orthodoxwiki.org/Ordination
Zagano seems to be saying women can be ordained Deacons, or am I misunderstanding her?
Got to do better than that
When the news story that Pope Francis had instituted a commission to study the diaconate of women I was initially concerned and even uncomfortable. In terms of Church doctrine and teaching I am conservative and traditional. As I reflected on this matter I believe it is clear that in the early Church a case can be made from the letters of St. Paul that there were female deacons. I agree with the above post that the Commission will issue a report when it is finished and that there in no indication that any further action may or may not be taken.
She and the other authors of the book referenced are saying there was a type of diaconate that women were ordained into for hundreds of years. That it is the same as the modern diaconate, or similar enough that the difference doesn’t matter is something for the commission to decide. She is a strong advocate for ordaining women to the diaconate.
But what does ordination actually mean in the context of Deaconesses? They didn’t carry out the exact same things as male Deacons, so it can’t have been ordination in the way that men are ordained, can it? So ordination must have a different meaning or way it was done presumably? Where is any of this in regards to ordination cited in the Theological Commision study, released in 2002?
The 2002 study didn’t address a recommendation about women as deacons. They basically kicked the ball down the road.
And how do you know this? Are you reading the scholarship that people such as Dr Phyllis Zagano are producing?
The problem is other scholars come to a different conclusion from Professor Zagano. The biggest detraction from scholarship like hers is that she is not simply reporting her finding, but then advocating a change. When biases come into play it is hard to take their conclussions as completely unadulterated. Does she overstate an aboration while downplaying contrary findings for example?
Historically, if even just one woman received a sacramental ordination as a deaconess, then that means that the Church does have the authority to sacramentally ordain women as deaconesses. Knowing whether this is true is theologically extremely important.
I have no doubt that when Vatican II was called into session by Pope John XXIII in 1962 that there were those who referred to it as “modernist nonsense”. I would imagine that the claims of “modernist nonsense” was that much stronger with the advent of the Ordinary Form of the Mass when the prayers of the Mass were said in the vernacular as opposed to Latin. I am a traditionalist but that does not mean that I dismiss something as “modernist nonsense” on the basis that is would mean a change and change is not good.
We have to be careful of saying that a historical record proves it was sacramental. Let’s say we fast forward 300 years and much documental from the current era is lost. Someone reads a paragraph or two about the ordination of several women as Catholic priest from the current era. They even see pictures of a bishop laying on hands. For whatever reason, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is largely lost or it interpreted in the societal context of 300 years hence. Simply because there is evidence and even some bishops that might support it does not mean that female ordination is sacramentally valid. I have read that there have been debates if deacons even received the sacrament of Holy Orders despite the fact that male deacons have continuously existed from the apostolic era.
To me, the most important question is theological - Does the Church have the authority to ordain women as deaconesses?
If the office existed around St. Paul’s time, the answer would then appear to be ‘yes.’ The question then would be: was it the same office as we have today and if not, what is the difference and should we re-establish it? The ‘should we’ questions are really up to Pope Francis to answer.