a “development of doctrine” or a “clarification” that there has always been a prohibition against women being ordained as priests, but they may be ordained as priestesses with full authority to do all that priests do. The faithful must accept that the teaching has not changed. The Church never has and never will ordain women priests…just priestesses.

JMJ

By the way, be careful to copy your posts before pressing the button. Two of mine disappeared!

 

[ConstantineTG]

I am a Roman Catholic, and as one, I must accept the doctrine of papal infallibility, however, I am as of yet unable to reconcile the old teaching with the new, and I am hoping that perhaps someone who has studied this dilemma and resolved it will provide a more reasonable explanation than that in essence one must assent to the interpretation of the Magesterium. Once again, our faith is a reasonable one. There is no doubt that the newer interpretation is saying something entirely different from the old. We are reading English, not trying to interpret a teaching in tongues! I am hoping that perhaps the contradictory statements seen in their full context somehow leave room for the new interpretation.

As in my previous example regarding the doctrine forbidding women priests. The Church has infallibly declared through the ages that women may never be ordained to the priesthood under any circumstances. With the same “reasoning”, the Church can later infallibly proclaims that women may be ordained. This reversal might be justified as a “development of doctrine” or a “clarification” that there has never been a prohibition against women being ordained as priests, but they may be ordained as priestesses with full authority to do all that priests do. The faithful must accept that the teaching has not changed. The Church never has and never will ordain women priests…just priestesses.

JMJ

By the way, be careful to copy your posts before pressing the button. Two of mine disappeared!

In Orthodoxy it is different. We always make sure that everything is consistent from Day 1 until today. In the issue of women priests, there is no doctrinal teaching that tells us that women cannot become priests. None in the New Testament, none in the Church Father. However, with Orthodoxy, the fact that it has never been done is a good enough reason for us not to do it ever. We don’t need doctrinal development. Because for us to ordain women we also need to justify that it is the orthodox faith, that it is the same belief that the Church Fathers had. Given that no Church Father has ever ordained a woman to the presbyterate, we can’t come up with a reason or justification to change that today. We don’t need to say its doctrine, likely it is not. But we have no justification either to do it.

 

[JMJCatholic]

Thank you, Constantine. That there is unity and continuity of tradition in the Orthodox Church is evidence of the working of the Holy Spirit. We do not always see this even in the Catholic Church where all are under the same authority, the Pope. God willing, one day, the Catholics and the Orthodox will be once again in communion. Perhaps, an “re-interpretation” of issues of difference can be satisfactory to all.

JMJ

 

[Mike_SoCal]

The RCC doesn’t control who is saved.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God— 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

 

[Nicea325]

The RCC doesn’t control who is saved.

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God— 9 not because of works, lest any man should boast. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

That is not what the RCC teaches or is proclaiming.

 

[Vico]

I am a Roman Catholic, and as one, I must accept the doctrine of papal infallibility, however, I am as of yet unable to reconcile the old teaching with the new, and I am hoping that perhaps someone who has studied this dilemma and resolved it will provide a more reasonable explanation than that in essence one must assent to the interpretation of the Magesterium. Once again, our faith is a reasonable one. There is no doubt that the newer interpretation is saying something entirely different from the old. We are reading English, not trying to interpret a teaching in tongues! I am hoping that perhaps the contradictory statements seen in their full context somehow leave room for the new interpretation.

As in my previous example regarding the doctrine forbidding women priests. The Church has infallibly declared through the ages that women may never be ordained to the priesthood under any circumstances. With the same “reasoning”, the Church can later infallibly proclaims that women may be ordained. This reversal might be justified as a “development of doctrine” or a “clarification” that there has always been a prohibition against women being ordained as priests, but they may be ordained as priestesses with full authority to do all that priests do. The faithful must accept that the teaching has not changed. The Church never has and never will ordain women priests…just priestesses.

JMJ

By the way, be careful to copy your posts before pressing the button. Two of mine disappeared!

On this issue I believe the Church may be able to give Holy Orders to women someday to the deaconate. See Canon 1009:“Those who are constituted in the order of the episcopate or the presbyterate receive the mission and capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head, whereas deacons are empowered to serve the People of God in the ministries of the liturgy, the word and charity”.

Read post #22 for Trent on salvation through desire.

 

[ConstantineTG]

On this issue I believe the Church may be able to give Holy Orders to women someday to the deaconate. See Canon 1009:“Those who are constituted in the order of the episcopate or the presbyterate receive the mission and capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head, whereas deacons are empowered to serve the People of God in the ministries of the liturgy, the word and charity”.

Read post #22 for Trent on salvation through desire.

I wish they won’t. Some in the Orthodox Church believe that the deaconess should be restored today. I disagree. The timing is wrong, and there is no good reason to other than satisfying the liberal feminist agenda. Also, a notable Orthodox priest raised the issue that deaconesses are not at par with deacons. He cites the ancient canons which gives different penalties to deacons, who are lumped together with clergy, from deaconesses, who are lumped together with the laity. Although the Rite of Ordination is the same, an interpretation of the canons based on the intent of the Fathers show that deacons and deaconesses were not equal.

 

[Vico]

I wish they won’t. Some in the Orthodox Church believe that the deaconess should be restored today. I disagree. The timing is wrong, and there is no good reason to other than satisfying the liberal feminist agenda. Also, a notable Orthodox priest raised the issue that deaconesses are not at par with deacons. He cites the ancient canons which gives different penalties to deacons, who are lumped together with clergy, from deaconesses, who are lumped together with the laity. Although the Rite of Ordination is the same, an interpretation of the canons based on the intent of the Fathers show that deacons and deaconesses were not equal.

Yet, today, at least in the Latin Catholic Church, one sees women as altar servers and readers and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. Those are liturgical functions.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Yet, today, at least in the Latin Catholic Church, one sees women as altar servers and readers and extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist. Those are liturgical functions.

Well at least Liturgical functions that are served by the lay people. A deaconess will mean they can read the Gospel and touch the Sacred Vessels (in the Byzantine Rite, I know in the RC lay servers do this all the time).