Support for female ordination

[ltravis]

Oftentimes difficulties arise because of differring uses of words or terms in two different time periods.

The problem with this interpretation is that it assumes, “ordination” is equal to, “Holy Orders” in this case. The Church’s view of ordination hadn’t developed as much at that point, so ordination could easily be used in a broader sense. Indeed, the many, “minor orders” were considered to have been ordained, and yet it is dubious at best in what sense these minor orders share in the sacrament of Holy Orders.

It is also interesting to note that PJPII’s letter, Ordinatio Sacredotalis says that women cannot receive, “priestly orders.” He thereby leaves open the question of deaconesses. Deacons, after all, are not priests. However, I’m inclined to believe that ordination as it referred to deaconesses was not the same as ordination as it referred to deacons.

-Rob

I wish I could remember specifically, but I think the Nicea council writings explained the role of the deaconesses a little better, and how they were not “ordained” in the same manner as deacons. Anyway, before that I had understood that deaconesses were required as said before - to aid in baptisms of women. As I understand it, one would be nude when getting baptised and so deaconesses were used for modesty reasons.

LT

 

[porthos11]

Even in the original web article, it points to the fact that women were made deaconesses to help with the large number of adult baptisms. What the author is trying to do is use that in conjunction with the papal letter and imply there was deaconess ordination that was accepted AND priestly ordination that was accepted. That’s taking 2+2 and getting 73.457.

Are you Vulcan, by any chance?

 

[Brian_C]

No, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.