SPLIT: Women priests possible?

[FAB]

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

 

[pickguard1]

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

It appears from previous posts that there have been dogmatic declarations regarding the inability of the Church to ordain women. In the early centuries of the Church there were “deaconesses,” however everything I’ve read about them states they were never ordained. If they were in fact to come back into existence, they most certainly would not be ordained. Women cannot be ordained.

 

[pickguard1]

Did some searching around the forums. Here are a couple of direct qutoes that clear up the Church’s position definitively.

In 1994, Pope John Paul II declared, “Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church’s judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).
(Bold is mine)

Only baptized males can receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders (Catechism no. 1598).

“Deacons are ministers ordained for tasks of service of the Church; they do not receive the ministerial priesthood, but ordination confers on them important functions in the ministry of the word, divine worship, pastoral governance, and the service of charity, tasks which they must carry out under the pastoral authority of their bishop” (ibid. 1596).
(underline is mine)

St. Epiphanius, Against Heresies 79.3-4: (374-77 AD): “We come to the New Testament. If women were ordained to be priests for God, or to do anything canonical in the church, it should rather have been given to Mary in the New Testament… But it was decided differently. She was not even entrusted with baptizing. [after mentioning successions of apostles and priests] but nowhere was a woman established among them. There were four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who were prophetesses, but not priests. … Although there is an order of deaconesses in the Church, yet they are not appointed to function as priests or for any administration of this kind, but so that provision may be made for the propriety of the female sex…” [at baptism etc.]

 

[mlchance]

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

No, there isn’t. One must be male to receive Holy Orders, whether becoming a priest or a deacon.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[MichiganTrumbul]

On a related note, one thing absolutely has to happen before the Church can start conferring Holy Orders upon women. That one thing is that Christ has to give us permission to do so. Until then we have to stick with an all-male priesthood.

MT

 

[FAB]

in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Luke 22:32), I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful" (Ordinatio Sacerdotalis 4).

I have no argument with this, John Paul specifically said priestly ordination for men only.

Only baptized males can receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders (Catechism no. 1598).

The Catechism has been changed and can be again, for now, no argument, this is the church, but we are talking about future possibilities.

“Deacons are ministers ordained for tasks of service of the Church; they do not receive the ministerial priesthood, but ordination confers on them important functions in the ministry of the word, divine worship, pastoral governance, and the service of charity, tasks which they must carry out under the pastoral authority of their bishop” (ibid. 1596).

Certainl, and the reports I indicated found no compelling reason for women not to be able to fullful this role. A Perminate Deacon is not a back do to the priesthood, it is a specific ordained ministry.

St. Epiphanius, Against Heresies 79.3-4: (374-77 AD): “Although there is an order of deaconesses in the Church, yet they are not appointed to function as priests or for any administration of this kind, but so that provision may be made for the propriety of the female sex…” [at baptism etc.]

At one time in the early church there was not the prespryter, only deacons and bishops.The exact function of the deaconess beyond baptism is not known and my never be, but they did hold a function. The role of the Perminate Deacon had disappeared and now has returned. Their role in many ways is still being defined with attempts to expand their roles.
One of the reasons why this restriction has not changed is as a universal church, dicernmnet must be made as to how it would effect the misson of the church particularly in countries were women’s rights are still denied. From many comments on this site as to the role of women in the church, much work is still needed in this country.

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

FAB,

While I agree that there are many places in the world (if not all) that need to work on eliminating gender-based discrimination, this of course can only extend so far…and some things that divide the sexes do not fall into the realm of discrimination (such as women priests), they are just matter of fact reality - whether of the natural law tyoe, or the supernatural law type.

The crux of this issue is Holy Orders (supernatural law) - which happens only when a man is ordained. The deaconesses of the past were never ordained, and the chuch has defined its position dogmatically on the point of women being ordained - it cannot be done through the Church’s authority. Period.

Unless, as a previous poster put it, the Lord Himself comes down and changes things, women won’t be priests or deacons (as they are ordained). Should the practice of having deaconesses be revived, they most certainly will not have Holy Orders.

 

[FAB]

Unless, as a previous poster put it, the Lord Himself comes down and changes things, women won’t be priests or deacons (as they are ordained). Should the practice of having deaconesses be revived, they most certainly will not have Holy Orders.

The Lord himself does come down, It is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church as promised by Jesus and celebrated on Pentecost. Can you say for certain that the Spirit isn’t guiding the church to make this decision? It is the reason why the issue of women deacons is being discerned, why papers and studies have be published and why no definitive ruling has been formulated. Even in this discussion the Spirit may be working, either to keep established a long tradition or to shed new light and see the issue in new ways. We must keep our hearts and minds open to the possibilities.

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

The Lord himself does come down, It is the Holy Spirit who guides the Church as promised by Jesus and celebrated on Pentecost. Can you say for certain that the Spirit isn’t guiding the church to make this decision? It is the reason why the issue of women deacons is being discerned, why papers and studies have be published and why no definitive ruling has been formulated. Even in this discussion the Spirit may be working, either to keep established a long tradition or to shed new light and see the issue in new ways. We must keep our hearts and minds open to the possibilities.

Peace,
FAB

You are correct in that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and through this guidance, there can be no error in proclaiming dogmas of the faith (through the magisterium and ex cathedra statements of the Pope, of course). However, I believe I have read several sources that clearly state that “ordination” of women is not possible. Period. That is, this issue HAS been defined dogmatically by the church through the infallible magisterium and perennial tradition of the Church. It is also a dogma that there is no new revelation in the Church, only tradition. If something defined as a dogma seems “new” it can only be that it has been a part of Sacred Tradition and is therefore not new, but was just never formally defined. Women being ordained has time and time again been proclaimed as not a part of sacred tradition. Therefore, any changes in this are pure novelties, and of course, heresy.

It may seem as if this discussion is open to debate. However, just because it is being debated doesn’t make it open to debate. The Fathers and Popes of the Church right on down to the present have been clear on this.

Pope John Paul II was clear on this
'…And in 1995 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in conjunction with the pope, ruled that this teaching “requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium 25:2)” (Response of Oct. 25, 1995). ’
catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp

Really, all observation and research on this shows that the role of women deaconesses was to preserve decorum when interaction between members of the opposite sex was necessary (especially during sacraments like baptism) and to assist in non-preistly functions.

As a side note, remember that the Sacraments are not man-made things, subject to the whims of time or cultural/social changes. The essential matter of every Sacrament was established by our Lord Himself, and this is the reason they cannot be changed. For Baptism, the essential matter is water, for the Eucharist it is unleavened wheat bread and wine, for Holy Orders it is a man. Simple as that.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

aaa

 

[tobinatorstark]

Women will never be able become priests or decons

 

[FAB]

You are correct in that the Holy Spirit guides the Church, and through this guidance, there can be no error in proclaiming dogmas of the faith (through the magisterium and ex cathedra statements of the Pope, of course). However, I believe I have read several sources that clearly state that “ordination” of women is not possible. Period. That is, this issue HAS been defined dogmatically by the church through the infallible magisterium and perennial tradition of the Church. It is also a dogma that there is no new revelation in the Church, only tradition. If something defined as a dogma seems “new” it can only be that it has been a part of Sacred Tradition and is therefore not new, but was just never formally defined. Women being ordained has time and time again been proclaimed as not a part of sacred tradition. Therefore, any changes in this are pure novelties, and of course, heresy.

Simple as that.

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

I asked Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger the same question: Will the church return to the tradition of ordaining women deacons? He responded that it was “under study.”

Peace,
FAB

 

[pickguard1]

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

The last line only reflects the askers ignorance of Church history. The Catholic Church has never ordained women. Yes, there were deaconesses, but they weren’t “ordained.” Just like nuns are not ordained. Nuns belong to a religious “order” but they have not received Holy Orders. Big difference. And the main point here is that the priest suggested that at some point they might be able to…which if said with full knowledge and consent (as opposed to an unfortunate slip) is HERESY.

 

[pickguard1]

There is no doubt that this subject has caused debate in the past and that there are those that still debate it (again, doesn’t mean it’s open for debate) but for the sake of the debate as a follow up, here is some info regarding this from the Catholic Encyclopedia

“The subject of the precise status of the deaconess is confessedly obscure and confused, but two or three points at any rate seem worth insisting on. In the first place there were no doubt influences at work at one time or another which tended to exaggerate the position of these women-helpers. This tendency has found expression in certain documents which have come down to us and of which it is difficult to gauge the value. Still there is no more reason to attach importance to these pretensions than there is to regard seriously the spasmodic attempts of certain deacons to exceed their powers and to claim, for example, authority to consecrate. Both in the one and the other case the voice of the Church made itself heard in conciliar decrees and the abuse in the end was repressed without difficulty. Such restrictive measures seem to be found in the rather obscure 11th canon of Laodicea, and in the more explicit 19th canon of the Council of Nicaea, which last distinctly lays down that deaconesses are to be accounted as **lay persons and that they receive no ordination properly so called **(Hefele-LeClercq, Conciles, I, 618).” (bold is mine)

“The Council of Nismes in 394 reproved in general the assumption of the levitical ministry by women, and other decrees, notably that of Orange in 411 (can. 26) forbid the ordaining of deaconesses altogether. It follows from what has been said that the Church as a whole repudiated the idea that women could in any proper sense be recipients of the Sacrament of Order.” (ibid)

While there may have been “ordinations” of women as deaconesses with the intent that they were receiving some part of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, it is clear that the Church always looked upon this aspect as an abuse, and that the deaconesses were not ordained in the sense that deacons and priests were. Deacons were ordained to serve, and eventually receive the fullness of Holy Orders in the priesthood. Since this latter is not possible for women, the “ordinations” spoken of in ancient texts can’t mean the same thing.

Back to the point of my letter…the priest said first to the boys that they might recieve Holy Orders “like me,” (meaning become priests) and then said "and with the way things are going you girls may too…(with the obvious parallel implication to the priesthood) That is the major problem.

 

[NTOT]

The sacraments require valid matter for the sacrament itself to be valid. A woman is invalid matter, therefore even if a woman were ordained by a bishop going through the motions, correct form, etc. it would still not be valid, because she is not valid matter for the sacrament. No different than if a bishop were to ordain a warthog, it would not become a priest. The bishop however, would be committing a sacrilege.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Female is to the priesthood as male is to motherhood as homosexual is to same-gender marriage.

UNNATURAL, NOT FITTING, ILLICIT, NOT ORDAINED BY GOD and therefor SELF DEFEATING and DAMNABLE.



James

 

[Marsha_Adams]

Female is to the priesthood as male is to motherhood as homosexual is to same-gender marriage.

UNNATURAL, NOT FITTING, ILLICIT, NOT ORDAINED BY GOD and therefor SELF DEFEATING and DAMNABLE.



James

You go, James!! Well said.

 

[FAB]

The last line only reflects the askers ignorance of Church history. The Catholic Church has never ordained women. Yes, there were deaconesses, but they weren’t “ordained.” Just like nuns are not ordained. Nuns belong to a religious “order” but they have not received Holy Orders. Big difference. And the main point here is that the priest suggested that at some point they might be able to…which if said with full knowledge and consent (as opposed to an unfortunate slip) is HERESY.

The last line was not about the questioner but about the answer from then Cardinal Radzinger “under study”, which means despite all the councils you want to quote, it is an issue, to ordain women as Perminate Deacons, is still an open question within the church. So again, the priest if he knows of this open question, he was correct in his comment. (Don’t be so quick to condemn the clergy, it’s demanding enough without have to always be on the definsive.)

As I said before, the role of Perminate Deacon is not a back door to the priesthood. They hold a specific role of service to the church and those men who become perminate deacons, know that it is next to impossible to ever become a priest. Their call is service to the Word, Service to Liturgy and Service to Charity.

Peace,
FAB

 

[mlchance]

The last line was not about the questioner but about the answer from then Cardinal Radzinger “under study”, which means despite all the councils you want to quote, it is an issue, to ordain women as Perminate Deacons, is still an open question within the church.

No, it isn’t. Women cannot receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders. Church teaching is clear on this point. Should the Church see fit to institute some sort of female deacon position, it would not involve ordination.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[pickguard1]

The last line was not about the questioner but about the answer from then Cardinal Radzinger “under study”, which means despite all the councils you want to quote, it is an issue, to ordain women as Perminate Deacons, is still an open question within the church. So again, the priest if he knows of this open question, he was correct in his comment. (Don’t be so quick to condemn the clergy, it’s demanding enough without have to always be on the definsive.)

As I said before, the role of Perminate Deacon is not a back door to the priesthood. They hold a specific role of service to the church and those men who become perminate deacons, know that it is next to impossible to ever become a priest. Their call is service to the Word, Service to Liturgy and Service to Charity.

A: Holy Orders are restricted to males. This is NOT a disciplinary matter of the Church, but one of doctrine. Therefore if any females were or ever are again “ordained,” the use of the word “ordained” in this instance could not and will not ever mean ordained to Holy Orders - it would simply be a use that is synonymous with “appointed.”

B. The priest in question, as I referenced earlier, made a clear analogy between Holy Orders as understood in the priesthood itself and the possiblity of women attaining it, which even if women could be “ordained” to Holy Orders in the diaconate (which they can’t), is obviously against infallible dogma.

C. I would assert that a possible, if not plausible explanation of the last lines of the article are both a) the questioner’s misunderstanding or misuse of previous use of the term “ordination/ordain” with regards to deaconesses, and then b) either the Pope understood that the phrasing was incorrect but wanted to state that the possibility of re-establishing an order (not Holy Orders) of deaconesses is under study, or alternatively (and most likely) that the Pope’s understanding of the use of the term “ordain” in this situation is in line with Catholic Tradition and the Magisterium, which precludes its meaning “Holy Orders.”