Synod should reflect on possibly allowing female deacons, says archbishop

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
phil19034 said:
Inspirational sermons has nothing to do with female priests, it has to do with being a good public speaker.

Some of the most inspirations “sermons” I’ve heard are from Dr. Scott Hahn (Catholic Theologian) and he’s not ordained.

People are called to become priests because they are called to transform bread and wine to the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ. Not all of them are great public speakers.

HOWEVER, many seminaries are working on this and seminarians are getting better training in public speaking. BUT public speaking is a gift, some people have it and some don’t.

Protestants and “female priests” are typically good public speakers because that’s the only way they can keep their preaching job.

Allowing “female deacons” will NOT automatically allow for better homilies because deacons don’t get paid. Not all deacons are good public speakers, however, many are in the dioceses that promote the deacons to give homilies at least once a month.

In the dioceses where deacons rarely (if ever) give a homily, it would serve no purpose.

HOWEVER - this is totally moot because woman cannot be ordained. The deaconess in antiquity were women who were married to a deacon who assisted with baptizing female adult converts when the practice of the Church used to require the baptized to be naked or barely clothed.

FINALLY, as someone stated, this has NOTHING to do with the Family. I wish the liberals would stop trying to speak about every single Church issue at this Synod, which is supposed to be solely about the Family.

God Bless.
Click to expand...
I realize inspirational speaking has nothing to do with being a priest. But I also know male deacons who never become priests. And I have heard some males speak in a way that inspired me or touched my heart and soul. Some other males not so much. And the same goes for some females for that matter. My point is not so much about gender though. I believe there is neither male nor female but all one in Christ Jesus. My point was more about gifts. And if a female has the gift to speak in an inspirational manner to families in the pews, I would think this could be of benefit to some individuals or to families. Some families might even welcome a female baptizing their child or presiding at a wedding or loved one’s funeral. She would not be celebrating Mass or hearing confessions in the Catholic Church and would no more be a priest than the male deacons today who never become priests. But we may never agree about it. So thank you so much for your blessings and God’s blessings to you as well. And peace be with you.
 
There were female deacons in the early church, but they weren’t ordained and they didn’t preach. They had a role in serving the community and in baptism.
 
Maximilan_Kolbe said:
Seriously. Some people insist on doing things just to do something. Unless there is a moral edict from the Holy Spirit, or scores of empirical data showing how this would be a boon for the faithful, why can’t some people just sit quietly and stop wasting everyone’s time with needless ideas?

What is the spark that inspired this “need?”
Click to expand...
Agreed - and it also puts laity who don’t share this urgent “need” in kind of an awkward spot with respect to their “change” oriented brethren, high and low - awkwardness that we certainly don’t seek or want. One man’s progress is another man’s dissonance, dissipation even. The Church gives women so many opportunities within its structure. They are in so many key parish roles. I don’t understand where the dissatisfaction is coming from on this and the other social issues. The Church is sufficiently merciful and dignity-affirming by its very nature - it doesn’t need to evolve its concept of mercy to fit this era, or any other era.
 
The early Church definitely had deaconesses. BUT, and it’s a huge BUT, it is not clear exactly what they were. Some argue that women truly were ordained to holy orders as deacons and there is some evidence that supports that- the ancient ordination rite for deaconesses in the Byzantine tradition is incredibly similar to the ordination rite for regular make deacons; however, even then their role was distinct and generally non-liturgical. In other times and places there is likewise evidence to show that deaconesses were given a lesser blessing than ordination itself. Personally I strongly believe that the office was conferred by a special sacramental, akin to religious profession, the consecration of virgins, or the blessing of abbesses. A special vocation to be sure with special graces but not the sacrament of holy orders. Likewise with the ancient office of subdeacon, the Church speaks of ordination but a subdeacon doesn’t receice the sacrament of holy orders…it’s a separate, special sacramental.
 
Sy_Noe said:
Do we know if the Holy Spirit might not be the spark? I know some of the most inspirational sermons I have heard preach have been by female priests and pastors of other Christian communities. It might be a boon for some families to hear a female deacon preaching.
Click to expand...
There are lots of ways that female preaching could be integrated into the liturgy or non-liturgical settings. There is no need for a female non-ordained role with the same title as an ordained clerical role. That will only create confusion.
 
Have you heard that there’s an arch-bishop wanting the hosts to be gluten-free, in order to spread and encourage a more conscious, healthy diet and for sustainability purposes?

:rolleyes:
 
phil19034 said:
The impossibility for women isn’t the priesthood, it is the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

The Sacrament of Holy Orders takes place when ordained a Deacon, which is why once a man is ordained a Deacon, he cannot get married.

God Bless
Click to expand...
Which begs the question why is the issue of women deacons even being brought up.
 
Cider said:
Which begs the question why is the issue of women deacons even being brought up.
Click to expand...
It’s a work-around to get the womenpriests concept moved forward in the Church. Which it won’t. Plus, it’s a distraction which, among other distraction attempts, the Church is expecting during the Synod.

Ed
 
edwest2 said:
It’s a work-around to get the womenpriests concept moved forward in the Church. Which it won’t. Plus, it’s a distraction which, among other distraction attempts, the Church is expecting during the Synod.

Ed
Click to expand...
Yes, my question was rhetorical. Obviously that is the point they are trying to get to.
 
on_the_hill said:
There is a hilarious video on YouTube called, “How to Become Gluten Intolerant.” It’s not exactly G-rated because of bathroom humor. But it is very funny.
Click to expand...
Hey. I’m going to get and eat all the gluten I want. And nobody’s going to stop me ! 😃

Fat free? I’m getting some fat too!

Odds are, whatever new “be against this” fad they come up with, it’s like a bad joke. I hit my internal “ignore” button and smile the next time I see the “cause” presented.

Boredom is the only secular ‘sin.’

Ed
 
“Only a baptized man (in Latin, vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” (Codex Iruis Canonici canon 1024, c.f. Catechism of the Catholic Church 1577). It is a matter of doctrine that only men can validly be admitted to Holy Orders - which includes the three orders in decsending order: bishop, priest, and deacon.

It is asserted that this is discriminatory against women, yet the Church maintains that men and women are equal (CCC 369). It is simply the case that men and women though equal have different roles. We would consider it ridiculous to state that it is unjust and discriminatory that a man cannot become a nun. The same principle applies to women who cannot be admitted to Holy Orders, it is a matter of fact and an unchangeable reality. Those who think otherwise are often sincere, but misguided nonetheless.
 
lax16 said:
You mean, other than being born that way? 😉
Click to expand...
Let’s not ruin their fun by pointing out that some people have serious conditions and cannot consume even small amounts of gluten or wheat.
 
AClaire11 said:
Let’s not ruin their fun by pointing out that some people have serious conditions and cannot consume even small amounts of gluten or wheat.
Click to expand...
That’s true, but some of the ‘gluten free’ commentary has taken on a certain tone that some find a bit much. Yes, caution is always wise.

Ed
 
AClaire11 said:
Let’s not ruin their fun by pointing out that some people have serious conditions and cannot consume even small amounts of gluten or wheat.
Click to expand...
Correct. My aunt has actual, bona fide, genuine diagnosed Celiac disease, and she is very sensitive to gluten. I have some symptoms and got the basic blood test but the results were negative.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top