SPLIT: Women priests possible?

[pickguard1]

I fully understand the doctrine of the church as it currently stands concerning Holy Orders. Women cannot be ordained to the preisthood.

Wrong. The doctrine is not that women cannot be ordained to the “priesthood” per se,
but that women cannot receive Holy Orders of which the priesthood is a part.

I hate to repeat so much, but apparently it’s necessary:
Again the Catchism states
1554"…Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are **all three **conferred by a sacramental act called “ordination,” that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders:"

1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination
By this last of course, “sacred ordination” refers to the Sacrament of Holy Orders - see 1554 above which makes this clear.

Code of Canon Law
Can. 1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

(all bolds and underlines are mine)

I present to you, that if the issue was closed, there would not be discussions concerning the issue going on within the church and these studies, one of which commission by John Paul II, would not have happened.

These studies, again, must of necessity be geared towards clarification of the duties/role of deconesses, rather than changing the definition of Holy Orders, since as it is a sacrament of the Church, it CANNOT be changed. If anything treats of the canonical status of deaconesses, it would only be to clarify that they in no way receive sacred ordination, and that if the term ordination is used in reference to deaconessess is simply to denote belonging to a particular “order” (such as an order of nuns (who did not become nuns through Hly Orders).

 

[FAB]

Wrong. The doctrine is not that women cannot be ordained to the “priesthood” per se,
but that women cannot receive Holy Orders of which the priesthood is a part.

I hate to repeat so much, but apparently it’s necessary:
Again the Catchism states
1554"…Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are **all three **conferred by a sacramental act called “ordination,” that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders:"

1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination
By this last of course, “sacred ordination” refers to the Sacrament of Holy Orders - see 1554 above which makes this clear.

Code of Canon Law
Can. 1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

(all bolds and underlines are mine)

These studies, again, must of necessity be geared towards clarification of the duties/role of deconesses, rather than changing the definition of Holy Orders, since as it is a sacrament of the Church, it CANNOT be changed. If anything treats of the canonical status of deaconesses, it would only be to clarify that they in no way receive sacred ordination, and that if the term ordination is used in reference to deaconessess is simply to denote belonging to a particular “order” (such as an order of nuns (who did not become nuns through Hly Orders).

Your quotes are from the Caticism and Canon Law, which can be changed and have been through out the history of the church, the last major change 45 years ago, with a number of changes since.
The studies by the way, may have started to clarify that women cannot be deacons, but in fact found the opposite. The one commissioned by JPII was not released, but what is known about the report found no reasons for the prohibition. The Report by the Canon Law Society particularly found no historical or theological reasons for the prohibition.
Since any change would have to come from the pope, I don’t see Benedict opening the discussion further, so your safe for the time being.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Marsha_Adams]

If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

As a woman, I don’t want female priests, female deacons, or female altar servers. Given my drathers, I’d rather not see women in the sanctuary area for any reason, not to read and not to distribute communion.

Mary spent all her time behind the scenes and usually in silence. Let women follow her example.

 

[pickguard1]

The Report by the Canon Law Society particularly found no historical or theological reasons for the prohibition.

FAB, your arguments seem to rely entirely on the study by the Canon Law Society. Here is an article I found on EWTN that may augment how much weight you should place there.

ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/WOMENDEA.htm

Since any change would have to come from the pope, I don’t see Benedict opening the discussion further, so your safe for the time being.

Please refrain from deprecation.

 

[FAB]

From EWTN

WOMEN DEACONS? ARE THEY POSSIBLE?
Duane L.C.M. Galles​

The Role of Women Deacons
At its 1995 convention in Montreal the Canon Law Society of America (CLSA) voted to present to the American bishops a report on women deacons. The 53-page report suggested that the American bishops seek an apostolic indult to permit women to be ordained to the diaconate in the United States.

The report carefully surveyed the historical evidence of whether women had been ordained to the diaconate and found the historical evidence inconclusive. Everyone acknowledges that in the early Christian era especially in the eastern church women served as deaconesses with a special ministry to women. Because of the traditional seclusion of women there, women could not be attended by male ministers. But there is no consensus as to whether deaconesses were ever technically and in the proper sense of the term “ordained” to the diaconate.

In the debate over women priests no one had been able to show that women had ever been ordained priests except in a few heretical sects. Thus the historical evidence ripened into a serious theological argument from Tradition that the church had not ordained women to the priesthood because she could not do so.

The CLSA report now skillfully turned this argument against the ordination of women to the priesthood into an argument in favor of the ordination of women deacons. In the case of women deacons the report asserts that there is no clear and convincing evidence that women had not in fact been “ordained” to the diaconate. So, the report goes on to say, by the same logic the church is not precluded from ordaining women deacons.

With the possibility of ordaining women to the diaconate now established, the report then moved on to discuss the prudence of doing so. Here the report argues that there is a clear need for women in ministry and pointed to the recent altar girl indult as proof that even the Holy See has recognized this need and supported the cause of women. The report then went on to note what is self-evident in a sacramental church like the Catholic church that it is frankly desirable that those in ministry be strengthened by the grace of the sacrament of orders. This argument, in fact, had been one of the key arguments in favor of the revival of the permanent diaconate at Vatican II.

If the American bishops request and receive the indult to ordain women to the diaconate, it will mean momentous changes on the American Catholic church-scape. We thought readers should be aware of these potential changes. Even if not priests, women deacons would nevertheless in canon law, like priests, be clerics. They would no longer be lav persons. To illuminate what their status would be if they are admitted to diaconal ordination, we present the following sketch of the current canon law of deacons.

See the complete article at:
ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/WOMENDEA.htm

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

FAB - I don’t understand your posting of the text of the article in the thread - but you failed to print the commentary that follows this provided by Charles M. Wilson, which I would argue illuminates the issue more fully and also makes a valid point about the weight that this study would play in any papal consideration of the matter.

 

[Cristiano]

Your quotes are from the Caticism and Canon Law, which can be changed and have been through out the history of the church, the last major change 45 years ago, with a number of changes since.
The studies by the way, may have started to clarify that women cannot be deacons, but in fact found the opposite. The one commissioned by JPII was not released, but what is known about the report found no reasons for the prohibition. The Report by the Canon Law Society particularly found no historical or theological reasons for the prohibition.
Since any change would have to come from the pope, I don’t see Benedict opening the discussion further, so your safe for the time being.

Peace,
FAB

FAB,
you are mixing the terms holy orders, deacon, and deaconess. Holy orders are a sacrament that requires proper form and matter, women are not the right matter and so the cannot be part of the Holy Orders. Deacon is a term use to represent a men performing a charisma/ministry of service. The first deacons were ordained (receiving the sacrament of the holy orders) by imposition of the hands, and today deacons are ordained people that, as their very early predecessors, have only the charisma of service. There is historical evidence of women with the charisma of service similar to the one of the deacons but they were not ordained with the imposition of the hands.
Today the Church follows the work fast forwarded by the Vatican II council and the Church keeps looking into the further development of lay ministries that are consistent with the Catholic Teachings and that would foster the growth of the Church. One of these lay ministries is the possible re-introduction of the charisma of service for the women in the role of diaconess.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Let me direct you to this article www.americamagazine.org/content/article.cfm?article_id=2778 From America, National Catholic weekly.
Take note of the last line

Peace,
FAB

And that study was completed and It was determined that women also could not be Ordained as Deacons either. There was no historical evidence as was originally thought.

 

[Cristiano]

From EWTN

See the complete article at:
ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/WOMENDEA.htm

Peace,
FAB

In this reference it says:

“The CLSA report now skillfully turned this argument against the ordination of women to the priesthood into an argument in favor of the ordination of women deacons. In the case of women deacons the report asserts that there is no clear and convincing evidence that women had not in fact been “ordained” to the diaconate. So, the report goes on to say, by the same logic the church is not precluded from ordaining women deacons.”

This is NOT a skillfully turned argument. It says that if there is no proof that something does not exists, then the “thing” could exist! How can you prove that something does not exist? The burden is always to prove that something exists (e.g. ordained women)!

 

[FAB]

AMAZING!!!

People who ask for proof and when it is presented, still do not want to accept the evidence.

Through out this tread, I indicated that the issue of women being deacons had been and is being studied. I indicated that it would have to be decided at the highest levels of the church, that it would mean a change of thinking. I gave you commentary from a source that is anything but liberal EWTN , with by the way a link to the entire article.

The 53-page report suggested that the American bishops seek an apostolic indult to permit women to be ordained to the diaconate in the United States.

Notice permit women to be ordained
And from later in the article They would no longer be lav persons

So with the original suggestion from the priest, that with the way things are going, we could see woman ordained, was correct.

Peace,
FAB

 

[Cristiano]

AMAZING!!!

People who ask for proof and when it is presented, still do not want to accept the evidence.

Through out this tread, I indicated that the issue of women being deacons had been and is being studied. I indicated that it would have to be decided at the highest levels of the church, that it would mean a change of thinking. I gave you commentary from a source that is anything but liberal EWTN , with by the way a link to the entire article.

Notice permit women to be ordained
And from later in the article They would no longer be lav persons

So with the original suggestion from the priest, that with the way things are going, we could see woman ordained, was correct.

Peace,
FAB

What are you talking about? Just because someone is suggesting that the American Bishops seek something, that does not not mean anything! This is someone suggesting that someone else should seek a third person approval. To me this is not a very solid document! Just because it was posted on EWTN as a reference does not make it doctrinally correct or evidence of a possible outcome!

So with the original suggestion from the priest, that with the way things are going, we could see woman ordained, was WRONG!

 

[pickguard1]

FAB, by your logic the fact that some group somewhere has asked for an indult for something means that it is, or at some point can/will be possible.

If the USCCB were to ask for an indult to have blessings of homosexual couples, the mere fact of asking for it doesn’t mean it can or might be done in the future.

And again - while defending your point you still come across as defending the implication of the priest’s statement - which was that the girls might one day become PRIESTS. The context of his homily directly revolved around his own PRIESTHOOD and journey to it, and then extended the suggestion of similar vocation to the boys AND THEN the girls!

While the debate about the diaconate this thread has fostered is, perhaps, a tangentally relevant issue, the main issue at the head of the thread is Women’s ordination as PRIESTS.
It’s not a simple matter of giving the priest a free pass on a highly unorthodox statement on the grounds that someone, somewhere has done some research regarding the sacramental status of deaconesses in church history and concluded that they were sacramentally ordained (a finding which is also equally rejected by numerous other sources), and then saying, well - he meant they might become deaconesses. What he said must be taken in context.

Also, if there is legitimate debate/study of an doctrinal/disciplinary issue, it is still not within the priest’s authority to pronounce what might or might not happen with regards to the apparent changing of Church doctrine or discipline. That is solely for those with the authority to do so - i.e. the Pope, or a Council. For a pastor of a flock to offer speculative personal opinions about such things is ill-0advised, and in the case of offering them when they are unorthodox (yes, women’s “ordination” is unorthodox) it is down right scandalous.

 

[pickguard1]

What are you talking about? Just because someone is suggesting that the American Bishops seek something, that does not not mean anything! This is someone suggesting that someone else should seek a third person approval. To me this is not a very solid document! Just because it was posted on EWTN as a reference does not make it doctrinally correct or evidence of a possible outcome!

So with the original suggestion from the priest, that with the way things are going, we could see woman ordained, was WRONG!

AMEN

 

[pickguard1]

And again - while defending your point you still come across as defending the implication of the priest’s statement - which was that the girls might one day become PRIESTS. The context of his homily directly revolved around his own PRIESTHOOD and journey to it, and then extended the suggestion of similar vocation to the boys AND THEN the girls!

Sorry to quote myself, but in addition to this, any public speaker knows that what is said must be geared towards the audience. In this case is was primarily directed at a bunch of 7 and 8 year olds. If, by saying Holy Orders, the priest meant the diaconate only and not the episcopacy or priesthood, it was never clearly implied this was the case - and in any case, how many 7 and 8 year olds understand Holy Orders to mean anything but becoming a priest? My guess would be none. I’m sure all of the children paying attention to the priest, if they understood his statement, took it to mean girls might one day be priests.

So my writing a letter to this priest in protest was entirely justified on those grounds ALONE - aside from any theological debate about the nature of Holy Orders.

 

[Fergal]

We already have them but not in the sacramental way.

They are the mothers, grandmothers, wives, sisters, daughters and single women who go about silently each day making of everything they do a sacrifice offering all to the Most High as great acts of love.

I bet you know some. ;

When will people actually begin to understand and practice the great gift of the existential priesthood of the laity?

I know that when they do then those misguided women calling for ordained ministry will at last be quiet.

 

[diggerdomer]

The Priest said Holy Orders, which includes deacons. A report in the 90’s from the Canon Law Society of America, gave a very possitive look at the possibilty of women being ordained as deacons. John-Paul II had also had a commission that looked into the matter of women deacons, which also indicated that there is no real prohibition to it’s possibility.

So the priest, was correct in indicating the possibility of women recieving Holy Orders.

Peace,
FAB

Yes the priest was correct. The Church has not definitively ruled one way or the other on ordaining women to the diaconate. To do so would require changes e.g. to Canon Law, but that’s something the Church could do.

The oft-cited teaching of John Paul II regarding women’s ordination was specifically to the priesthood (i.e. priests and bishops).

 

[Cristiano]

Yes the priest was correct. The Church has not definitively ruled one way or the other on ordaining women to the diaconate. To do so would require changes e.g. to Canon Law, but that’s something the Church could do.

The oft-cited teaching of John Paul II regarding women’s ordination was specifically to the priesthood (i.e. priests and bishops).

So you are stating that there is more than one sacrament of the holy orders? Are you saying that these two sacraments have different matter?

 

[pickguard1]

Yes the priest was correct.

ARGGGGHHHHHHH!

This thread is so off topic! Setting aside the debate about the diaconate - the priest was NOT RIGHT in implying women would one day be able to be priests. Period. He did NOT say, or even imply that women might be able to be ordained to the permanent diacontate. Thus, regardless of where one stands on the deaconess issue (it’s not going to get resolved here), there was serious error in what the priest pronounced from the pulpit.

 

[FAB]

ARGGGGHHHHHHH!

This thread is so off topic! Setting aside the debate about the diaconate - the priest was NOT RIGHT in implying women would one day be able to be priests. Period. He did NOT say, or even imply that women might be able to be ordained to the permanent diacontate. Thus, regardless of where one stands on the deaconess issue (it’s not going to get resolved here), there was serious error in what the priest pronounced from the pulpit.

Perhaps you should take the advice you have on your signature. Despite evidence to the contrary, I think you indicated the priest said “ordained”, still you persist. Perhaps it’s the devil that pushes you to question the priest and his knowlege.

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

Perhaps you should take the advice you have on your signature. Despite evidence to the contrary, I think you indicated the priest said “ordained”, still you persist. Perhaps it’s the devil that pushes you to question the priest and his knowlege.

LOL :whacky: FAB, We see the true colors come out finally!

I am not going to go back through all my posts to see whether or not I used the word ordained or not - I probably did. I apologize if my oroginal post wan’t clear enough in stating the context of the priest’s statements. However, that (apparent) deficiency has been remedied by my further explanations.
Ignoring what this thread was originally about and resorting to immature jibes doesn’t help your credibility.
I can’t force you to come out and address the central issue here, which IS women being ordained as priests. ( I am truly beginning to doubt your orthodoxy on this issue, since you dance around it so much) I repectfully ask that if you want to debate the deaconess issue to start another thread.