Pope institutes commission to study the diaconate of women

  • Thread starter Thread starter _Abyssinia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
deaconjohnO said:
JP II in his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis uses the scriptural evidence of the Apostle choosing the 7 Male servants (deacons) to demonstrate a male only clerical state. Some say Ordinatio Sacerdotalis pertains only to the Priesthood. But the scriptural example used by the Great Saint in his Letter is of deacons. So JP II uses scripture on deacons as evidence backing he male only clerical state.

Additionally Phyllis Zagano has been pushing for the ordination of women to the PRIESTHOOD for decades not just the diaconate.
Click to expand...
Deacon, I think you are mistaken on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’s references. The only verse from Acts that is referenced is Acts 1:2.

If you are referring to “The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.” That (7) is not alluding to Acts 6, but is a footnote referencing 1 Tm 3:1-13; 2 Tm 1:6; Ti 1:5-9. First Timothy actually references the qualifications for deaconesses.

The letter is also very specific that is concerns “ordinationem sacerdotalem” (priestly ordination), and as you know deacons are ordained “non ad sacerdotium, sed ad ministerium” so the letter does not apply to ordination to the diaconate.
 
Thanks. I thought this was the book that many said overstated the importance of the word ordination (all minor orders were ordained) and the impact of female deacons in the Orthodox Churches. The few Orthodox sources I tried researching were just as unclear if the ordination was sacramental because it is still relatively rare for a woman to be ordained.

As I understood it, it was generally an abbess so that she could minister to nuns in her abbey. The Greek Orthodox I understood was looking at reinstating the office for propriety because of the full immersion of female adults. Both of these would align with a deaconess being ordained to a specific ministry to women and not the more general purpose of a male deacon.

The biggest problem I find in the historical record is that the same word is used for multiple meanings so it is unclear if they describe the same things. I have no problem with unbiased scholarship, but many of the works that support female ordination appear to start from assuming it is something that should be done and then search for any evidence (even if tenuous) to support their supposition. That doesn’t mean the supposition is wrong, but it does tend to mean that they gloss over counter arguments.
 
Thursday1 said:
Deacon, I think you are mistaken on Ordinatio Sacerdotalis’s references.

If you are referring to “The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.” That (7) is not alluding to Acts 6, but is a footnote referencing 1 Tm 3:1-13; 2 Tm 1:6; Ti 1:5-9. First Timothy actually references the qualifications for deaconesses.

.
Click to expand...
It is the footnote that is referenced and it is referenced to deacons. Most scripture does not use the term deaconess, but “women”. It is also widely speculated that the “women” ( or the improper term “deaconess”) are actually the wives of deacons. We must agree that it is VERY strange that the Great Saint would use a reference (1Tim 3:1-13) which is clearly talking about deacons (the translation that I have even uses the word DEACON and does not use deaconess but “women”) in a document pertaining to the gender of those receiving Holy Orders. I also wonder why the Church needs to revisit a topic that has been closed in 2002, a mere 11 years prior to Francis, by another commission studying the exact same subject. What is the point? What was wrong with the first commission?
 
Blessedwithfive said:
Time will tell. While they are starting to look at why/if deaconess were used in the early church, it is pretty easy to infer that if they were used in the early church, they could be used in the modern church as well. After all, women might have a real place at in the church after all.:o Like I said, time will tell…
Click to expand...
I would love that I really would.
 
deaconjohnO said:
It is the footnote that is referenced and it is referenced to deacons. Most scripture does not use the term deaconess, but “women”. It is also widely speculated that the “women” ( or the improper term “deaconess”) are actually the wives of deacons. We must agree that it is VERY strange that the Great Saint would use a reference (1Tim 3:1-13) which is clearly talking about deacons (the translation that I have even uses the word DEACON and does not use deaconess but “women”) in a document pertaining to the gender of those receiving Holy Orders. I also wonder why the Church needs to revisit a topic that has been closed in 2002, a mere 11 years prior to Francis, by another commission studying the exact same subject. What is the point? What was wrong with the first commission?
Click to expand...
There is debate on the subject of whether “women” means the wives of the deacons previously mentioned, or is just adding an additional qualification for women deacons. I only used deaconess because that is used in a footnote on that word in the RSV translation.

I also find it strange that he continues on to verse 13 instead of stopping at verse 7. However, he does only declare that the Church has no authority to bestow “ordinationem sacerdotalem” on women, which is the deciding factor. Deacons do not receive priestly ordination according to Lumen Gentium.

I don’t know what was wrong with the 2002 study. I’ve read it twice since this story hit the news. It is a beautifully written examination of the history of not just the diaconate, but of the entire sacrament of holy orders. I loved the section examining the possibility of deacons acting “in persona Christi Servi”, and am eager to see if the new commission can flesh out the theology even more.
 
DaddyGirl said:
How can you possibly know that it discourages men from entering the priesthood when…we don’t *have *any female deacons?

If it’s not doctrine, then perhaps there’s a reason it’s not doctrine–perhaps Jesus meant for there to be female deacons.

.
Click to expand...
👍
 
We have had an explosion of new ‘ministries’ within parishes and dioceses. Do we really need yet one more?
 
JimG said:
We have had an explosion of new ‘ministries’ within parishes and dioceses. Do we really need yet one more?
Click to expand...
If Vatican II hadn’t revived the permanent diaconate, then we wouldn’t have this problem of whether women could fill this role. There is certainly no doubt that women cannot be transitional deacons.
 
It amazes me that there are 12 pages of lamenting over a something that hasn’t even happened yet. :rolleyes:

Why are some people so afraid of the topic of women deacons even being discussed? 🤷

The lack of faith in this thread astounds me and makes me very sad. 😦
 
Just_Lurking said:
If Vatican II hadn’t revived the permanent diaconate, then we wouldn’t have this problem of whether women could fill this role. There is certainly no doubt that women cannot be transitional deacons.
Click to expand...
There is no ontological difference between a man who will be a deacon temporarily before being ordained to the priesthood and one who will stay a deacon until death.

So, while I agree with you that a woman can’t be a transitional deacon because there is no higher form of holy orders that she can be ordained into, we’d still have the problem without the restoration of the permanent diaconate; though it would just be an (almost) academic question at that point.

I added almost to qualify that last sentence, because you are forgetting the Eastern Churches, who never stopped ordaining men to the diaconate permanently.
 
Oneofthewomen said:
It amazes me that there are 12 pages of lamenting over a something that hasn’t even happened yet. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Change your setting to 50 post per page and then we’ve only been discussing it for 4 pages. 😃
Oneofthewomen said:
Why are some people so afraid of the topic of women deacons even being discussed? 🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t think it about fear, so much as frustration that we are still trying to fully understand the theology of the diaconate and now we are throwing yet another wrinkle into things. it wouldn’t be so bad if the historical documents of female deacons wasn’t so cloudy and convoluted. It seems like trying to find a solution to an unknown problem. I have asked several times what issue is being fixed and all I hear is crickets and 👍 for “it’s about time”. About time for what? The diaconate was restored to a permanent order in the west for very specific reasons, not simply because it existed in the past.

I have no issue with exploring what it was and where it fell. What I object to is this underlying current that failure to restore the female diaconate is a left over bit of a misogynist Church. That some how this was part of God’s great plan and it was suppressed because men hate women. That it died out has somehow caused irreparable harm to the Church that this injustice has been perpetrated on half of the worlds population and because it is unjust it must be fixed.
 
Just_Lurking said:
If Vatican II hadn’t revived the permanent diaconate, then we wouldn’t have this problem of whether women could fill this role. There is certainly no doubt that women cannot be transitional deacons.
Click to expand...
I don’t think many Americans realize this…but the permanent diaconate has NOT been restored in much of the Catholic world. My own Archdiocese (Vancouver, Canada) only restored the permanent diaconate a few years ago…the first round of ordinations just occurred within the last year (first in the history of the archdiocese). A neighbouring diocese only NOW has announced a new formation program for men discerning the permanent diaconate. There are still numerous regions throughout the world where the local bishops have not prioritized the diaconate. What will dioceses that have never had permanent deacons make of deaconesses if and when an option?
 
twf said:
IMy own Archdiocese (Vancouver, Canada) only restored the permanent diaconate a few years ago…the first round of ordinations just occurred within the last year (first in the history of the archdiocese). ?
Click to expand...
That doesn’t add up. My formation was 7 years. 2 years of Ministry formation and 5 years of actual diaconal formation requiring a Masters in Theology. I hope your few years ago means more like 5-7 years ago.
 
deaconjohnO said:
That doesn’t add up. My formation was 7 years. 2 years of Ministry formation and 5 years of actual diaconal formation requiring a Masters in Theology. I hope your few years ago means more like 5-7 years ago.
Click to expand...
The diaconate was reactivated in the Vancouver Archdiocese in 2011. So that “few” must’ve meant 5 years ago.

rcav.org/permanent-diaconate/

I hadn’t realized so many diocese had waited so long to reactivate the diaconate. My childhood parish in the 80’s had a deacon in California.
 
Padres1969 said:
The diaconate was reactivated in the Vancouver Archdiocese in 2011. So that “few” must’ve meant 5 years ago.

rcav.org/permanent-diaconate/

I hadn’t realized so many diocese had waited so long to reactivate the diaconate. My childhood parish in the 80’s had a deacon in California.
Click to expand...
Not just slow. There are some dioceses that do not have permanent deacons at all. A quick count of the information on the USCCB website shows about 170 dioceses with permanent deacons out of the 198 total.
 
Padres1969 said:
The diaconate was reactivated in the Vancouver Archdiocese in 2011. So that “few” must’ve meant 5 years ago.

rcav.org/permanent-diaconate/

I hadn’t realized so many diocese had waited so long to reactivate the diaconate. My childhood parish in the 80’s had a deacon in California.
Click to expand...
Thank you - 5 years ago then. I wasn’t that far off when I said “a few” :p.
When I was received into the Church in a neighbouring diocese a decade ago, my parish priest said the local bishops had zero interest in even considering the permanent diaconate. It looks like that has now changed - perhaps thanks to the example of Archbishop Miller. It always baffled me, especially considering how extreme the priest shortage is in some of the more rural / semi-rural dioceses. In my parents’ town, one priest cares for two parishes and a mission…I’m sure a deacon would be a lot of help…
 
Meh. Sometimes sending things to commitee is the equivalent of sending them to a theological issues graveyard. I wouldn’t lose any sleep over this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top