Vatican newspaper examines deaconesses and the early Church [CC]

[CrossofChrist]

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.

Well what confuses me as to whether or not the discussion is forever closed are comments like these from an Archbishop:

“I think we should really start looking seriously at the possibility (my emphasis)of ordaining women deacons because the diaconate in the church’s tradition has been defined as not being ordered toward priesthood but toward ministry.”

But then here are comments from Fr. Muller (before becoming a bishop):

“The liturgical and theological tradition of the Church uses unanimous language. It is a binding and irreversible teaching of the Church on this matter, which is guaranteed by the ordinary and general magisterium of the Church, but which can be confirmed again with greater authority if the doctrinal tradition of the Church continues to be presented in an adulterated manner, for the purpose of forcing the evolution of a specific direction.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Well what confuses me as to whether or not the discussion is forever closed are comments like these from an Archbishop:

“I think we should really start looking seriously at the possibility (my emphasis)of ordaining women deacons because the diaconate in the church’s tradition has been defined as not being ordered toward priesthood but toward ministry.”
…]

Let’s look at the sentence.

The short answer is this: just because diaconate is ordered toward service, that is not a reason that can make it open to women, nor can we say that because not all deacons will become priests, it can be open to women. They might be points to make along the way, but they do not constitute a conclusion.

Now the long answer:

The word “because” is the key. He is suggesting that because the diaconate is ordered toward service, then it might be open to women. That isn’t the issue. The diaconate has ‘always’ been ordered toward service (although we have not always been good about keeping it that way), but has still been always male. There’s nothing new here. Nothing has changed. We do not have al all-male diaconate merely because of a (mistaken) idea that it is only a step toward priesthood, rather we have al all-male diaconate because it has been that way since the Book of Acts, and for other very solid reasons. The diaconate was ordered toward service in Acts, yet it was all male. The diaconate was ordered toward service during the time of the early Councils, yet it was all male.

If there is anything we might call “new” in our understanding, it is that there is one single sacrament of Ordination, which is received in degrees. That was finally settled at Vatican II, even though some are surprised that it took us that long. If can say that we have anything new to contribute to the conversation, it would be to say that since there’s only one sacrament, we must be less inclined towards women deacons.

Now, someone will say that the early Church was unwilling to accept female clergy; that this was their own prejudice rather than Divine Law. That’s nonsense. The fact that we did indeed have deaconesses (albeit unordained) proves the exact opposite, that the early Church was completely willing to have some form of women in ministry, but not the diaconate. Also, much of early Christianity were converted pagans. All of the pagan religions in the Roman Empire had priestesses. Female priests were very familiar to the early Christians, yet they knew that once they became Christian, they had to accept an all male priesthood—and in fact they did.

So, to summarize. There’s really nothing new in the conversation. Nothing has changed. History certainly won’t change.

 

[edwest2]

ncregister.com/site/article/vatican_letter_censures_women_deacon_courses

ncregister.com/site/article/clearing-the-air-on-women-deacons

Ed

 

[Usige]

ncregister.com/site/article/vatican_letter_censures_women_deacon_courses

ncregister.com/site/article/clearing-the-air-on-women-deacons

Ed

Thanks, Ed. I think the section in the second article by Professor Catherine Tkacz sums up the counter argument to Professor Zagano’s stance. I have used arguments similar to Prof Tkacz’s only to have advocates of Prof Zagano dismiss any variance or explicit prohibitions for female ordinations as being minimal and unimportant. They will point to the investiture of stole or maniple as proof that women were sacramentally ordained, yet treat the fact that subdeacons also used to wear the maniple as unimportant.

The argument seems to conflate similarities into equivalence despite very obvious indications that a male deacon and female deaconess have never been considered equivalent.

 

[edwest2]

Thanks, Ed. I think the section in the second article by Professor Catherine Tkacz sums up the counter argument to Professor Zagano’s stance. I have used arguments similar to Prof Tkacz’s only to have advocates of Prof Zagano dismiss any variance or explicit prohibitions for female ordinations as being minimal and unimportant. They will point to the investiture of stole or maniple as proof that women were sacramentally ordained, yet treat the fact that subdeacons also used to wear the maniple as unimportant.

The argument seems to conflate similarities into equivalence despite very obvious indications that a male deacon and female deaconess have never been considered equivalent.

The bottom line is female ordination, which is expressly prohibited. Of course, women should have a role(s) in the Church but everyone is a servant first. I have a job title but it doesn’t make me more or less important as the next person. As far as decision-making, we aren’t talking about a democracy here.

And the Church is ready to listen and examine.

Ed

 

[CrossofChrist]

Let’s look at the sentence.

The short answer is this: just because diaconate is ordered toward service, that is not a reason that can make it open to women, nor can we say that because not all deacons will become priests, it can be open to women. They might be points to make along the way, but they do not constitute a conclusion.

Now the long answer:

The word “because” is the key. He is suggesting that because the diaconate is ordered toward service, then it might be open to women. That isn’t the issue. The diaconate has ‘always’ been ordered toward service (although we have not always been good about keeping it that way), but has still been always male. There’s nothing new here. Nothing has changed. We do not have al all-male diaconate merely because of a (mistaken) idea that it is only a step toward priesthood, rather we have al all-male diaconate because it has been that way since the Book of Acts, and for other very solid reasons. The diaconate was ordered toward service in Acts, yet it was all male. The diaconate was ordered toward service during the time of the early Councils, yet it was all male.

If there is anything we might call “new” in our understanding, it is that there is one single sacrament of Ordination, which is received in degrees. That was finally settled at Vatican II, even though some are surprised that it took us that long. If can say that we have anything new to contribute to the conversation, it would be to say that since there’s only one sacrament, we must be less inclined towards women deacons.

Now, someone will say that the early Church was unwilling to accept female clergy; that this was their own prejudice rather than Divine Law. That’s nonsense. The fact that we did indeed have deaconesses (albeit unordained) proves the exact opposite, that the early Church was completely willing to have some form of women in ministry, but not the diaconate. Also, much of early Christianity were converted pagans. All of the pagan religions in the Roman Empire had priestesses. Female priests were very familiar to the early Christians, yet they knew that once they became Christian, they had to accept an all male priesthood—and in fact they did.

So, to summarize. There’s really nothing new in the conversation. Nothing has changed. History certainly won’t change.

I agree with what you say, I don’t think women will become deacons, but I still don’t know if I could tell someone the door has been definitively shut for women deacons for all times.

 

[deaconjohnO]

I believe if you read Ordinatio Sacerdotalis you will see the scriptural references to Deacons in the document. Why would John Paul II use the example of the 7 deacons being chosen to support the scriptural evidence of a male only PRIESTHOOD? Unless one sees the obvious that deacons (by virtue of their scriptural reference in OS) are included in JP II teaching.

OS Section #2 “*** The Apostles did the same when they chose fellow workers(7) who would succeed them in their ministry.(8) Also included in this choice were those who, throughout the time of the Church, would carry on the Apostles’ mission of representing Christ the Lord and Redeemer.(9)***”

The scriptural reference are 1 Tm 3:1-13; 2 Tm 1:6; Ti 1:5-9.

Again I ask the question. Why would John Paul II use the scriptural examples of deacons being the chosen men to support the understanding of the Male only priesthood.