Pope institutes commission to study the diaconate of women

[Angel_Bradford]

Probably because it had only been 40 years since the Church was certain that deacons were sacramentally ordained. That is hardly enough time to examine all of the nuances of the subject.
I think they laid the groundwork for limiting a sacramentally ordained diaconate to men with the section positing that deacons act in persona Chisti Servi.

The first study took 10 years, I highly doubt this one will be much shorter, so we’ll have a long time to wait and see what comes next.

The 2002 study was not the first study. The original study on women deacons, requested by Pope Paul VI, was suppressed. While that document remains unpublished, an article published in Orientalia Christiana Periodica in 1974 by then-commission member Fr. Cipriano Vagaggini concluded that the ordination of women deacons in the early church was sacramental. What the church had done in the past, he suggested, the church may do again. Other scholars, before and after Vagaggini, have reached similar conclusions, but the current document only refers to the debate and strenuously avoids concluding that women ever received the sacrament of holy orders.

 

[Usige]

This is not true, as even she has said, that ordination of women to the priesthood is not possible.

I don’t know if she has been pushing for it since St John Paul II shut the door, but if you read her NCR article titled Inclusive Women it is pretty obvious that she supports the Anglican ordination of women as bishops and priests. The article implies that she disagrees with the Catholic premise that only a male can server in Persona Christi. Other opinion papers I’ve read from her are harsh about canon law that state that women who attempt priestly ordination are excommunicated.

So even if she is grudgingly obidient about male only priests, she does most certainly have a bias about the conclusion of St John Paul II’s concerning the matter. That bias against Church teaching will most certainly color her opinions about the feasibility of ordaning females to the diaconate.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

I don’t know if she has been pushing for it since St John Paul II shut the door, but if you read her NCR article titled Inclusive Women it is pretty obvious that she supports the Anglican ordination of women as bishops and priests. The article implies that she disagrees with the Catholic premise that only a male can server in Persona Christi. Other opinion papers I’ve read from her are harsh about canon law that state that women who attempt priestly ordination are excommunicated.

So even if she is grudgingly obidient about male only priests, she does most certainly have a bias about the conclusion of St John Paul II’s concerning the matter. That bias against Church teaching will most certainly color her opinions about the feasibility of ordaning females to the diaconate.

As someone pointed out, we are not Episcopalians My opinion is that she will be no more biased that those on the commission who are adamantly against it.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Which rites are you using? From the apostolic constitutions; an eastern rite; some other source?

As time and practice accrued, women were ordained to the diaconate in rituals identical to those used to ordain men to the diaconate. The ordination ritual of the Apostolic Constitutions for women deacons, codified by the Councils of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (421) begins: O bishop, you shall lay hands on her in the presence of the presbytery. Perhaps the oldest known complete rite of ordination for women deacons, a mid-eighth century Byzantine manuscript known as Barbarini 336, requires that women be ordained by the bishop within the sanctuary, the proximity to the altar indicating the fact of a true ordination.

 

[Usige]

As someone pointed out, we are not Episcopalians My opinion is that she will be no more biased that those on the commission who are adamantly against it.

And yet she still apparently supports Anglican theology on Holy Orders. If you have a faulty foundation then you will come to faulty conclusions.

Those against it will likely argue from a standpoint of the interrelated nature of Holy Orders; that they form a continuum that builds on top of each other and finds its fullness in the episcopate. They are atleast starting on more solid footing based on the long standing tradition of the Church.

 

[Usige]

As time and practice accrued, women were ordained to the diaconate in rituals identical to those used to ordain men to the diaconate. The ordination ritual of the Apostolic Constitutions for women deacons, codified by the Councils of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (421) begins: O bishop, you shall lay hands on her in the presence of the presbytery. Perhaps the oldest known complete rite of ordination for women deacons, a mid-eighth century Byzantine manuscript known as Barbarini 336, requires that women be ordained by the bishop within the sanctuary, the proximity to the altar indicating the fact of a true ordination.

Okay, and why are the prayers of consecration in the Apostolic Constitutions different between men and women if the rites are identical?

Why has the role of deaconess fluxuated between ranking below a deacon to below a male porter if male and female deacons were coequal?

Again, why was a priest or deacon required to bless the baptismal waters and instruct a female deacon if the male and female deacon were coequal?

 

[phil19034]

as i understand it, women were ordained as deaconesses but they were not equivalent with the deaconte. they didn’t perform the same roles as a deacon.

this is from the apostolic constitution of the nicene council:

though I suspect if Pope Francis wants to make women deacon equivalents, he will find an excuse to justify the change.

They were NOT “ordained” as in the Sacrament of Holy Orders like the Deacons, Priests and Bishops.

However, they were “ordained” in a similar fashion to the Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte, & Sub-Deacon; which were NOT part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

I know the minor orders are not really used anymore in the Latin Church, but the “deaconess” was a kin to a minor order, not a major order (which are the three that are ordained via the Sacrament of Holy Orders).

God Bless

 

[paperwight66]

I get questioned a lot regarding the shortage of priests whether deacons can “fill in” for them. The answer most often is “no” aside from pastoral visits to hospitals etc. (which laypeople can do as well).

Actually, the permanent deacon in our parish does much more than that. He can baptise and also go with families to the cemetery/crem for committal services after a funeral, all of which saves the clergy a lot of time.

We also have Funeral Ministers in our archdiocese who are lay people who visit bereaved families to sort out orders of service, choice of hymns etc. for the funeral, and they, too, can lead committals at the cemetery after funerals.

 

[phil19034]

As time and practice accrued, women were ordained to the diaconate in rituals identical to those used to ordain men to the diaconate. The ordination ritual of the Apostolic Constitutions for women deacons, codified by the Councils of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (421) begins: O bishop, you shall lay hands on her in the presence of the presbytery. Perhaps the oldest known complete rite of ordination for women deacons, a mid-eighth century Byzantine manuscript known as Barbarini 336, requires that women be ordained by the bishop within the sanctuary, the proximity to the altar indicating the fact of a true ordination.

If you read the prayers used in the Apostolic Constitutions - Book VIII (newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm)

You will see that the prayers were different, and more importantly you will see there was a difference functionally between what a Deacon did and what a Deaconess did. Actually, you will see that the document specifically states that a Deaconess cannot perform the Deacon’s job.

section XVIII - The Form of Prayer for the Ordination of a Deacon
section XX - The Form of Prayer for the Ordination of a Deaconess

Use the link above to see how they differ.

Also, use the same link to see what section XXVIII says about the Deaconess

“…But it is not lawful for any one of the other clergy to do the work of a deacon. A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency. A deacon separates a sub-deacon, a reader, a singer, and a deaconess, if there be any occasion, in the absence of a presbyter. It is not lawful for a sub-deacon to separate either one of the clergy or laity; nor for a reader, nor for a singer, nor for a deaconess, for they are the ministers to the deacons.”

The Deaconess seems to be a forbearer of the Porter, plus helping with women being baptized. You will note, if you open the above link and read everywhere it mentions “Deaconess” that there was a distinct difference between Deacon and Deaconess, and that the Deaconess was on the level of "sub-deacon, lector, singer, etc.

God Bless.

 

[phil19034]

Actually, the permanent deacon in our parish does much more than that. He can baptise and also go with families to the cemetery/crem for committal services after a funeral, all of which saves the clergy a lot of time.

We also have Funeral Ministers in our archdiocese who are lay people who visit bereaved families to sort out orders of service, choice of hymns etc. for the funeral, and they, too, can lead committals at the cemetery after funerals.

Yes, and the Deacon can also witness marriages in the Latin Church too.

In my parish, since the baptisms are not performed during Mass, the Deacons are part of the “baptism rotation” with the priests. We have 2 priests and 3 deacons,and our scheduled baptisms are every other Sunday. So each priest/deacon performs baptism once every 10 weeks.

However, it’s important to know that in MOST parishes, those things are usually performed by the Priests, unless the family requests the Deacon.

In regards to funerals, most are during the weekday. Deacons (unless they are retired or work fulltime for the parish) have day jobs and cannot attend every funeral.

And with weddings, the protocol is to have a Wedding Mass unless a mixed marriage or if a large % of the guests will not be Catholic (esp the parents). So Deacons rarely do marriages, though I guess they could help out with convalidations if we ever get to the point where we have a lot of them.

 

[Brendan]

As time and practice accrued, women were ordained to the diaconate in rituals identical to those used to ordain men to the diaconate. The ordination ritual of the Apostolic Constitutions for women deacons, codified by the Councils of Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (421) begins: O bishop, you shall lay hands on her in the presence of the presbytery. Perhaps the oldest known complete rite of ordination for women deacons, a mid-eighth century Byzantine manuscript known as Barbarini 336, requires that women be ordained by the bishop within the sanctuary, the proximity to the altar indicating the fact of a true ordination.

That is not indicative of Holy Orders, as the Apostolic Constitutions also prescribe that the bishop lays hands on the Sub Deacon. That ordination is universally acknowledged to be not Sacramental, so what indications that the ordination rite of deaconess contained the Sacramental requirement of Form, Matter and Intent.

In addition, Book XIII Section XXVIII states

A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

Despite the frayed edges of the conversation, I think it is important for the church – the whole church – to think and pray about women deacons. Were they ordained in ceremonies identical to those used for men? Yes. Was that always the case? Who knows? Did their ordination ceremonies include the epiclesis – the calling down of the Holy Spirit – and the laying on of hands? Yes. Did they have the same tasks and duties as men deacons? No. They had some. But neither did men deacons share their tasks and duties, including anointing ill women and those newly baptized. History alone cannot decide this. One hopes the Holy Spirit is in the details.

 

[phil19034]

Despite the frayed edges of the conversation, I think it is important for the church – the whole church – to think and pray about women deacons. Were they ordained in ceremonies identical to those used for men? Yes. Was that always the case? Who knows? Did their ordination ceremonies include the epiclesis – the calling down of the Holy Spirit – and the laying on of hands? Yes. Did they have the same tasks and duties as men deacons? No. They had some. But neither did men deacons share their tasks and duties, including anointing ill women and those newly baptized. History alone cannot decide this. One hopes the Holy Spirit is in the details.

Angel - they were NOT ordained in ceremonies identical to those used for male Deacons. They were “ordained” in ceremonies similar to Sub-Deacons. The only thing I’ve seen that shows any similarity to male Deacons was that the Deaconess was given a stole, but they were not allowed to wear an Alb.

The point is, their role was NOT a role for Mass, other than guarding the door (which the Porter eventually was created to do).

It’s also very clear that in those early days “Deacon” and “Deaconess” were not considered to be the same thing, because they were not.

Again, the Deaconess served 2 primary purposes: ASSIST with the Baptism of adult women (who were baptized naked back then), ASSIST with rubbing oil on women when it was uncomfortable for the priest or woman during Confirmation or Annoitment of the Sick, and to guard the door during mass. That’s it.

Deaconess did not read the Gospel, they did not give homilies/sermons, they didn’t serve as lector, acolyte, cantor, etc.

If the office of “Deaconess” was RESTORED, what would they do today? A restored office of deaconess would not have a purpose of function today. So they would need be granted responsibilities they previously did NOT have.

So let’s be honest for a moment. Allowing deaconesses would NOT be a restoration, it would be an innovation.

Allowing female Deacons who preach the Gospel and give homilies at mass is ENTIRELY different than restoring the ancient office of Deaconess.

If you are truly in favor of RESTORING the Deaconess, please tell me why and what they would do?

I’m not in favor because I don’t believe in having figurehead titles and offices. I personally don’t believe the restoration of the Deaconess will solve anything, nor make anything better. It will not give women more “power” in the Church. It is simply an obsolete relic of the past, like the sundial. Today, we have clocks, so sundials are obsolete; just as deaconesses are obsolete because we no longer baptize or anoint adult women in the nude.

God Bless

 

[gilliam]

Women deacons: What happens next?

Phyllis Zagano | Aug. 10, 2016

Pope Francis named just one woman from the Western Hemisphere to his commission on women deacons.
That would be me.

So, what happens next? Fact is, I do not know. I assume at some point in the not-too-distant future, I will receive an invitation to go to Rome to meet with the other commissioners. Our mandate is to study women in the diaconate.

When he spoke to the members of the Union of International Superiors General in Rome on May 12, the Holy Father said he was especially interested in the women deacons of the early church. He said he would ask the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith what it had on the matter and, yes, at the sisters’ request, he would form a commission.

I wonder what the doctrinal congregation sent. I wonder if it sent along the 1997 International Theological Commission report that found no barrier to women deacons. I understand the report was printed, numbered and readied for the International Theological Commission president’s signature, but he refused to sign it. It was not published.

ncronline.org/blogs/just-catholic/women-deacons-what-happens-next

Interesting article

 

[Corki]

Despite the frayed edges of the conversation, I think it is important for the church – the whole church – to think and pray about women deacons. Were they ordained in ceremonies identical to those used for men? Yes. Was that always the case? Who knows? Did their ordination ceremonies include the epiclesis – the calling down of the Holy Spirit – and the laying on of hands? Yes. Did they have the same tasks and duties as men deacons? No. They had some. But neither did men deacons share their tasks and duties, including anointing ill women and those newly baptized. History alone cannot decide this. One hopes the Holy Spirit is in the details.

Women deacons: What happens next?

Phyllis Zagano | Aug. 10, 2016

Pope Francis named just one woman from the Western Hemisphere to his commission on women deacons.
That would be me.

So, what happens next? Fact is, I do not know. I assume at some point in the not-too-distant future, I will receive an invitation to go to Rome to meet with the other commissioners. Our mandate is to study women in the diaconate.

When he spoke to the members of the Union of International Superiors General in Rome on May 12, the Holy Father said he was especially interested in the women deacons of the early church. He said he would ask the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith what it had on the matter and, yes, at the sisters’ request, he would form a commission.

I wonder what the doctrinal congregation sent. I wonder if it sent along the 1997 International Theological Commission report that found no barrier to women deacons. I understand the report was printed, numbered and readied for the International Theological Commission president’s signature, but he refused to sign it. It was not published.

ncronline.org/blogs/just-catholic/women-deacons-what-happens-next

Interesting article

From the linked article

Despite the frayed edges of the conversation, I think it is important for the church – the whole church – to think and pray about women deacons. Were they ordained in ceremonies identical to those used for men? Yes. Was that always the case? Who knows? Did their ordination ceremonies include the epiclesis – the calling down of the Holy Spirit – and the laying on of hands? Yes. Did they have the same tasks and duties as men deacons? No. They had some. But neither did men deacons share their tasks and duties, including anointing ill women and those newly baptized. History alone cannot decide this. One hopes the Holy Spirit is in the details.

Who plagiarized who?

 

[PPeterson]

If you read the prayers used in the Apostolic Constitutions - Book VIII (newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm)

You will see that the prayers were different, and more importantly you will see there was a difference functionally between what a Deacon did and what a Deaconess did. Actually, you will see that the document specifically states that a Deaconess cannot perform the Deacon’s job.

section XVIII - The Form of Prayer for the Ordination of a Deacon
section XX - The Form of Prayer for the Ordination of a Deaconess

Use the link above to see how they differ.

Also, use the same link to see what section XXVIII says about the Deaconess

“…But it is not lawful for any one of the other clergy to do the work of a deacon. A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the presbyters in the baptizing of women, on account of decency. A deacon separates a sub-deacon, a reader, a singer, and a deaconess, if there be any occasion, in the absence of a presbyter. It is not lawful for a sub-deacon to separate either one of the clergy or laity; nor for a reader, nor for a singer, nor for a deaconess, for they are the ministers to the deacons.”

The Deaconess seems to be a forbearer of the Porter, plus helping with women being baptized. You will note, if you open the above link and read everywhere it mentions “Deaconess” that there was a distinct difference between Deacon and Deaconess, and that the Deaconess was on the level of "sub-deacon, lector, singer, etc.

God Bless.

It looks like these constitutions also say lute players can’t be baptized. It’s always interesting how the rules barring women from this or that are the inflexible ones.

 

[phil19034]

It looks like these constitutions also say lute players can’t be baptized. It’s always interesting how the rules barring women from this or that are the inflexible ones.

I fail to understand your point.

Women were not bared from Holy Orders because of these Constitutions. They were “bared” by the Deposit of Faith.

The quotes to the constitutions are only used to show what they did back then, not as the REASON they were “bared”

BTW - I don’t like the word “bared” in this reference. Otherwise, if I use the word “bared” then we get this: “God ‘bared’ women from Holy Orders just like He ‘bared’ men from motherhood”

To me this is pretty simple:

— God intends for women to bring life into this world, while God intends for men to being the bread of life into this world.

 

[PPeterson]

I fail to understand your point.

Women were not bared from Holy Orders because of these Constitutions. They were “bared” by the Deposit of Faith.

The quotes to the constitutions are only used to show what they did back then, not as the REASON they were “bared”

BTW - I don’t like the word “bared” in this reference. Otherwise, if I use the word “bared” then we get this: “God ‘bared’ women from Holy Orders just like He ‘bared’ men from motherhood”

To me this is pretty simple:

— God intends for women to bring life into this world, while God intends for men to being the bread of life into this world.

Lol @ “bared.”
But as for failing to see my point, I don’t think it’s that subtle. Look at your analogy. God prevented men from bearing children by creating them without ovaries or wombs. This is physically, visually, and empirically observable in every instance in which we meet a man. On the other hand, the best evidence you can present for God not wanting women to be Deacons is a longstanding history of men saying they don’t believe they should be, and a document presented here which in addition to denying baptism to flutists and actors is most likely lying about being written by the Apostles.

 

[Usige]

Lol @ “bared.”
But as for failing to see my point, I don’t think it’s that subtle. Look at your analogy. God prevented men from bearing children by creating them without ovaries or wombs. This is physically, visually, and empirically observable in every instance in which we meet a man. On the other hand, the best evidence you can present for God not wanting women to be Deacons is a longstanding history of men saying they don’t believe they should be, and a document presented here which in addition to denying baptism to flutists and actors is most likely lying about being written by the Apostles.

The Apostolic Constitutions are brought up because it is often used by proponents of the female diaconate as one of the earliest proofs of female ordination. While it was undoubtedly based on the 3rd century Didascalia Apostolorum and the Didache and not written by the Apostles, it is considered a good source of information on the earliest forms of the Antiochene rite. Just because it claims to be written by the apostles does not mean it does not reflect the teaching of the early Church as handed down from the apostolic era.

The Council of Nicea very clearly states that deaconess are laity because they do not receive the imposition of hands. This is stated in Canon 19. The Council occurred some 40-50 years before the Apostolic Constitutions were written and I doubt you would consider it a fraudulent document as you imply the Apostolic Constitutions are.

Council of Nicea - 325
Canon 19
…
And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.

It is not purely a matter of men declaring that only men can be ordained. It’s a question of ontology. Is it even possible for women to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders? Does the Church have the authority to do so? We know that the Apostles ordained 7 men through the imposition of hands, but the women in the NT listed as diakonos (e.g. servant or minister) have no indication that they were ordained by a bishop through the imposition of hands. Some argue that the Barberini text from the 8th century show an identical ordination rite for men and women deacons, but they do use different prayers. The rites are very similar, but they are not identical as some claim. Even at that, Byzantine canonist have each come to different conclusions if they were true ordinations.

With regard to sacraments, the Church should always be conservative in their judgement. Every analysis I have seen supporting female ordination is based on conjecture that assumes similarities are equalities. On the other hand those same analyses discount very clear statements from councils and synods that explicitly say that deaconesses do not receive the imposition of hands. So do we accept the canons of a council or texts of unknown orthodoxy? Given the confusion if they were ever sacramentally ordained the conservative course would hold to nearly 2000 years of tradition.

 

[phil19034]

Lol @ “bared.”

LOL, yeah I need another r there. iPhone does it to me again.

But as for failing to see my point, I don’t think it’s that subtle. Look at your analogy. God prevented men from bearing children by creating them without ovaries or wombs. This is physically, visually, and empirically observable in every instance in which we meet a man. On the other hand, the best evidence you can present for God not wanting women to be Deacons is a longstanding history of men saying they don’t believe they should be, and a document presented here which in addition to denying baptism to flutists and actors is most likely lying about being written by the Apostles.

I believe God did not want female Deacons for the same reason God did not want female Priests and Bishops. There is only one Sacrament of Holy Orders. There are three different rites: one for each Deacons, Priests & Bishops, and the Bishop receives the “fullness” of the Sacrament, but my point is this: If the order of Deacon is part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, and if there is only one Sacrament of Holy Orders, and the Sacarment of Holy Orders does work on women (not that it’s simply illicit, but also not valid) then how can we have female Deacons?

The Sacarment of Holy Orders is either valid for women or it’s not. The Church teaches that it’s not valid, meaning no matter what we do, the Sacarment will never work on a woman. So again: if it’s not valid to perform the Sacarment on a woman for the priesthood, and if we only have one Sacarment of Holy Orders, how would it be logical for the same Sacarment to be valid for the lower order, but not the higher orders?

BTW my analogy really wasn’t an analogy. I believe that God charged women with bringing life into the world and charged men with bringing the Bread of Life to the world.

Finally, in regards to flutists, actors, etc: Church Constitutions are filled with Discipline and not a lot of Doctrine or Dogma. The Sacred Liturgy btw is Discipline. Like all disciplines, the liturgy and rites can change in their outward appearance. But the fundamental Doctrine and Dogma cannot. And one of the Doctrines of the faith is that the Sacarment of Holy Orders cannot be validly received by women.