Will "Altar Girls" lead to Women Priests?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rence, did the woman “deacon” read the Gospel readings at Mass on Sundays?
I honestly don’t remember. This was over 20 years ago. I remember she used to distribute Communion (along with the other Eucharistic Ministers), and she used to be off busy doing things for the parish. There is no way for me to tell you if she was in a traditional deacon role, or the apparent new role that is upsetting everyone, because I just don’t remember, and I wasn’t involved (or a part of) anything she did for the parish. Sorry I can’t help you understand her role any more than that. But my mom and I clearly remember that she was distinguished as being a “deacon”.
 
OK, I did a little research (Google and the USCCB website are my friends).

In 2003 there was a discussion between the Eastern Churches (of the Latin Rite) and the Latin rite churches, chaired by Albany Bishop Hubbard.

According to the article, there had been a practice for female ‘deacons’ in the Armenian Church historically but this practice had pretty much died out (as of 2003).

Furthermore, the role of women in this was much more ‘limited’ than that of the male diaconate.

In the Coptic Church they were restoring the ‘female dioconate’ in three SUBORDERS: one for the role of female reader, one for subdeaconess, and one for deaconess. NONE of the three was to be permitted in service to the altar or sacerdotal service. They assisted in the baptism of women and in service to women and children.

In the Syrian churches the only role for a female deaconness is that of chanter, to sing the hymns. In other groups of that rite, "deaconnesses’ were the WIVES of deacons.

It is further noted in the article that women are not currently in the Latin rite considered for the role of deacon or deaconness, and that IF there is currently not a specific answer as to if woman MAY be ordained deacons at some point, this is NOT a practice, has NOT been a practice for CENTURIES, and would take Papal sanction if indeed it was to occur.

Therefore: It seems that whatever church Rence attended, unless it was an eastern rite church and the “deacon” was actually a ‘deaconness’ with specific function according to that church’s rite–was acting in opposition to current authentic church teaching as to women as deacons/deaconesses.
Yup.

Here is a very interesting discussion of the topic:ewtn.com/library/CANONLAW/WOMENDEA.htm
 
That’s jumping the gun a little, I would say. We need a clear definition of “deacons” before we say they are allowed.
So then it’s possible that these Churches that have deaconesses are assigning them functions that are acceptable.
 
I honestly don’t remember. This was over 20 years ago. I remember she used to distribute Communion (along with the other Eucharistic Ministers), and she used to be off busy doing things for the parish. There is no way for me to tell you if she was in a traditional deacon role, or the apparent new role that is upsetting everyone, because I just don’t remember, and I wasn’t involved (or a part of) anything she did for the parish. Sorry I can’t help you understand her role any more than that. But my mom and I clearly remember that she was distinguished as being a “deacon”.
So, was it an eastern rite parish, Rence?

If not, it sounds like your parish really made a major boo-boo. Look, I remember the 90s (and the 80s, the 70s, even the 60s). . .I can recall some parishes which did some really, really wrong stuff and it wasn’t that the bishop didn’t care --the bishop didn’t really **know all the gory details. **There were quite a few priests and even some bishops who thought that anything the pastor wanted to ‘try out’ was perfectly all right. They were wrong, of course.

Can we at least agree that no matter what she was ‘wrongfully’ called, according to Catholic teaching (and we’ve brought up plenty of documentation), no matter what St. Experimentius and its pastor and/or bishop thought up as a cool thing in 1980 something, there is no such thing as a woman deacon. There has not been a female deacon in the Latin rites for centuries. Any woman who got ‘called’ such would have been in error, and those who called her that were in error.
 
So then it’s possible that these Churches that have deaconesses are assigning them functions that are acceptable.
Again…no. There have not been women “deaconesses” in the Roman Catholic Church for many, many centuries; even then, they may or may not have fulfilled the same sacramental role as male deacons. Anyone who thinks or believes otherwise is sadly mistaken. No matter what they called that woman in your parish, she was not a legitimately ordained deacon.

As you did not state it was one of the Eastern churches who used the term deacon to describe women performing certain limited functions, I assume you have been referring to a Latin rite parish.
 
So then it’s possible that these Churches that have deaconesses are assigning them functions that are acceptable.
Rence, unless they are from the rites that I listed (and it doesn’t seem that they are), they cannot just go about calling women ‘deaconesses’, claiming to lay hands or ‘ordain’, EVEN IF they give them functions limited as in the eastern rites.

The question of whether a woman can serve as a deacon or deaconess in the Latin rites is (according to some) open to debate–but AS IT STANDS a woman may not be ordained a 'deacon or deaconess.

THEREFORE, for some priest/bishop to go around and start calling women ‘deaconnesses’ is WRONG. Since we know that women may not be ordained as such, why would we ‘create’ a role and then call it by a name which in current teaching they CANNOT BEAR?? Wow, how confusing!
 
So, was it an eastern rite parish, Rence?

If not, it sounds like your parish really made a major boo-boo. Look, I remember the 90s (and the 80s, the 70s, even the 60s). . .I can recall some parishes which did some really, really wrong stuff and it wasn’t that the bishop didn’t care --the bishop didn’t really **know all the gory details. **There were quite a few priests and even some bishops who thought that anything the pastor wanted to ‘try out’ was perfectly all right. They were wrong, of course.

Can we at least agree that no matter what she was ‘wrongfully’ called, according to Catholic teaching (and we’ve brought up plenty of documentation), no matter what St. Experimentius and its pastor and/or bishop thought up as a cool thing in 1980 something, there is no such thing as a woman deacon. There has not been a female deacon in the Latin rites for centuries. Any woman who got ‘called’ such would have been in error, and those who called her that were in error.
“St. Experimentius”…love it! Sad, but appropriate.
 
Again…no. There have not been women “deaconesses” in the Roman Catholic Church for many, many centuries; even then, they may or may not have fulfilled the same sacramental role as male deacons. Anyone who thinks or believes otherwise is sadly mistaken. No matter what they called that woman in your parish, she was not a legitimately ordained deacon.

As you did not state it was one of the Eastern churches who used the term deacon to describe women performing certain limited functions, I assume you have been referring to a Latin rite parish.
Sorry, I didn’t realize some people refer to Eastern Churches as Roman Catholic Churches. It wouldn’t have occured to me to do so. So, yes, this was a Latin rite parish that had a deaconess. It was not an Eastern Church, or Orthodox Church.
 
I swear to goodness, it seems we Catholics are our own worst enemies sometimes.

Look, I know I’m a sinner, I know I’m fallible, and sometimes (gasp) I’ve even been wrong about some things. Of course, if I am shown to be in error, I am delighted (sorta) to get the correct information, to apologize for being in error, and to then reject the error and embrace the truth.

Now, I don’t deny that there are some things that I have long thought were ‘true’, which were very important to me, and which were both extremely hard to reject and which I still in a sense ‘miss’. It’s not easy to acknowledge error. It’s not easy to accept that you may have spent years believing ‘wrongly’. . .especially if you have loving memories of the error (in a way) or of those who taught you. It’s REALLY hard when the error is something that is much more widely accepted and ‘loved’ than the actual truth, and when embracing the truth gets you called names and judged (misjudged usually).

So I don’t expect people to immediately ‘accept’ when they’ve been wrong. It takes time. It takes effort. It takes a certain humility. And it takes God’s grace.

I just hope that the Truth (hard as it might seem when compared to the many ‘allurements’ of untruths) will be able to set all free.
 
Sorry, I didn’t realize some people refer to Eastern Churches as Roman Catholic Churches. It wouldn’t have occured to me to do so. So, yes, this was a Latin rite parish that had a deaconess. It was not an Eastern Church, or Orthodox Church.
Ouch. Then (sorry Rence). . .this was a parish which did something quite wrong.
 
So then it’s possible that these Churches that have deaconesses are assigning them functions that are acceptable.
Not only acceptable but necessary in the baptisms of females in the early church since naked full immersion was required for baptism. Question I have is if any member of the laity could baptize back then when danger of death was present.
 
It would be a great sign of a Christian heart if people could be kind in word and deed when dealing with one another. No matter what the subject matter, no matter the question…a Christian tongue should be the rule.
For the record, when I said the Church will not ever have women priests, it isn’t because of what I think, I’m just repeating what the Church herself says. I’m not relating what I think…or how I feel…or what I would like to see or not see. I’m just relating what the Church teaches.
As for the original premise of the question: “Will the use of girls as servers lead to the ordination of women priest”… the Church says no, but that is because the Church says it doesn’t have the authority to do so.
The practice of girls serving on the altar was introduced to allow for role of server and reader to be met in congregations of women…either in cloister or active-contemplative communities, or in “all-girl” schools, or areas where a male server would not otherwise be available. In those cases, women would be allowed to serve. It was not the intention, even if it is now accepted practice, for woman to serve in the “minor orders” of acolyte or lector.
Today, only men may be formally installed into these functions and are understood to be steps toward ordination. Woman are not formerly installed, nor can they be. It is, like priesthood, reserved to men alone.
If a parish priest does offer some type of installation to his servers, either men or women, it is not the same as when a man is installed to the service of Acolyte and Lector.
When men are installed as Lector and Acolyte, it is done by the local Ordinary…or bishop alone or to another priest the bishop designates.
No one else, even a priest or pastor, can “officially” install someone into these functions unless explicitly designated by the bishop…and even in those cases, the bishop hasn’t the power to formally install a woman…at least as far as the Church is concerned. To do so would result in an act of schism.
“Blessing Ceremonies” in the parish are just that…blessings. They are not to be understood as an endorsement into the “minor Orders”.
We have to understand, in both sign and substance, unity with the Church resides in the local Ordinary who is in union with the Bishop of Rome. It isn’t a matter of opinion, choice, free-will, belief, feelings, rights, justice, fairness, perceptions, conviction, action, purpose, need, or fantasy. It simply is what it is. Reserved to the Deposit of the Faith. It isn’t a relative thing. Only the Church can ordain and the Church cannot ordain women.
I do have tremendous empathy for women who pine in the hearts to serve as priests. I have genuine sympathy for women who believe that they are called to priesthood. It must be very, very painful. Some of these women provide great acts of pastoral care and Christian Charity, and to be completely frank, some might be better at pastoral sensitivity than many validly ordained priests. But no matter how much these women want to be ordained and no matter how much they believe they have been called by God, in the end they have to trust that the institution they profess to believe in, and have a great desire to serve, can and does discern the nature of Holy Orders. This is the very reason Christ installed his Church…to discern. We either accept the nature of the Church or we wail against the night.
My prayer is that we all surrender our hopes, dreams, desires, opinions, wills, et., etc., etc., to the Will of God as revealed through Christ and his Church. That’s not easy for any of us.
 
In reality, a woman can not have a calling to the priesthood. All calling to the priesthood is a calling from God. John 15: [16] You have not chosen me: but I have chosen you; and have appointed you, that you should go, and should bring forth fruit; and your fruit should remain: that whatsoever you shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you. Since God does not and can not contradict Himself, He would never call a woman to a vocation that is an impossibility for her, according to the way His Son set up His Church. He set up the Church for an all male priesthood. Therefore, He would never call a woman to become a priest. If women feel a calling, it is probably to the consecrated or religious life and they misinterprate God’s call; of course, on another note. Perhaps their “calling” is from The Devil wishing to destroy THe Church.
It would be a great sign of a Christian heart if people could be kind in word and deed when dealing with one another. No matter what the subject matter, no matter the question…a Christian tongue should be the rule.
For the record, when I said the Church will not ever have women priests, it isn’t because of what I think, I’m just repeating what the Church herself says. I’m not relating what I think…or how I feel…or what I would like to see or not see. I’m just relating what the Church teaches.
As for the original premise of the question: “Will the use of girls as servers lead to the ordination of women priest”… the Church says no, but that is because the Church says it doesn’t have the authority to do so.
The practice of girls serving on the altar was introduced to allow for role of server and reader to be met in congregations of women…either in cloister or active-contemplative communities, or in “all-girl” schools, or areas where a male server would not otherwise be available. In those cases, women would be allowed to serve. It was not the intention, even if it is now accepted practice, for woman to serve in the “minor orders” of acolyte or lector.
Today, only men may be formally installed into these functions and are understood to be steps toward ordination. Woman are not formerly installed, nor can they be. It is, like priesthood, reserved to men alone.
If a parish priest does offer some type of installation to his servers, either men or women, it is not the same as when a man is installed to the service of Acolyte and Lector.
When men are installed as Lector and Acolyte, it is done by the local Ordinary…or bishop alone or to another priest the bishop designates.
No one else, even a priest or pastor, can “officially” install someone into these functions unless explicitly designated by the bishop…and even in those cases, the bishop hasn’t the power to formally install a woman…at least as far as the Church is concerned. To do so would result in an act of schism.
“Blessing Ceremonies” in the parish are just that…blessings. They are not to be understood as an endorsement into the “minor Orders”.
We have to understand, in both sign and substance, unity with the Church resides in the local Ordinary who is in union with the Bishop of Rome. It isn’t a matter of opinion, choice, free-will, belief, feelings, rights, justice, fairness, perceptions, conviction, action, purpose, need, or fantasy. It simply is what it is. Reserved to the Deposit of the Faith. It isn’t a relative thing. Only the Church can ordain and the Church cannot ordain women.
I do have tremendous empathy for women who pine in the hearts to serve as priests. I have genuine sympathy for women who believe that they are called to priesthood. It must be very, very painful. Some of these women provide great acts of pastoral care and Christian Charity, and to be completely frank, some might be better at pastoral sensitivity than many validly ordained priests. But no matter how much these women want to be ordained and no matter how much they believe they have been called by God, in the end they have to trust that the institution they profess to believe in, and have a great desire to serve, can and does discern the nature of Holy Orders. This is the very reason Christ installed his Church…to discern. We either accept the nature of the Church or we wail against the night.
My prayer is that we all surrender our hopes, dreams, desires, opinions, wills, et., etc., etc., to the Will of God as revealed through Christ and his Church. That’s not easy for any of us.
 
Not only acceptable but necessary in the baptisms of females in the early church since naked full immersion was required for baptism. Question I have is if any member of the laity could baptize back then when danger of death was present.
No, no, no. Rence is talking about the present, not centuries ago. It is presently not acceptable that women in parishes today are called deaconesses.
 
Today, only men may be formally installed into these functions and are understood to be steps toward ordination.

While, unfortunately, some dioceses, indeed some national conferences including Canada’s, will not allow men to be instituted (not installed) as Lectors or Acolytes unless they are seeking ordination to the permanent or transitional diaconate, the ministry IS meant to be open to men who only want to serve in those ministries but who have no desire to be ordained. In the US only a few dioceses (Lincoln, Neb., for one) institute men to those ministries.

Woman are not formerly installed, nor can they be. It is, like priesthood, reserved to men alone. If a parish priest does offer some type of installation to his servers, either men or women, it is not the same as when a man is installed to the service of Acolyte and Lector.

EMHCs, altar servers and readers are usually ‘commissioned’ to serve although maybe the term varies by country.
 
Ok :confused:

My sixth grade female teacher, was made a deacon, in the Roman Catholic Church that ran the Roman Catholic grammar school that I attended.
Canon Law is quite clear. I guess no one has actually linked any thing yet, so:
deacons.net/Articles/CanonLaw.htm%between%
Only confirmed (Canon 1033) baptised males validly receives sacred orders (Canon 1024) who freely request ordination (Canon 1026), and have received an accurate formation (Canon 1027). Such candidates must be judged by the proper ordinary to be motivated by a right intention, possess the required knowledge, enjoy a good reputation, morals, and proven virtues (Canon 1029).
Women that are “ordained” as deacons are no more deacons than women that think they are priests. The lack valid substance for the Sacrament. It is not only illicit, it is invalid, meaning ordination does not take place. We can no more have a woman deacon than we can have a steak Eucharist.
 
It would be a great sign of a Christian heart if people could be kind in word and deed when dealing with one another. No matter what the subject matter, no matter the question…a Christian tongue should be the rule.
For the record, when I said the Church will not ever have women priests, it isn’t because of what I think, I’m just repeating what the Church herself says. I’m not relating what I think…or how I feel…or what I would like to see or not see. I’m just relating what the Church teaches.
As for the original premise of the question: “Will the use of girls as servers lead to the ordination of women priest”… the Church says no, but that is because the Church says it doesn’t have the authority to do so.
The practice of girls serving on the altar was introduced to allow for role of server and reader to be met in congregations of women…either in cloister or active-contemplative communities, or in “all-girl” schools, or areas where a male server would not otherwise be available. In those cases, women would be allowed to serve. It was not the intention, even if it is now accepted practice, for woman to serve in the “minor orders” of acolyte or lector.
Today, only men may be formally installed into these functions and are understood to be steps toward ordination. Woman are not formerly installed, nor can they be. It is, like priesthood, reserved to men alone.
If a parish priest does offer some type of installation to his servers, either men or women, it is not the same as when a man is installed to the service of Acolyte and Lector.
When men are installed as Lector and Acolyte, it is done by the local Ordinary…or bishop alone or to another priest the bishop designates.
No one else, even a priest or pastor, can “officially” install someone into these functions unless explicitly designated by the bishop…and even in those cases, the bishop hasn’t the power to formally install a woman…at least as far as the Church is concerned. To do so would result in an act of schism.
“Blessing Ceremonies” in the parish are just that…blessings. They are not to be understood as an endorsement into the “minor Orders”.
We have to understand, in both sign and substance, unity with the Church resides in the local Ordinary who is in union with the Bishop of Rome. It isn’t a matter of opinion, choice, free-will, belief, feelings, rights, justice, fairness, perceptions, conviction, action, purpose, need, or fantasy. It simply is what it is. Reserved to the Deposit of the Faith. It isn’t a relative thing. Only the Church can ordain and the Church cannot ordain women.
I do have tremendous empathy for women who pine in the hearts to serve as priests. I have genuine sympathy for women who believe that they are called to priesthood. It must be very, very painful. Some of these women provide great acts of pastoral care and Christian Charity, and to be completely frank, some might be better at pastoral sensitivity than many validly ordained priests. But no matter how much these women want to be ordained and no matter how much they believe they have been called by God, in the end they have to trust that the institution they profess to believe in, and have a great desire to serve, can and does discern the nature of Holy Orders. This is the very reason Christ installed his Church…to discern. We either accept the nature of the Church or we wail against the night.
My prayer is that we all surrender our hopes, dreams, desires, opinions, wills, et., etc., etc., to the Will of God as revealed through Christ and his Church. That’s not easy for any of us.
Jimmy, you explained this “thoughtfully, thoroughly and with the utmost respect” to those who are still on the journey. Simply saying “no, not allowed”…will always beg further questions. You, sir, explained it very well with Christian charity. Your recognition of woman in the Church speaks volumes of their value as human beings. Your empathy that there are ** …"women who pine in their hearts to serve as priests. I have genuine sympathy for women who believe that they are called to priesthood. "**.

thanks:)
 
Most men are not even at Church today, you couldn’t fill a whole side of the church with men at the mass I go to, you couldn’t even fill the front row if you excluded men over forty.
Hey! I’m over forty - are you saying that we take up more than our share of the pew?:rolleyes:

I don’t see this at all. Men and women, husbands and wives. Now, granted, they might be wearing shorts, but that is for another thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top