Thanks, Fergal. This is very helpful, though, the second to last paragraph has me still curious.You might like to know that the International Theological Commission has reported on the very question and have replied in the negative. It won’t happen.
Read ewtn.com/library/CURIA/ITCDIACO.HTM for more details.
It seems a gender distinction to me as well. Priest/Priestess Actor/Actress (before it became politically correct to say actor for both).Oh, ok - Thanks! I don’t make that distinction in office really - seems to me to be a gender distinction there, for, certainly a man will never be a deaconess or a priestess.
David
Nice points TrueLightIt seems a gender distinction to me as well. Priest/Priestess Actor/Actress (before it became politically correct to say actor for both).
I would love to read more about these early deaconesses and see if in fact their roles were different.
By the way, you can have two financial analysts whose expertise and duties lie in different areas. Obviously, the order of the deaconess is not secular, but why can’t a legitimate woman deacon in the early church still be a deacon even though her duties may be a little different?
Assisting at the alter does not seem to be an option for women.In reference to a couple of comments here - if the women deacons of Jesus’s time would be known as nuns in our time, does this mean that they were all celibate? And if so, then why are today’s male permanent deacons, allowed to marry? And if they can marry, then they are different from transitional deacons and priests, so if they can juggle those demands with the demands of family life, why can’t women? I understand that the reason for keeping women away from the priesthood is so that they can concentrate all of their efforts on motherhood?
Also, someone said if women were allowed to perform “some” of the duties of a priest, the lines may get blurred… what about Eucharistic Ministers? I served as an EM and made house calls and brought Our Lord to nursing home residents, admitedly tasks I believe should remain with the priest. (I trained for the ministry thinking I’d be assisting at the altar, as a helper to the priest, not as his replacement outside the church).
I wanted to repost this because I would like if someone can help me with discerning whether the book mentioned should be in a Catholic library if there is no hope for women partaking in Holy Orders. It is a good book with a lot of historical references and the references contain documentary for and against women priests or deacons. However, the commentary is obviously trying to sway the reader to gain another advocate. Can someone please respond?Thanks, David. I will read your article in just a bit. I have been reading up on this for some time and agree with the arguments put forth here. What lead me to this question is finding a book “Ordained Women in the Early Church” by Kevin Madigan and Carolyn Osiek in my Church’s future library. I asked the DRE if I could take it and read it since I thought it had no place in the library of a Catholic Church parish. After reading the book, I was quite intrigued though I was not convinced. The book basically lays out all the documentary history that we have pertaining to women deaconesses and what their roles were. The primary roles seemed to be assisting in the baptism of women and heading a monastery and overseeing other religious females consecrated to the Lord. However, there were many references that could go either way regarding their ministerial or liturgical roles. The authors, of course, took this to their advantage to point out that the possibility of these deaconesses partaking in liturgical worship was more than likely. It also seemed that the documents that had this vague understanding were concerned with Christians that were likely schismatic or heretical.
ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS was published in 1994 and this book was published in 2005. I just wonder why this book, written by a sister of the Church, would have been inked if there was submission to Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter. It seems like the project would have been terminated knowing the Church’s official stance. Does anyone think this book should be permitted in the parish library? I think it could give readers a very false idea of where the Church stands on this.
Pax Christi.
I don’t know if the women in the early church were married or not that carried that title. However, todays nuns are celebate not as a dogma of the church but as a dicipline of their order. If the order changed that or a new order came about that allowed for married nuns their would be no problem.In reference to a couple of comments here - if the women deacons of Jesus’s time would be known as nuns in our time, does this mean that they were all celibate? And if so, then why are today’s male permanent deacons, allowed to marry? And if they can marry, then they are different from transitional deacons and priests, so if they can juggle those demands with the demands of family life, why can’t women? I understand that the reason for keeping women away from the priesthood is so that they can concentrate all of their efforts on motherhood?
Also, someone said if women were allowed to perform “some” of the duties of a priest, the lines may get blurred… what about Eucharistic Ministers? I served as an EM and made house calls and brought Our Lord to nursing home residents, admitedly tasks I believe should remain with the priest. (I trained for the ministry thinking I’d be assisting at the altar, as a helper to the priest, not as his replacement outside the church).
I’m sorry, but how does this answer my questions? How is going up to the altar and standing next to the priest, receiving the Eucharist from him and then going off the altar to distribute Holy Communion, then brining the Cup back and placing it on the altar, and then going right up to the Tabernaculum to “purify” my fingertips - how is this NOT assisting at the altar?Assisting at the alter does not seem to be an option for women.
Pax Christi.
Thanks for yor thoughts - this is a fascinating concept, namely an order of married nuns. It sounds like a lay association to an otherwise celibate order that are in existence today. It’s almost as if a married couple would both want to be members of a convent/monestary for married nuns/monks, and live on a sort of commune. Otherwise, it’s be hard to find a large enough number of married women in the same region who also would want to be nuns, or for such women to commute, as that wouldn’t be much of a community.I don’t know if the women in the early church were married or not that carried that title. However, todays nuns are celebate not as a dogma of the church but as a dicipline of their order. If the order changed that or a new order came about that allowed for married nuns their would be no problem.
You know what I mean. I mean during the Consecration. EMOHC is an abused office. They are not supposed to be used except in EXTRAORDINARY situations. My parish uses them every Mass.I’m sorry, but how does this answer my questions? How is going up to the altar and standing next to the priest, receiving the Eucharist from him and then going off the altar to distribute Holy Communion, then brining the Cup back and placing it on the altar, and then going right up to the Tabernaculum to “purify” my fingertips - how is this NOT assisting at the altar?