Priest endorsing ordination of women in homily

[andersonbd1]

Our priest every so often in his homilies often issues a scolding to the Church about not ordaining women and says he’s embarassed that it hasn’t happened yet. I recently asked him via a letter to keep his opinions out of the homily and stick with Church teaching. I referenced Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but didn’t get too heavy on the argument because I figured he’d disagree anyways. Sure enough, he responded that the ordination of women is a discipline (not a doctrine) and that JP2 (among others) was wrong to say the decision is final… implying that eventually the Church will be liberated. I really don’t think the best strategy is to get into a debate, but maybe it is. Please don’t respond by telling me why the church should or shouldn’t ordain women. I already have lots of resources if debate is the way to go. I’m more interested in asking others what I should do. Should I just suck it up and try to ignore it? Or is it my duty to “do something”? Based on what I know of our bishop, I doubt he cares. That’s just my guess based on the little I know of him and it would be consistent with the extremely liberal seminary in our diocese, I’m at a loss for what to do. Of course I am praying a lot about it. I’m trying to discern whether I need more temperance or fortitude. I definitely need prudence in these matter. What do you think?

 

[Aramis]

REPORT HIM TO THE BISHOP!!!

He’s a heretic if he supports women being ordained past the order of Deaconess.

If your bishop supports this, report them both to Rome.

 

[nicolep]

Ditto the previous poster. I was going to say to report him to the bishop also.

 

[Cristiano]

REPORT HIM TO THE BISHOP!!!

He’s a heretic if he supports women being ordained past the order of Deaconess.

If your bishop supports this, report them both to Rome.

Can you please provide details to show that the Deaconesses where ordained (imposition of the hands)?

 

[adrift]

It doesn’t matter if the Bishop does anything. Your responsibility is to pray and then tell the Bishop. You will have done all you can.

 

[FrDavid96]

Our priest every so often in his homilies often issues a scolding to the Church about not ordaining women and says he’s embarassed that it hasn’t happened yet. I recently asked him via a letter to keep his opinions out of the homily and stick with Church teaching. I referenced Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but didn’t get too heavy on the argument because I figured he’d disagree anyways. Sure enough, he responded that the ordination of women is a discipline (not a doctrine) and that JP2 (among others) was wrong to say the decision is final… implying that eventually the Church will be liberated. I really don’t think the best strategy is to get into a debate, but maybe it is. Please don’t respond by telling me why the church should or shouldn’t ordain women. I already have lots of resources if debate is the way to go. I’m more interested in asking others what I should do. Should I just suck it up and try to ignore it? Or is it my duty to “do something”? Based on what I know of our bishop, I doubt he cares. That’s just my guess based on the little I know of him and it would be consistent with the extremely liberal seminary in our diocese, I’m at a loss for what to do. Of course I am praying a lot about it. I’m trying to discern whether I need more temperance or fortitude. I definitely need prudence in these matter. What do you think?

I am going to preface my comments very carefully by saying that what I am about to type depends upon the fact that the priest is indeed teaching and advocating the ordination of women–I wasn’t there, and the priest deserves the benefit-of-the-doubt.

Your first responsibility is to report this to the bishop in honesty and charity. If the priest responded to you in writing, send a copy of the letter to the bishop along with a cover letter from yourself explaining what is happening. Remember to present facts, not opinions or judgments, and don’t try to quote canon law to the bishop (they tend not to appreciate that, and with good reason).

Give it some time. If that does not resolve the issue, you have a responsibility to report this to Rome. Teaching heresy in a homily is a severe offense against God and the Church both.

 

[Aramis]

Can you please provide details to show that the Deaconesses where ordained (imposition of the hands)?

Since the matter of Deaconess Ordination is in doubt, it’s not heretical to support that women can be ordained to the Order of Deaconesses.

Ordaining women to the Presbyterate (Order of Priests), however, is dogmatically declared invalid by virtue of invalid matter.

The Apostolic Constitutions specify ordination.
The EO still ordain deaconesses by imposition of hands inside the Altar.

 

[adrift]

Since the matter of Deaconess Ordination is in doubt, it’s not heretical to support that women can be ordained to the Order of Deaconesses.

Ordaining women to the Presbyterate (Order of Priests), however, is dogmatically declared invalid by virtue of invalid matter.

The Apostolic Constitutions specify ordination.
The EO still ordain deaconesses by imposition of hands inside the Altar.

There is no such thing as deaconess ordination in the Western church… Deacons are part of the priesthood therefore women cannot be ordained. Is the EO ordination one to the priesthood?

 

[Cristiano]

Can you please provide details to show that the Deaconesses where ordained (imposition of the hands)?

Since the matter of Deaconess Ordination is in doubt, it’s not heretical to support that women can be ordained to the Order of Deaconesses.

Ordaining women to the Presbyterate (Order of Priests), however, is dogmatically declared invalid by virtue of invalid matter.

The Apostolic Constitutions specify ordination.
The EO still ordain deaconesses by imposition of hands inside the Altar.

I need to repeat the question again. Can you provide the details of the rite of ordination. I am not in disagreement with you, I believe that there were Deaconesses but I have not seen any evidence of them as ever being part of the Holy Orders and that is why I am asking information about the imposition of the hands.

 

[LilyM]

I am going to preface my comments very carefully by saying that what I am about to type depends upon the fact that the priest is indeed teaching and advocating the ordination of women–I wasn’t there, and the priest deserves the benefit-of-the-doubt.

Your first responsibility is to report this to the bishop in honesty and charity. If the priest responded to you in writing, send a copy of the letter to the bishop along with a cover letter from yourself explaining what is happening. Remember to present facts, not opinions or judgments, and don’t try to quote canon law to the bishop (they tend not to appreciate that, and with good reason).

Give it some time. If that does not resolve the issue, you have a responsibility to report this to Rome. Teaching heresy in a homily is a severe offense against God and the Church both.

If you write, in fairness enclose a copy of your letter as well as the response, so the Bishop gets both sides.

 

[FrDavid96]

I need to repeat the question again. Can you provide the details of the rite of ordination. I am not in disagreement with you, I believe that there were Deaconesses but I have not seen any evidence of them as ever being part of the Holy Orders and that is why I am asking information about the imposition of the hands.

The reason why you haven’t seen any evidence is because it doesn’t exist. What evidence we do have is that deaconesses were always seen as distinct from those in Holy Orders. Ancient Christians didn’t “think” the same way we do, and if they did use the word “ordination” (which is a distinct possibility) they used it in a way that they understood that ordination of a deaconess is not the same thing as ordination of a cleric.
In other words, to them the word “ordination” was not used in a legal sense, but simply meant “installing” or “blessing” a deaconess, and not that such a ceremony meant that she was properly ordained. To cite a modern example, some people say that nuns are “ordained” Of course, we know that’s not the case, but some people use that in casual conversation not understanding the word. To the ancients, they might have used the word but if you were to ask them outright, does that mean she is ordained? they would have answered with a resounding NO.

The service of a deaconess was always outside of the sanctuary. The ritual of installation likewise occured outside of the sancturary. In ancient ordination rites (including those in the Eastern Churches today) entrance into the sanctuary is itself a part of the rite. The first ordination starts outside of the sanctuary, and subsequent ordinations to higher orders begin in the sanctuary, because the candidate has already been ordained once. By not enterring the sanctuary, it is clear that a deaconess is therefore not ordained as we now use the word.

 

[Cristiano]

The reason why you haven’t seen any evidence is because it doesn’t exist. What evidence we do have is that deaconesses were always seen as distinct from those in Holy Orders. Ancient Christians didn’t “think” the same way we do, and if they did use the word “ordination” (which is a distinct possibility) they used it in a way that they understood that ordination of a deaconess is not the same thing as ordination of a cleric.
In other words, to them the word “ordination” was not used in a legal sense, but simply meant “installing” or “blessing” a deaconess, and not that such a ceremony meant that she was properly ordained. To cite a modern example, some people say that nuns are “ordained” Of course, we know that’s not the case, but some people use that in casual conversation not understanding the word. To the ancients, they might have used the word but if you were to ask them outright, does that mean she is ordained? they would have answered with a resounding NO.

The service of a deaconess was always outside of the sanctuary. The ritual of installation likewise occured outside of the sancturary. In ancient ordination rites (including those in the Eastern Churches today) entrance into the sanctuary is itself a part of the rite. The first ordination starts outside of the sanctuary, and subsequent ordinations to higher orders begin in the sanctuary, because the candidate has already been ordained once. By not enterring the sanctuary, it is clear that a deaconess is therefore not ordained as we now use the word.

Just trying to be charitable and to be open minded about my ignorance in relation to the eastern rites.

 

[quiet52]

Our priest every so often in his homilies often issues a scolding to the Church about not ordaining women and says he’s embarassed that it hasn’t happened yet. I recently asked him via a letter to keep his opinions out of the homily and stick with Church teaching. I referenced Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, but didn’t get too heavy on the argument because I figured he’d disagree anyways. Sure enough, he responded that the ordination of women is a discipline (not a doctrine) and that JP2 (among others) was wrong to say the decision is final… implying that eventually the Church will be liberated. I really don’t think the best strategy is to get into a debate, but maybe it is. Please don’t respond by telling me why the church should or shouldn’t ordain women. I already have lots of resources if debate is the way to go. I’m more interested in asking others what I should do. Should I just suck it up and try to ignore it? Or is it my duty to “do something”? Based on what I know of our bishop, I doubt he cares. That’s just my guess based on the little I know of him and it would be consistent with the extremely liberal seminary in our diocese, I’m at a loss for what to do. Of course I am praying a lot about it. I’m trying to discern whether I need more temperance or fortitude. I definitely need prudence in these matter. ** What do you think?**

Please don’t give up! Thank you for your continued efforts.
This priest is injuring the Body of Christ.
I regret not speaking up more when my daughter, when younger, heard priests speak heresy from the pulpit (including their “apologies” that women aren’t “yet” ordained). My daughter has rebelled – after all, if the Church can be “wrong” (according to these heretical priests) about some teachings, couldn’t she be wrong about others? This priest might not be acknowledging this, but he is “validating” cafeteria Catholicism, in a big way.

 

[Califman831]

You have an obligation to the rest of the congregation to point out that the priest is not in commune with the holy see. This is one of the great things about the internet, the power to transmit the voice of the pope past those who seek to destroy the church.

 

[quiet52]

from Califman831: You have an obligation to the rest of the congregation to point out that the priest is not in commune with the holy see. This is one of the great things about the internet, the power to transmit the voice of the pope past those who seek to destroy the church.

I think some of the priests who do these things don’t consciously have an intention to destroy the Church.

 

[Califman831]

I think some of the priests who do these things don’t consciously have an intention to destroy the Church.

I agree with you on that, most are just confused, but there are those that do have the desire to knowingly make radical changes.

 

[jfhh]

Since the matter of Deaconess Ordination is in doubt, it’s not heretical to support that women can be ordained to the Order of Deaconesses.

Ordaining women to the Presbyterate (Order of Priests), however, is dogmatically declared invalid by virtue of invalid matter.

The Apostolic Constitutions specify ordination.
The EO still ordain deaconesses by imposition of hands inside the Altar.

Ordination to the priesthood has not been infallibly defined. What has happened is that the pope has given his authentic teaching which he views as reaffirmation of constant church tradition. This was confirmed by the CDF which gave its own authentic opinion that the pope did not infallibly define anything in OS but that the doctrine itself is – in the CDF’s non-infallible judgment – infallibly by virtue of the constant and universal tradition.

Theologians sometimes disagree with each other on whether a particular teaching is infallibly defined and whether a particular teaching is infallible by virtue of the constant and universal tradition. We can safely assume that the CDF’s opinion on the first point (not infallibly defined) is correct since the would be infallible definer, approved the opinion as authentic. On the second point, theologians traditionally would say it would be humility, generally speaking, to accept the CDF’s non-infallible authentic judgment that the doctrine is infallible, and a sin against prudence to do otherwise, generally speaking. The Pope is free to infallibly judge that a teaching is infallible by virtue of the universal tradition (this would technically be infallibility applied in a similar way as the infallible judgment that Anglican orders are invalid). But the CDF is incapable of doing that even with the pope’s approval and signature.

So it may be heresy, but as of yet it hasn’t been infallibly judged to be heresy; it has only been fallibly – but still authentically – judged to be heresy.

 

[benedictgal]

Ordination to the priesthood has not been infallibly defined. What has happened is that the pope has given his authentic teaching which he views as reaffirmation of constant church tradition. This was confirmed by the CDF which gave its own authentic opinion that the pope did not infallibly define anything in OS but that the doctrine itself is – in the CDF’s non-infallible judgment – infallibly by virtue of the constant and universal tradition.

Theologians sometimes disagree with each other on whether a particular teaching is infallibly defined and whether a particular teaching is infallible by virtue of the constant and universal tradition. We can safely assume that the CDF’s opinion on the first point (not infallibly defined) is correct since the would be infallible definer, approved the opinion as authentic. On the second point, theologians traditionally would say it would be humility, generally speaking, to accept the CDF’s non-infallible authentic judgment that the doctrine is infallible, and a sin against prudence to do otherwise, generally speaking. The Pope is free to infallibly judge that a teaching is infallible by virtue of the universal tradition (this would technically be infallibility applied in a similar way as the infallible judgment that Anglican orders are invalid). But the CDF is incapable of doing that even with the pope’s approval and signature.

So it may be heresy, but as of yet it hasn’t been infallibly judged to be heresy; it has only been fallibly – but still authentically – judged to be heresy.

So, answer this question: why are those who are “ordaining” women to the priesthood and the women themselves excommunicated? These excommunications have been upheld by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If these women and their accomplices are excommunicated, shouldn’t that send a very strong signal that advocating women’s ordination is wrong?

Here is an excerpt from the Notification on women ordained as deacons issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and the Congregation for Clerggy. Pope John Paul II signed off on it on September 14, 2001:

Notification

1. Our offices have received from several countries signs of courses that are being planned or underway, directly or indirectly aimed at the diaconal ordination of women. Thus are born hopes which are lacking a solid doctrinal foundation and which can generate pastoral disorientation.

1. Since [the Church] does not foresee such ordination, it is not licit to enact initiatives which, in some way, aim to prepare women candidates for diaconal ordination.

1. The authentic promotion of women in the Church, in conformity with the constant ecclesial Magisterium, with special reference to [the teaching] of His Holiness John Paul II, opens other ample prospectives of service and collaboration.

1. The undersigned Congregations within the sphere of their proper authority thus turn to the individual ordinaries, asking them to explain [this] to their own faithful and to apply diligently the above-mentioned directives.

Inasmuch as this does not raise the issue of excommunication, these excommunications have happened in the past and have been upheld by the Holy See.

 

[FrDavid96]

My reading of JFHHs post was that the issue has not been officially infallibly defined but it’s still an infallible doctrine, and to go against the teaching of the Church on this is still a heresy (that part was clear from the last sentence of the post). Did I read it right?
And yes, I likewise see it as infallible and a heresy to go against it.

 

[ac_claire]

I think some of the priests who do these things don’t consciously have an intention to destroy the Church.

It’s good to be charitable and give priests the benefit of the doubt. But at the same time when it comes to preaching homiliies about ordaining women, it’s hard for me to believe a priest who’d do that is simply ignorant. What is his intent if not to tear down the Church?