What would you think of female deacons?

[FrDavid96]

…
Oh, and yes, it is quite short of a lie. Surely as a priest you understand the best way to avoid rash judgment is that we don’t assume the worst in others. Such an accusation should not be thrown at another lightly. At most, it is a mistake, assuming I can document what you have said.

Not one time, not ever, has the Church said that the question of ordaining women as deacons is an open question.

Any claim that such has happened is simply an untruth.

If I were to make a claim that “so and so said this” yet that person never actually said it, am I telling the truth? or am I speaking false? He either said it, or he did not say it. If I falsely claim that he said something which he never said, then I am speaking a falsehood–another way to phrase that would be to say that I am speaking a lie.

This is pretty straightforward.

Yet, for some reason, you seem to think that this same kind of reasoning does not apply when it comes to the Church speaking about attempting to ordain women as deacons.

Since the Church (or any pope speaking on behalf of the Church) has never (absolutely never) said that the question of ordaining women as deacons is an open question or that the door is “open” or “not closed”, then any claim that such was said is an untruth.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

The Catechism is quite clear. There is no ambiguity.

1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination…

So too does the 1983 Code of Canon Law

Can. 1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

I was curious about this, so I looked it up. As I thought, you printed the same thing twice, as the Catechism specifically reference canon 1024 as a footnote when it says that only a baptized man receives sacred ordination. I understand that. At this time, and for centuries, it has been part of canon law. The question the Pope seems interested in is what was done back when there were people called deaconesses.

We already know what happened.

Deaconesses were not part of the clergy. Yes, they existed. No one doubts that.

The historic evidence proves beyond any doubt that a deaconess was not a female deacon. Deacon and deaconess were two entirely distinct and separate offices in the early Church.

Can we study the matter? Of course, yes. Should we? Of course.

Further study on the subject won’t change what we already know to be true—that the deaconess was not a female deacon, despite the similarity in naming those 2 offices.

 

[Mark121359]

There is only one true and accurate response. Read FrDavid96’s posts on this topic.

 

[pnewton]

Honestly, I am still waiting for the Catholic Church to weigh in. No one has posted that yet. If the Pope doesn’t know, I guess I am good with waiting.

Canon law is clear women are not to be ordained. Nothing has been posted that substantiates more than that. This is not a lie. It is what has happened here.

There is only one true and accurate response. Read FrDavid96’s posts on this topic.

There is a little like button for dittoing others now, by the way. Do you have any links for us?

 

[misstherese]

Some of this information I didn’t know. I will have to agree with you, that female deacons would not be possible. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut, Father.

 

[FrDavid96]

Honestly, I am still waiting for the Catholic Church to weigh in. No one has posted that yet. If the Pope doesn’t know, I guess I am good with waiting.

Canon law is clear women are not to be ordained. Nothing has been posted that substantiates more than that. This is not a lie. It is what has happened here.

What you are writing is simply UNTRUE.

Now, one can write something that is untrue, but be unaware. That’s one possibility.

If you say you are “waiting for the Catholic Church to weigh in” you are speaking an untruth. The Church has already weighed-in. Whether you like it or not. You cannot sit back and deny that something has happened, merely because you’re unhappy with the fact.

The Catechism speaks clearly and unambiguously that only men can be validly ordained. You might not find that convenient, but that doesn’t change the fact that it says it.

The 1983 Code says the same. Same comments.

The 1917 Code says the same. Same comments.

Every teaching of the Church, every single time this subject is addressed, the Church has said with absolute clarity that only men can be validly ordained. You might not find that convenient, but that doesn’t change the fact.

 

[FrDavid96]

Honestly, I am still waiting for the Catholic Church to weigh in. No one has posted that yet. …

I am going to call that what it is: that is a lie.

The Church has spoken and I have posted it.

See Catechism of the Catholic Church #1577.

You cannot claim ignorance because you yourself even responded to the post.

 

[po18guy]

The Episcopalian Church is always an option for those who find Catholicism too confining. Honestly. A caveat: you will be losing much more than what you gain.

 

[pnewton]

I most definitely claim ignorance of whether this is a current discipline, which I never denied, or prohibited by theology, which I have yet to see any evidence of. I really do not object to taking a position of waiting on this commission. I have no desire to be more Catholic than the Pope who is doing the same thing, wanting this question, which he could just define, answered correctly.

For those that actually want to read more and not just take anyone’s word for it, I found this, which makes a distinction between Holy Orders and ordination. Again, this is not me playing word games but this EWTN guy exploring the issue.

https://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/AROSEBY.TXT

Here is news on the commision

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vati...omen-deacons-commission-express-diverse-views

Secular news on it:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/02/world/pope-francis-female-deacons/index.html

 

[pnewton]

The Episcopalian Church is always an option for those who find Catholicism too confining.

Pope Francis, I think has done a fine job of eliminating this perception. If we don’t listen to those proof-reading and correcting him, I see no problem.

 

[FrDavid96]

I most definitely claim ignorance of whether this is a current discipline, which I never denied, or prohibited by theology, which I have yet to see any evidence of.

The fact that you choose to deny that the teaching of the Church is there does not change the fact that the teaching of the Church is there.

Read the Catechism.

You might not be aware of this, but the Catechism is the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Maybe you’ve never heard of it before? I could be wrong in assuming that you know what I mean when I write “The Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

Would it help if I, or others here, could provide you with some guidance on the Catechism of the Catholic Church and its purpose and the authority of its teaching.

Whether you like it or not, the Church’s teaching is contained in the Catechism. You cannot claim vincible ignorance—that’s being dishonest.

 

[FrDavid96]

I most definitely claim ignorance of whether this is a current discipline, which I never denied, or prohibited by theology, which I have yet to see any evidence of.

Claiming that you have not seen it is a bold faced lie.

I have posted it and you have responded to the post. You cannot claim that you haven’t read it.

My point here is this: the favorite method employed by those who advocate for the attempted ordination of women (or pretend to have a neutral position) is the age-old method called “the lie.”

People say “I haven’t seen it” or “I don’t see it” when it is right there in front of them.

 

[Mark121359]

There is a little like button for dittoing others now, by the way. Do you have any links for us?

Yes, I’m aware of the little like button thank you very much. Links? You do know how to use Google…right? Besides, FrDavid96’s posts on this particular thread are all the links one searching for truth on this topic really needs.

 

[pnewton]

If I have denied what canon law says, where have I? That is the only link given, both from the time it is quoted in the Catechism and the reference from the Code of Canon Law, which, by the way is also in the Catechism footnote. In fact, I have said:

Canon law is clear women are not to be ordained.

He, only a man can validly be ordained. I have never doubted this. I am really growing weary of the slander over arguments of straw. If any one thinks I have said otherwise, please take these examples to someone well versed in English for an explanation. I have tried to explain, well, English and been called a liar.

 

[pnewton]

For those who respect the Holy Father’s opinion and are interested in his statement.
https://aleteia.org/2016/05/13/complete-transcript-of-pope-francis-remarks-on-women-deacons/

But what are these deaconesses? Were they ordained or not? The Council of Chalcedon (451) speaks about it, but it is somewhat obscure. What was the role of deaconesses at that time?

This, I remember. There are a number of publications on the diaconate in the Church, but it is unclear what it was like. I think that I will ask the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to inform me about the studies on this topic, because I have responded to you based only on what I heard from this priest — who was a scholarly and true researcher — about the permanent diaconate. And also I would like to set up an official commission to study the issue: I think that it will be good for the Church to clarify this point; I agree, and I will speak, to do something of this kind.

 

[FrDavid96]

1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination…

I most definitely claim ignorance of whether this is a current discipline, which I never denied, or prohibited by theology, which I have yet to see any evidence of. …
…

You quoted my post which is itself a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You quote it, and immediately say that you “see no evidence” of the teaching.

So explain to us, what exactly ARE you trying to say?

Are you saying that you do not accept the teaching authority or do not accept the theology of the Catechism (specifically #1577)?

Are you saying that you cannot see it?

Perhaps you are asking about whether #1577 is a matter of discipline or a matter of theology? Is that the case?

If so, the answer is in the text itself. The word “validly” indicates that it is not a matter of discipline; because if it were, then the word would be “licitly” instead of “validly.”

For example, a married man cannot be licitly ordained (a priest in the Latin rite) but he can be validly ordained. This is an irregularity, not a matter of Divine Law.

Your posts where you keep saying that you “don’t see it” SEEM TO BE SAYING that you don’t accept the teaching of the Catechism. That might not be your intent, but it’s coming across that way.

Again, the choice of the word “validly” in the Catechism as opposed to the word “licitly” means that it the teaching of the Church, or to put in other words, the theology of the Church that only a man can receive Ordination.

If this were a matter of discipline only, the Catechism would say “licitly” instead—which it does not.

 

[graciew]

MissTheresse,

Here is Pope Francis’ words:

Vatican City, Jun 27, 2016 / 01:20 pm (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Francis told journalists on Sunday that he was somewhat angered when reports emerged that the Church was allegedly paving the way for the ordination of women to the diaconate, since no such change is in the works.

“The first to be surprised by this news was me,” the Pope said June 26 during an in-flight press briefing en route to Rome following his three-day visit to Armenia.

“They said: ‘The Church opens the door to deaconesses.’ Really? I am a bit angry because this is not telling the truth of things.”

But the part I liked best is this one and yes,I am deliberately and intentionally picking out what I liked…)

“Woman’s thought is important,” he said. Noting how women think differently from men, he said “one cannot make a good decision without listening to women.”

I think he is a very wise man,you know…

 

[lilypadrees]

No female deacons.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

The Episcopalian Church is always an option for those who find Catholicism too confining.

Not for this Irish Catholic. My ancestors moved to the New World to get away from the Church of England, not so I could rejoin it three generations later. I think my great-grands and grands would collectively rise from the dead and smite me if I even considered it.

 

[Charybdis]

In my study for the diaconate over the past six years, we did a lot of research on the early church and especially that of the diaconate. The preponderance of the research indicates that these “deaconesses” were NOT ordained ministers like the men with the laying on of hands. That’s one point.

The other point to all of this is a basic question: is this needed at this particular point in time?

Remember, the bringing back of the permanent diaconate came out of the horrors of WWII when priests in the prison camps and concentration camps in Poland and Germany began to realize a necessity of having people minister where they were, part of the clergy but working and living amongst the laity. Hence, the church considered the diaconate and brought back that order on a peranent basis.

However, just because they did that, why are women deacons needed? Is there a shortfall of male deacons? I don’t believe so.

The answer lies in the sign of the times. No one likes to be left out. And in this age of equality for all, anything that one gender has, the other has to have it too. Not sure where all of this came from or where all of it is going, but we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit to ensure we don’t embark on a road just for the sake of travel. There must be a pressing need and problems to solve in order to make a change like this, and like some have said, right now, ordination for women is not possible.