J
josephback
Guest
They could for instance become Methodists. Methodists allow women BISHOPS
- Status
J
josephback
Guest
The best thing to do.
R
runningdude
Guest
Three to be licitly ordained, in the extremely unlikely chance one of the bishops did not himself have valid holy orders.
Any bishop could illicitly but validly ordain by himself, but without proper documentation (such as witnesses) and permission, the validity would be suspect.
R
runningdude
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
There is a very interesting article on **deaconesses **in wikipedia:
"The Didascalia of the Apostles is the earliest document that specifically discusses the role of the deacons and the deaconesses more at length. It originated in Aramaic speaking Syria during the 3rd century, but soon spread in Greek and Latin versions. In it the author urges the bishop: ‘Appoint a woman for the ministry of women. For there are homes to which you cannot send a male deacon to their women, on account of the heathen, but you may send a deaconess . . . Also in many other matters the office of a woman deacon is required.’ [8] The bishop should look on the male deacon as Christ and the woman deacon as the Holy Spirit, denoting their prominent place in the church hierarchy.[9]
The deaconesses are also mentioned in a controversial passage[10] of the Council of Nicea in 325 which seems to imply their hierarchal, consecrated status; then more clearly at the Council of Chalcedon of 451 which decreed that women should not be ordained deacons until they were 40 years old. The oldest ordination rite for deaconesses is found in the 5th-century Apostolic Constitutions[11]. It describes the laying on of hands on the woman by the bishop with the calling down of the Holy Spirit for the ministry of the diaconate. A full version of the rite, with rubrics and prayers, has been found in the Barberini Codex of 780 AD. This liturgical manual provides an ordination rite for female deacons which is virtually identical to the ordination rite for male deacons.[12]. Other ancient manuscripts confirm the same rite.[13]; A careful study of the rite has persuaded most modern scholars that the rite was fully a sacrament in present-day terms."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaconess
.
"The Didascalia of the Apostles is the earliest document that specifically discusses the role of the deacons and the deaconesses more at length. It originated in Aramaic speaking Syria during the 3rd century, but soon spread in Greek and Latin versions. In it the author urges the bishop: ‘Appoint a woman for the ministry of women. For there are homes to which you cannot send a male deacon to their women, on account of the heathen, but you may send a deaconess . . . Also in many other matters the office of a woman deacon is required.’ [8] The bishop should look on the male deacon as Christ and the woman deacon as the Holy Spirit, denoting their prominent place in the church hierarchy.[9]
The deaconesses are also mentioned in a controversial passage[10] of the Council of Nicea in 325 which seems to imply their hierarchal, consecrated status; then more clearly at the Council of Chalcedon of 451 which decreed that women should not be ordained deacons until they were 40 years old. The oldest ordination rite for deaconesses is found in the 5th-century Apostolic Constitutions[11]. It describes the laying on of hands on the woman by the bishop with the calling down of the Holy Spirit for the ministry of the diaconate. A full version of the rite, with rubrics and prayers, has been found in the Barberini Codex of 780 AD. This liturgical manual provides an ordination rite for female deacons which is virtually identical to the ordination rite for male deacons.[12]. Other ancient manuscripts confirm the same rite.[13]; A careful study of the rite has persuaded most modern scholars that the rite was fully a sacrament in present-day terms."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaconess
.
R
runningdude
Guest
I’d image it would look similar to the situation in China
.The Pope would flee to whatever country would protect him, leaving the Vatican to the hoards. The See of Rome would become a diocese in partibus infidelium, a titular see of wherever the Papacy setup shop.
Catholicism survived the destruction of Jerusalem, extreme persecution, anti-popes, a temporary move of the papacy to Avignon, and fascism. It would survive what whatever the world throws at it.
The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Curious
Thanks for referencing that article.
Thanks for referencing that article.
L
Lady_Marchmain
Guest
In most contemporary US parishes, women are essentially in charge. I challenge a priest to try to get anything done without them. For example, my parish (these are all volunteers):
WOMEN = sacristans, EMHC’s, readers, altar servers, cantors, organists, liturgical planner, secretary, bulletin, DRE, religious ed teachers, prayer group, study group, sick call group, website, Communion services, SVdP, flower and altar decorations, prolife fundraiser, holiday faire, cleaning rectory, seasonal planting, Finance Committee, Parish Advisory Council (some men, but the women make all the decisions)
MEN = ushers, readers, summer BBQ, KofC.
First, I’d better confess I am female. This is partly tongue-in-cheek, but only partly!
Women have a way of doing things very devotedly but also with a flurry and commotion that is not becoming in a man, much less a priest. If our priest did not almost rule with an iron fist, the above women would be up to all sorts of silliness in addition to the 100’s of things they already do. It’s one thing or another, buy new curtains for the hall, sell rosaries after Mass, etc.
That is fine, but it’s all typical female tasks, enlivened by plenty of gossip, confusion, competition and excess emotion. They love it, they are busy bees and they contribute a great deal, and cause a good deal of fuss too. But most of them I absolutely cannot imagine having the gravitas to offer Mass. I have seen women Episcopal priests and there is something “play-acting” about it.
But…now ladies, dare we admit this?
There is one final reason, one definite and sacred sacramental reason that women must never be ordained:
The concept of “the Seal of the Confessional” would disintegrate immediately.
WOMEN = sacristans, EMHC’s, readers, altar servers, cantors, organists, liturgical planner, secretary, bulletin, DRE, religious ed teachers, prayer group, study group, sick call group, website, Communion services, SVdP, flower and altar decorations, prolife fundraiser, holiday faire, cleaning rectory, seasonal planting, Finance Committee, Parish Advisory Council (some men, but the women make all the decisions)
MEN = ushers, readers, summer BBQ, KofC.
First, I’d better confess I am female. This is partly tongue-in-cheek, but only partly!
Women have a way of doing things very devotedly but also with a flurry and commotion that is not becoming in a man, much less a priest. If our priest did not almost rule with an iron fist, the above women would be up to all sorts of silliness in addition to the 100’s of things they already do. It’s one thing or another, buy new curtains for the hall, sell rosaries after Mass, etc.
That is fine, but it’s all typical female tasks, enlivened by plenty of gossip, confusion, competition and excess emotion. They love it, they are busy bees and they contribute a great deal, and cause a good deal of fuss too. But most of them I absolutely cannot imagine having the gravitas to offer Mass. I have seen women Episcopal priests and there is something “play-acting” about it.
But…now ladies, dare we admit this?
There is one final reason, one definite and sacred sacramental reason that women must never be ordained:The concept of “the Seal of the Confessional” would disintegrate immediately.
T
thequeen
Guest
There will never be any women priests because Jesus did not establish the church that way.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Exactly. Just as the Eucharist will never be confected with beer and pretzels, or with rice and sake, or corn and tequila. Valid sacraments require valid matter.
Jesus left us the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit guides us to all truth. Some truths were not exactly apparent to people in the 1st century AD as they were to people in the 4th century AD. . .the nature of the Trinity, for example, or the Immaculate Conception. . .yet they were not ‘unknown’.
The average physician of the 1st century AD did not know how pregnancy occured, what the sperm and ovum looked like, how many chromosomes each contained, etc. Yet, the average physician knew that when a man and a woman had sexual relations, a pregnancy could occur and that after 9 months, all things considered for a normal pregnancy, a child WOULD BE BORN. A human child.
So Scripture spoke of the angel addressing Mary as ‘full of grace’, and Sacred Tradition spoke of her goodness, and the Spirit led us to a fuller understanding of exactly what ‘full of grace’ meant. While the words “Immaculate Conception” would be unknown to the man from the 1st century AD, the theology behind it would not be completely alien.
And to the 1st century physician, the knowledge of how a child is conceived and born as we know today would have been unknown but again, the logic and the reasoning and certain of the facts would not be completely alien to him.
Since men and women are equal in human dignity, it would not seem, purely from the idea of that equality of dignity, strange for a woman to play a ROLE as priest, IF the priesthood were nothing more than a role such as a doctor, a lawyer, or even a human father. But we know, and have known from the start, from Scripture and Tradition, that a priest is ‘more’ than that. Furthermore, since we also know that the Church has power to ‘bind and loose’, unless we were to hear otherwise, the Church COULD have said, "women may serve as priests’. . .UNLESS She had specifically been told otherwise.
And so She has been. For we have been told, as recently as AD 1994, that THE CHURCH HAS NO AUTHORITY TO ORDAIN WOMEN.
Not just that the Church ‘didn’t have the means’ to ordain women, or that it didn’t have the ‘time’, or that it didn’t have the ‘sense’. . .IT DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY.
The Church can only do what Her Master tells Her she may do. She may not go ‘beyond’ His teachings. This is not a question of the CHURCH playing stubborn games and ‘holding something away’ from women that they’re entitled to. This is the Church simply REPEATING WHAT SHE HAS BEEN TOLD. OBEDIENTLY ACCEPTING WHAT SHE HAS BEEN TOLD.
T
TrueLight
Guest
This post is offensive.Women have a way of doing things very devotedly but also with a flurry and commotion that is not becoming in a man, much less a priest. If our priest did not almost rule with an iron fist, the above women would be up to all sorts of silliness in addition to the 100’s of things they already do. It’s one thing or another, buy new curtains for the hall, sell rosaries after Mass, etc.
That is fine, but it’s all typical female tasks, enlivened by plenty of gossip, confusion, competition and excess emotion. They love it, they are busy bees and they contribute a great deal, and cause a good deal of fuss too. But most of them I absolutely cannot imagine having the gravitas to offer Mass. I have seen women Episcopal priests and there is something “play-acting” about it.
But…now ladies, dare we admit this?
The concept of “the Seal of the Confessional” would disintegrate immediately.
Is that the type of women you know?
R
ricmat
Guest
Al - we finally agree on something! I knew we’d get there some day.
The priest stands “in persona Christi” when he says mass.
Wikipedia is just about as useful as a bucket of warm spit. (Which is a description usually applied to US Vice Presidents). Or in other words, I highly do not recommend it.
I’ve read elsewhere (not sure where) that “deaconess” referred to the wife of the male deacon, not a female deacon. Also, many can be “consecrated”, including women for various things, but not for holy orders.
L
Lady_Marchmain
Guest
Gee, do you have a sense of humor?!
Don’t tell me you haven’t observed this feminine phenomenon in numerous parishes?
I have also seen men comment on this, that at times the parish seems like a koffee klatch. We have to be honest, it’s not guys that create that environment.
However there are hundreds of people in a parish. I agree it’s a minority of women that are fussing and controlling things, maybe only 10, 20 or so. But this is such a common problem, I’m shocked you found my lighthearted words about it offensive.
Sorry!
T
tonyrey
Guest
Wiki is useful for its references not for its opinions The facts are to be found in the texts of the Councils and other Church documents.Wikipedia is just about as useful as a bucket of warm spit. (Which is a description usually applied to US Vice Presidents). Or in other words, I highly do not recommend it.
I’ve read elsewhere (not sure where) that “deaconess” referred to the wife of the male deacon, not a female deacon. Also, many can be “consecrated”, including women for various things, but not for holy orders.
W
WorkerPriest
Guest
Exceptionally well said.
S
Scoobyshme
Guest
That’s a big negative there, good buddy. Women cannot be priests…ever. Neither in this life, nor in the next. Not any more than I can be a mother (I’m male).
R
runningdude
Guest
(he was telling a joke
)
R
Rascalking
Guest
E
Erich
Guest
Well, at least one of the comments has it right: “Why seek an authority position in a church whose rules you don’t intend to follow?”
- Status