Why can't women be deacons in the church?

[acanonlawyer]

They can be extraordinary ministers of holy communion. Men and women who are laity that is. Only a bishop, priest, or deacon can be a eucharistic minister.

If we want to be really technical and precise, we should say that “Eucharistic ministers” are bishops and priests, only. They are the only ones who can consecrate the bread and wine and confect (as they say) the Eucharist. Bishops, priests, and deacons are ordinary ministers of Holy Communion (they can “ordinarily” distribute the Sacrament to the faithful). Lay people can be extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion (only when necessary are they able to distribute the Sacrament).

To the point of the thread: it is not just canon law that says, independently of Scripture and Tradition, that only baptized men can be ordained. That canon (1024, if memory serves) is based on and depends on Scripture, Tradition, and sacramental theology. So, it’s not like this is merely disciplinary, ecclesiastical law.

Dan

 

[JerryZ]

Using one’s gifts (talents) to help others is a Church’s teaching!

 

[BlueMaxx]

Submission equals inequality in todays climate…perceived as if they are being denied their right…

1578 No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed no one claims this office for himself; he is called to it by God.69

 

[dochawk]

Why can’t women be deacons, wasn’t Our Holy Mother a deaconess of a sort for the women of the early days of the church?

Deaconesses are not female deacons, even though their service ministries heavily overlap.

There are still, to this day, deaconesses in a couple of EC and EO churches.

Deaconesses do not have Holy Orders (although there are similarities in the ceremonies that consecrate [not ordain!] them).

Also, I moved this to Liturgy and Sacraments, as it’s fundamentally bout a sacrament.

 

[Usige]

To the point of the thread: it is not just canon law that says, independently of Scripture and Tradition, that only baptized men can be ordained. That canon (1024, if memory serves) is based on and depends on Scripture, Tradition, and sacramental theology. So, it’s not like this is merely disciplinary, ecclesiastical law.

Thanks for bringing this up (and the correct distinction between Eucharistic Minister and ordinary Ministers of Holy Communion).

Our professor for Intro to Canon Law often stressed that traditionally theology was under the umbrella of canon law as opposed to a completely separate discipline. He said that to reinforce our understanding that the canons are not just rules, but inform us about who God is and His relationship to us and us to Him.

In that professor’s opinion, allowing females to be ordained is not just a canonical issue, but would require significant changes to our theological understanding of Holy Orders as a single sacrament in 3 grades.

 

[tafan2]

@dochawk

If the Catholic Church was to develop a theological reasoning that flows along the lines of @Magnanimity 's explanation given in post 13, and subsequently start ordaining deacons, how would this affect ecumenical efforts with the Orthodox Churches?

 

[Dovekin]

In some cases, Orthodox churches are ahead of us on this.

30 years ago, a pan-orthodox theological consultation convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch concluded that women were ordained as deaconesses. This is in contrast to Catholic positions that assert that they were not, despite looking at the same evidence.

Individual bishops have made some moves. Ahens had a bishop who was supportive of reestablishing women deacons. The Patriarch of Alexandria (I think) established deaconesses in some African mission territories. They have not beeh ordained, but may be? I have never quite understood their status.

Most Orthodox resist change of any sort, so it is a return to a practice that was stopped, ie reversing a change. Of course, the resistance to change mean many resist this change as well. But there is no simple answer, as if all Orthodox will respond the same way.

I doubt that this question will disrupt dialogue with the Orthodox in the same way it disrupted dialogue with Anglicans.

 

[dochawk]

If the Catholic Church was to develop a theological reasoning that flows along the lines of @Magnanimity 's explanation given in post 13, and subsequently start ordaining deacons, how would this affect ecumenical efforts with the Orthodox Churches?

like a torpedo and the Lusitania . . .

Or like attempted email ordination in the Anglican Church and its relation with Catholicism . . .

Or the Old Catholics and the PNC . . .

30 years ago, a pan-orthodox theological consultation convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch concluded that women were ordained as deaconesses. This is in contrast to Catholic positions that assert that they were not, despite looking at the same evidence.

That’s a gross oversimplification.

There was, indeed, at least one church (perhaps exactly one) that used laying of hands in instituting deacons, in a ritual quite similar to diaconal ordination.

The rest (a strong majority) used a somewhat similar ceremony without laying of hands.

At least one (I think actually a couple) had the deaconesses entering the Holy Place to receive Communion with the clergy (I think they came after the deacons and before the subdeacons, but I"m not sure . . )–but the deacons themselves would already have been in there. Note that the Emperor also entered the Holy Placed at the Hagia Sophia for Communion, and was not clergy. [also, subdeacons were/not higher clergy in the East, as opposed to the RCC]

Anyway, the critical issue is that they were deaconesses, not female deacons, and in no church shared the liturgical role of deacons. The service role was generally identical or close to that of deacons.

Ahens had a bishop who was supportive of reestablishing women deacons.

He could “reestablish” deaconesses. Female deacons would be an “innovation” or worse . . .

There are extensive threads in the archives of the byzcath.org forums from folks who know far more than I do about this . . . (in fact, that’s largely where I learned . . .)

 

[Dovekin]

That’s a gross oversimplification.

And your response is a gross over-obfuscation.

I am not saying anything about whether women were ordained. I am only reporting the conclusions of the 1988 consultation:

1. The apostolic order of deaconesses should be revived. It was never altogether abandoned in the Orthodox Church though it has tended to fall into disuse. There is ample evidence, from apostolic times, from the patristic, canonical and liturgical tradition, well into the Byzantine period (and even in our own day) that this order was held in high honour. The deaconess was ordained within the sanctuary during the Divine Liturgy with two prayers, she received the Orarion (the deacon’s stole) and received Holy Communion at the Altar.

The use of “ordained” in this sentence is significant, and is based on the work of Evangelos Theodorou, theology professor at the University of Athens. His work centered on the difference between 2 term, laying on of hands and blessing of the Church, showing that deaconesses received a laying on of hands. I am not vouching for the accuracy of his conclusion, just pointing to its significance for this particular document.

Some Catholic scholars have reached the opposite conclusion looking at the same evidence. I am not trying to arbitrate the issue. I am just pointing out that there has been significant support for the fact that women were ordained as deaconesses among the Orthodox, and that would have an effect on the question asked.

 

[tafan2]

like a torpedo and the Lusitania . . .

That’s what I had guessed. I doubt if the Germans/Northern Europeans who are driving this agenda (can we all at least admit that the agenda and results of the Amazon Synod was controlled not by the South Americans but imposed by Germans) really care much about establishing communion with the East.

 

[Dovekin]

can we all at least admit that the agenda and results of the Amazon Synod was controlled not by the South Americans but imposed by Germans

No, we cannot “admit” that. It is a very silly conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence. Can you even name any of the conspirators? Or suggest a way they could have exercised control?

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

And women don’t need to be ordained to serve. In fact, neither do men. As a Catholic school teacher, I’m a minister. I have no envy of our pastor. I’m serving, just as he is. No one needs to be ordained to serve, even to serve in a most vital capacity.

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Why can’t women be deacons

Because that’s what scripture tell us. But some women choose to deny the word of God in order to peruse their selfish desire to have authority over man.

 

[Catholic361]

Like in eastern orthodox churches?

 

[Pai_Nosso]

Like in eastern orthodox churches?

Ask God himself

" A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner." *
Timothy 2: 11-14 (NIV)

 

[Mark121359]

“Uh-oh! Take cover!!!

 

[CatholicELATeacher]

I’m complementarian. That’s Biblical. The feminist push for ordaining women? Ego-driven, not Biblical. 'Nuff said

 

[dochawk]

I am just pointing out that there has been significant support for the fact that women were ordained as deaconesses among the Orthodox, and that would have an effect on the question asked.

which is why I avoided using or denying the word “ordain” with regard to deaconesses.

Whether they are a good idea, or bad idea (or for that matter, whether or not female deacons would be possible or not), the fact remains that deaconesses, despite similarity in roles, were not female deacons.

 

[TomH1]

Both men and women can be Eucharistic Ministers.

Only men can be Eucharistic ministers. Eucharistic ministers can celebrate Mass and confect the Eucharist. Only bishops and priests are Eucharistic ministers. Ordained clergy and laymen who distribute the Holy Communion are called ministers of Communion. Laymen are extraordinary* ministers of Holy Communion if they distribute Holy Communion.

*Extraordinary because they are not the ordinary, or normal, ministers. It does not have its sense of being special.

 

[JanR]

Thank you. Another poster has earlier informed me of this. We were always called Eucharistic Ministers in my church, but I now know that was in error. I guess the term was used less formally in our parish. Only here have I learned that they are really extraordinary ministers. So, now I’ve learned something.