Vatican newspaper examines deaconesses and the early Church [CC]

[ChurchSoldier]

I come from the Anglican tradition and have seen / lived first hand the effects of this line of reasoning. Make no mistake, the end point is not female Deacons, but a female Pope and weakening of the Church.

Once the minor orders were opened to women, you now see fewer men as Readers (Lectors) or Acolytes.

Once into the Diaconate, they will claim discrimination due to the transitional nature of the ministry of most Deacons and push for the Priesthood.

Once in the Priesthood (validity has nothing to do with their desires, just promulgation of the agenda), then the Episcopacy, college of Cardinals and the Papacy.

Some will say I am too cautious or fearful, women Priests could never happen. 100 years ago they said it about Anglicanism as well, and this last week the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed that “gay marriage” was now a fact of life that conservatives just needed to understand. Sort of a Coup de Grace of the Anglican brand of Christian faith.

While it may not happen in the next 10 or 20 years, the dark forces and enemies of the Church have a long term game plan. Don’t underestimate the determination, persistence or potential destructiveness of these people.

 

[gilliam]

I come from the Anglican tradition and have seen / lived first hand the effects of this line of reasoning. Make no mistake, the end point is not female Deacons, but a female Pope.

Once the minor orders were opened to women, you now see fewer men as Readers (Lectors) or Acolytes.

Once into the Diaconate, they will claim discrimination due to the transitional nature of the ministry of most Deacons and push for the Priesthood.

Once in the Priesthood (validity has nothing to do with the agenda, just promulgation of the agenda), then the Episcopacy, college of Cardinals and the Papacy.

Some will say I am too cautious or fearful, women Priests could never happen. 100 years ago they said it about Anglicanism as well, and this last week the Archbishop of Canterbury claimed that “gay marriage” was now a fact of life that conservatives just needed to understand.

While it may not happen in the next 10 or 20 years, the dark forces and enemies of the Church have a long term game plan. Don’t underestimate the determination, or potential destructiveness of these people.

The Anglican church operates completely differently than the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t think you need worry.

 

[ChurchSoldier]

The Anglican church operates completely differently than the Roman Catholic Church, I don’t think you need worry.

Satan turned a member of Jesus’ inner council, I wouldn’t believe for a second he couldn’t do it to The Vatican’s.

Thanks for your response.

 

[FrDavid96]

There were some unanswered questions about the history of the early Church not addressed in 2002 that the current commission will be delving into. The history was deliberately not settled in 2002.

That is simply untrue.

There was nothing “deliberately not settled.” *

---

• *Edit: I specifically mean nothing relevant to the topic at hand. *

 

[gilliam]

I am trying to keep an open mind. If Holy Mother Church had ordained women to the diaconate in the past, especially if it turns out to be a Pauline tradition. I don’t see it as something to fret about happening again.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Actually, no, this is not an open issue.

From the Catechism:
1577 “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.” The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. the Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.
Emphasis added, of course.

There is nothing open about the question.

Yes, but if you look at the quote in context, it seem to be talking about priests and bishops. To wit, “The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college…”

 

[Usige]

That is not a known fact. It is a “red herring” thrown out there by those who wish to distort the meaning of the document. It is a document about the priesthood (hence the title) so it is only natural that it would not address specifically the issue of diaconal ordination. That does not mean that the question is left open. It merely means that it is not being addressed at that moment. There is quite a bit of difference.

To say that “many are questioning it” is not the same as the Church questioning it. Many question the divinity of Christ. That doesn’t mean it’s an open question as far as the Church is concerned.

Fair enough as it applies to you personally. But it is indeed “studied theological reasoning” in the mind of the Church. In other words, you’re on rock solid theological grounds there.

This is a distinction which must be made. There are no historical references to women deacons; instead there are references to deaconesses. This is not merely an accident of vocabulary. The office of deaconess was always completely and entirely distinct from the Order of Deacon. Every single piece of historical evidence actually proves that deaconesses were not deacons. In fact, most of those references are actually statements articulating that deaconesses are not deacons. For example, there is a line in the Apostolic Constitutions which many will cite as proving female deacons. The sentence actually reads (something like, since I am writing from memory) “the deaconess is not a deacon.” People will say “look here, see the word deaconess” but they point to the presence of one word while ignoring the sentence.

Actually, the word means a female servant. It could mean any female servant. Like many of our early Christian words, they borrowed the word from everyday language. It also meant a woman whose job was to serve food in an tavern.

Now, in an ecclesial context, yes, the word does refer to a specific office in the Church. A deaconess had to be formally installed. There were ceremonies for installing a deaconess. The office was more than just any woman who had some role in the Church.

Yes, differences. However, it is universal that there were never female deacons. There were deaconesses. Again, an absolutely essential distinction.

The real problem is that they take neither a theological nor a historical approach. The simple fact is that the approach they take is one of deception. The amount of misdirection and faulty logic they employ is truly mind-boggling. In any other discipline, their methods of reasoning would be laughed out of the room.

For example, one of the most cited sources they employ is what they claim to be a translation of an ancient ceremony for ordaining a deaconess, in which they point to the ‘fact’ that the words and gestures of ordination are the same for men as they are for women. That sounds very convincing, until one actually goes back and traces the sources. The reality is that a modern day translator took the ceremony for a deaconess, noticed that the ordination was absent, and took the liberty of inserting the ordination into the ceremony. This so-called ancient ceremony did not exist until it was composed in the 1970s.

That is the academic equivalent of someone who claims that George Washing liked to watch television by making a copy of a famous 1700s portrait and having a modern-day artist add a TV to the painting, under the pretense that it was there all along until someone in the 1800’s erased it, then saying that we have a 200 year old painting of George watching TV.

For what it’s worth, Father, I completely concur with you. From what I’ve read from both sides of the argument most are not proposing a restoration of the deaconess, but rather using the language to prove an equivalency between the ordained male deacons with what was at best a minor order in service to women. I had held OS to apply to Holy Orders as a whole until corrected by a theology professor several times that it only speaks to the priesthood. I still tend towards that belief but toe the party line and leave open the possibility even if I find nearly zero possibility of females being validly ordained.

Unless we plan to return to adults being baptized nude and separating men and women during the Mass, I do not see a specific reason to restore the role of deaconess. They were there for propriety and our culture has changed such that those social strictures no longer apply.

Personally I would like Pope Francis to say something along the lines of “we’ve studied it multiple times and it is to be definitively held that only men may receive Holy Orders”. I don’t think that will happen, but it would be nice to put it to rest in a way that leaves no question (though it won’t stop people from agitating for change)

 

[FrDavid96]

Of course it’s doctrinal.
The Catechism is an authoritative statement.
Really, look at the sentences above. I doubt you want to say that the Catechism is not an authoritative document.

You see, this is exactly what I was writing about earlier. Think about this; if the topic were something else, would you really point to the Catechism and say that “the Catechism of the Catholic Church is not an authoritative statement”.

If we were discussing Confirmation, would you say that the Catechism is not doctrinal? What about Baptism?

Of course the Catechism is doctrinal, that’s the very purpose of having it in the first place.

In the Constitution promulgating the Catechism, St John Paul II wrote this:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith. May it serve the renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the undiminished light of the kingdom!

So, how is it not doctrinal?

The Theological Commission which published its report in 2002 stated that (as your commentator has pointed out) it didn’t seem that the female deacons could be, or ever were part of the tradition of the of the Church but it concluded by saying expressly saying that the Church had NOT spoken authoritatively on the subject. I quote:

"With regard to the ordination of women to the diaconate, it should be noted that two important indications emerge from what has been said up to this point:

1. The deaconesses mentioned in the tradition of the ancient Church - as evidenced by the rite of institution and the functions they exercised - were not purely and simply equivalent to the deacons;

1. The unity of the sacrament of Holy Orders, in the clear distinction between the ministries of the bishop and the priests on the one hand and the diaconal ministry on the other, is strongly underlined by ecclesial tradition, especially in the teaching of the Magisterium.

In the light of these elements which have been set out in the present historico-theological research document, it pertains to the ministry of discernment which the Lord established in his Church to pronounce authoritatively on this question".

This seems to be doing two things: 1. making clear that the Church has not spoken authoritatively; and 2. urging it to do so. Because the Church has not, in spite of the Commission’s urging, spoken “authoritatively”, it is in fact an “open question”.

No. You are reading the document through the distorted lens of the proponents’ untruths. What the Commission is actually saying is that the Commission itself lacks the authority to issue an authoritative pronouncement.

The Commission was merely exercising caution against those who might attempt to say that they were speaking with more authority than they actually had.

It was not the role of the Commission to interpret the 1993 Catechism.

I have read Ms. Zangaro’s work on this topic and suffice it to say, I disagree. Nonetheless, it seems apparent that the Pope naming her to the “new” commission to study this matter and presumably to provide a basis to actually speak “authoritatively” indicates some willingness to entertain her view that the 2002 Commission either missed or ignored significant material that she claims demonstrates that the Church DID have female deacons (not “deaconesses”) in the past.

I frankly find it somewhat disturbing, but if Holy Mother Church decides to ordain women to the diaconate, I will remain but a servant.

This is not an open issue. It is a settled issue.

The claims that this matter is still open to interpretation are nothing more than an untruth being told by proponents of women deacons. Their method is that if they repeat an untruth enough times, people will begin to believe that it is true.

 

[gilliam]

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, but if you look at the quote in context, it seem to be talking about priests and bishops. To wit, “The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college…”

Not when one looks at it in the larger context that the Church clearly holds that there is only one Sacrament of Ordination, which is received in 3 orders/degrees.

 

[FrDavid96]

The mere reference to the Code of Canon Law does not mean that the Catechism is not speaking doctrinally.

We don’t believe things because the Code says them, we believe them, then the Code expresses what we believe. I’m sure you know this.

 

[FrDavid96]

It’s an impossible question. The Church already knows that such a thing cannot happen.

On a theological level, as a matter of faith, it cannot happen, because we are already certain that only men may receive the Sacrament of Ordination.

On a purely academic level, we likewise know that such a thing cannot happen. All of the arguments in favor of women as deacons have as their very a-priori foundation untruths.

It’s a bit like asking what would happen if the Library of Congress were to commission a study into George Washington’s favorite television show. It is logically impossible to articulate what was his favorite show.

I have enough confidence in a Vatican Commission to know that they will do an honest job of evaluating the situation. As such, there is only one possible outcome. They cannot (they “will not”) hide behind dishonest academic scrutiny which has fed the proponents’ position for the last few decades.

How do I know this (I am sure many are asking ). How can I be so confident?

Well, faith itself aside here, I know it because the matter has already been extensively examined by one Vatican Commission. There is no new evidence. There is nothing more to be done. All the current Commission can do is to repeat what has already been done. The new Commission is merely studying the exact same documents and physical evidence (like tombs) as the first Commission.

 

[FrDavid96]

We all know that on this particular topic the Catechism is indeed speaking with doctrinal authority.

I am sure that you know full well that the particular footnote that made a reference to Canon Law is certainly not the Church’s attempt to say “we don’t actually hold this as a belief, we only mention it because it’s in canon law.”

All you’re really doing is showing how, when it comes to this issue, we often see methods of reasoning that would not have a leg to stand upon, were it any other topic.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have already answered that one.

This is his style. His life experience as a Jesuit makes him someone who discerns (rather than have a heavy-handed style) and one who listens to what others have to say.

He is basically saying “if you want to talk about it, fine, talk about it.” When you’re done, I’ll listen to what you have to say.

In contrast, HH Benedict had a different style, as did St JP2 who was Pope for the first Commission. I don’t say “opposite” but different.

All we are really seeing here with the new Commission is nothing more than an expression of HH Francis’ style. It’s not about theology or changing doctrine.

And if the new Commission is stacked with proponents? If the Commission offers conclusions that open the possibility of women deacons? Will we then see women deacons? No. What we’ll see will be yet another Commission. That’s Francis’ style.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I’m confused. How is the Commission stacked with people who have views that are different than what The Theological Commission concluded?

 

[tseleehw]

I’m confused. How is the Commission stacked with people who have views that are different than what The Theological Commission concluded?

There is at least one woman on the current commission, Phyllis Zagano, who is a vocal proponent of the ordination of female deacons (she may also support ordaining women to the priesthood but I’m not totally sure about that). She basically rejects the findings of the earlier commission. There might be others like her that are also on the commission but she’s at least one person that most news sites are reporting about.

She is (or was) a columnist for the National Catholic Reporter, so that should give you some idea of the theological opinions that she likely holds.

 

[CrossofChrist]

It’s an impossible question. The Church already knows that such a thing cannot happen.

On a theological level, as a matter of faith, it cannot happen, because we are already certain that only men may receive the Sacrament of Ordination.

When was this declared, that the teaching WRT Ordination (and not just the priesthood) is irreformable for all times?

 

[FrDavid96]

When was this declared, that the teaching WRT Ordination (and not just the priesthood) is irreformable for all times?

Over and over again for the past 2,000 years.

What you’re doing is called “raising the bar.” It’s a typical fallacious technique.

'nuff said.

 

[JimG]

From what I’ve learned here, it seems that there is no possibility of women being ordained to the diaconate, because women cannot be ordained. The most that proponents could hope for would be for women to be placed in a non-ordained ministry. Proponents would want to call them deacons even if they are not ordained, but doing that would be a deception.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I am looking forward to the work of this theological commission…I worked on an ancillary issue long ago, which is how I ended up being assigned to do some of the things I did in my life and priesthood. I welcome this development after all these years.

It is a very real and true theological commission. It has a genuine scope of work and a genuine mandate. I know some of those who are on it as they are colleagues in the community of theologians. They are certainly taking this very seriously and will do a good job in their analysis, I am confident.

The only thing that somewhat perplexes me is that the Holy Father has intimated that this topic will be part of the topics before the next synod of bishops, which will be on revision of ministry in the Church. That is not a lot of time for the commission to do its work…unless they choose to do a preliminary summary of where their findings and reflections are taking them, present those, receive feedback from the Synod Fathers, and then complete their work…which would then go to the Holy Father to do with as he sees fit

Perhaps this commission, like these series of Synods of Bishops, will come to fruition with a view to the convocation of an ecumenical council to

1. 
   *]Consolidate the issues concerning marriage and family life
   *]Revisit and consolidate the reform of the lower grades of the ministries, begun with Ministeria quaedam, doing this also in conjunction with the issue of women under examination
   *]Make disposition concerning the issue of mandatory celibacy, especially in those countries best positioned to bridge a transition…
   *]Provide impetus to a restructure towards vir probati for the 21st and 22nd centuries
   *]Advance and consolidate what is happening in the ecumenical dialogue
   *]Provide a new stage for the reform and renewal of the Church post-Vatican II.
   *]Re-orient the Church’s focus on service to the poor and to focus on the periphery
   *]With so many bishops from Latin America, Africa and Asia who would dominate, I think there is also other developments that will carry the Church forward concerning the liturgy, inculturation and other important topics.
   
   Hopefully, the Pope would do exactly what Pope Saint John XXIII did and open the council to the concerns of the Fathers themselves and allow them to take the council wherever the Spirit leads them.
   
   We are now reaching the point where those who were priests at the time of the council and its aftermath are now advanced in years…some of us quite advanced…and this means the next Council Fathers will have grown up in a profoundly different situation, thanks to the gift of the Holy Spirit that is Vatican II. They will be children of Vatican II entirely.
   
   I think we are coming to an ideal time for an ecumenical council and a gathering of all the bishops from throughout the world – to come together and do as they did at Vatican II. The 1700th anniversary of Nicaea will be 2025. That was a transformational era in the life of the Church.
   
   I can see several very fascinating possibilities, if the commission and the Synod Fathers become creative relative to the range of questions the theological commission will have to examine. There are also interesting cross-overs of ecumenical import as well that could tie in and to which they could make significant contribution.