Women Deacons

[Struggling Sinner]

"Those" would be people who do not understand that one's conduct or beliefs has zero to do with whethere they are Catholic or not. If they are Baptised Catholic, they are Catholics for life or until they make a formal act of defection - which there is not even a current definition of.

Someone can be a heretic and still be considered a Catholic? What about the fact that heretics are automatically excommunicated? Doesn't being excommunicated mean that a person can no longer be considered Catholic?

 

[AvilaSurfer]

I asked you for a definative document on women in the diaconate and you cited a church document that speaks solely of PRIESTLY ordination. The authors of teh document felt the need to qualify the word "ordination" with "priestly." So you have failed to provide a church document on the ordination of women to the diaconate.

Try the Catechism then, since you seem confused.

 

[Struggling Sinner]

Try the Catechism then, since you seem confused.

If she never gives up this vain pursuit she will spend her whole life being angry and bitter.

 

[MikeK]

Doesn't being excommunicated mean that a person can no longer be considered Catholic?

No it does not. Excomunicated Catholics are every bit as Catholic as the Pope. They may not partake of the Sacraments other than Penance and Last Rites, but they are still Catholic.

 

[Struggling Sinner]

No it does not. Excomunicated Catholics are every bit as Catholic as the Pope.

So that would include the ultra-traditionalist sedevacantists who believe that they are more Catholic than the Pope?

 

[MikeK]

So that would include the ultra-traditionalist sedevacantists who believe that they are more Catholic than the Pope?

Most certainly. Still Catholic, just not very good at it.

 

[KatherineS]

A female deacon would be different from a deaconess....

Well, it is the same word in the Greek language. Your positon is that men and women both held offices titled deacons, but despite the same title, they were different offices.

An interesting argument that I'm willing to talk over.

It might be the basis of saying women could be priests so long as we recognize that a woman priest is not a sacramental priest like a male priest is.

 

[KatherineS]

Try the Catechism then, since you seem confused.

Well, I asked you fro a church document that speaks to women in the diacaonate and you were unable to come up with one. So if you are now hinting the CCC says this, please provide a cite.

Otherwise it seems you are empty handed onthis one.

 

[Gwendolyn]

So that would include the ultra-traditionalist sedevacantists who believe that they are more Catholic than the Pope?

If you are talking about the SSPX, they are in schism.

 

[Struggling Sinner]

If you are talking about the SSPX, they are in schism.

What's the difference between that and being excommunicated? Never mind, I think I know. A group of people are in schism when they follow a bishop who was excommunicated.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Well, I asked you fro a church document that speaks to women in the diacaonate and you were unable to come up with one. So if you are now hinting the CCC says this, please provide a cite.

Otherwise it seems you are empty handed onthis one.

Oh good lord.

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

married men can be ordained as deacons

ntegration into one of these bodies in the Church was accomplished by a rite called ordinatio, a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. Today the word "ordination" is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons,

 

[KatherineS]

After your huge failure on the first attempt, you now have a document which is at least vague on this question.


I. WHY IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED "ORDERS"?
1537 The word order in Roman antiquity designated an established civil body, especially a governing body. Ordinatio means incorporation into an ordo. In the Church there are established bodies which Tradition, not without a basis in Sacred Scripture,4 has since ancient times called taxeis (Greek) or ordines. And so the liturgy speaks of the ordo episcoporum, the ordo presbyterorum, the ordo diaconorum. Other groups also receive this name of ordo: catechumens, virgins, spouses, widows,. . . .

[note this does not place women deacons in this catagory, leaving them unmentioned]
1538 Integration into one of these bodies in the Church was accomplished by a rite called ordinatio, a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. Today the word "ordination" is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, ...

[and the current discipline TODAY is to reserve the diaconate to men, unlike the past]

....The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination.

[so women deacons were giving the visible sign (laying on of hands and the consecratory ) that symbolizes ordination. ]

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, it is the same word in the Greek language. Your positon is that men and women both held offices titled deacons, but despite the same title, they were different offices.

An interesting argument that I'm willing to talk over.

It might be the basis of saying women could be priests so long as we recognize that a woman priest is not a sacramental priest like a male priest is.

I don't care if you call them the same thing, frankly. They're not. I've already shown you how they're different in what they are tasked to do. Frankly, deacons do different functions in other faiths than they do in the Catholic faith.

The key point I'm making is that ordination is for men only, in the Catholic Church, and that is doctrine. Infallibly pronounced. Women are not to be ordained. So, since being a deacon requires ordination, and women are not to be ordained, therefore, women are not to be deacons.

This is called obedience to the Sacred Magisterium...

 

[Root of Jesse]

After your huge failure on the first attempt, you now have a document which is at least vague on this question.


I. WHY IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED "ORDERS"?
1537 The word order in Roman antiquity designated an established civil body, especially a governing body. Ordinatio means incorporation into an ordo. In the Church there are established bodies which Tradition, not without a basis in Sacred Scripture,4 has since ancient times called taxeis (Greek) or ordines. And so the liturgy speaks of the ordo episcoporum, the ordo presbyterorum, the ordo diaconorum. Other groups also receive this name of ordo: catechumens, virgins, spouses, widows,. . . .

[note this does not place women deacons in this catagory, leaving them unmentioned]
1538 Integration into one of these bodies in the Church was accomplished by a rite called ordinatio, a religious and liturgical act which was a consecration, a blessing or a sacrament. Today the word "ordination" is reserved for the sacramental act which integrates a man into the order of bishops, presbyters, or deacons, ...

[and the current discipline TODAY is to reserve the diaconate to men, unlike the past]

....The laying on of hands by the bishop, with the consecratory prayer, constitutes the visible sign of this ordination.

[so women deacons were giving the visible sign (laying on of hands and the consecratory ) that symbolizes ordination. ]

None of those 'explanations' you put in brackets has any basis in truth. Women deacons goes unmentioned because there were none. Deaconesses were not deacons, they were lay people who helped in matters where men and women should not be alone together. (FWIW, I think there is a call for some of this today). There is no proof that women were ordained.

 

[Davidnic]

Again. Don't know how all of this is getting ignored over and over again in favor of the propaganda from women priest sites and those who twist ancient sources. And again, same source that has the form of blessing that makes a deaconess says:


"nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons"

and that is also verified by multiple councils.

So not Holy Orders.

the library is indeed a wonderful place. I work in one of the top 5 public ARL ranked research libraries and have done the research on the document and I will state that the information from the sites online where you are quoting are 100% manipulated, mistranslated and inaccurate.

I have personally looked at the six microfiche of the codex in our collection as well as well as the Codex Barberini Gr. 336 (which is actually the correct citation not the often used 366) Latinus in our collection; also sourced as L'eucologio BarberiniGr. 336 (Ff. 1-263), ed Stefano Parentiand Elena Velkovska and contained in part in La Bibliothèque Vaticane de Sixte IV à Pie XI: recherches sur l'histoire des collections de manuscrits by Bignami Odier,Jeanne 1973, Studi e testi (Biblioteca apostolica vaticana), Volume 272., xviii, 477.

And I have read the Apostolic Constitutions, which we also have access to. I looked it all up years ago when I first read these claims. And the invocation of the Holy Spirit is not of Sacramental Character in the female form of the rite and is of Sacramental Character in the male form.

And will state the reason you only find the claims on the agenda driven site like women priests is because the claims are false, inaccurate and misleading. Where Ott and Denzinger are correct. Whenever the citations come up in serious religious journals they are refuted.

Just like Jim said, he was in the formation program for deacons and was given the correct information.

The fact remains the rituals are not identical with only pronoun changes. The differences are far greater. There are invocation of the Holy Spirit differences and induction to the mysteries differences, and differences in bowing and kneeling that are important in the ancient rites. And multiple councils have ruled on it as not being in the character of Sacramental. I provided the sources for that from New Advent and Ludwig Ott, who takes them as well from Denzinger.

So do you want to disprove Ott and Denzinger and their sources? I have yet to see you do that.

You say it with no source except women priest websites. Ott and Denzinger (respected scholars) cite primary sources to contradict it. I do not offer my word on it, I put forth the respected scholars. I also looked at the sources myself.

So unless you can refute Ott and Denzinger and the multiple councils cited; I would say the answer to the validity of the claim is evident to anyone who does research. And remember we are talking about Eastern form here...want to ask our Eastern Brothers and Sisters about the importance of things like Epiklesis (calling the Holy Spirit) in Sacraments? It is usually discussed in relation the the Eucharist. But give it a whirl on the concept of women deacons and laying on hands with weaker and stronger calling upon the Holy Spirit in relation to Sacramental Character.

Also this relating to the forms in the apostolic constitutions: link

There was not. There was a rite referred to as ordination that lacks an actual invocation of the Holy Spirit in the Sacramental form. This is a pretty good explanation on the forms in the Apostolic Constitutions and their differences and why that is important: link

And the forms from the women priest and other sites are really poor and manipulated translations.

The existence of such rights point to nothing more than a specialized office that assisted with Sacraments with women. Not a Sacramental office with holy orders like a male deacon. And the canons and rulings of multiple councils back this up.

Almost all functions of a female deacons were absorbed in the west into the role of a nun or, over time, taken by the male deacons and priests as notions of when a man could be alone with a woman eased.

Ahh the Phyllis Zango deception on the Armenian and Greek issue. She twists what they theologically do. Zango plays fast and loose with facts and her open letter contains many assumptions and errors (link). As do her atrocious articles and book.

I will not speak for my Orthodox brothers and sisters and you should not either. You are free to ask them if they have women with the Sacrament of Holy orders in their Church. Not as a small s sacramental but having capital S Sacramental Character of Holy Orders. I already know the answer. But if you want to know what they think of Zango's assertions that the Sacrament of Holy Orders can be given to a woman...see how that goes. Understand of course that East and West use terms like Sacramental, sacramental...different at times. The same as with Order, Holy Orders...order..mystery, Holy Mysteries...And part of why Zango and other are able to manipulate the truth is their reliance on the West to be mostly ignorant of these differences.


You are simply misunderstanding the issues of what makes (speaking in a Western sense) a Sacramental (capital S) Ordination as opposed to a sacramental (small s) elevation or blessing.

Do you understand the nature of the invocation of the Holy Spirit in a Sacramental way? You say the author does not do it very well. It is actually very theologically well spoken. You simply do not want to see it.

An Abbess is made by the imposition of hands and in some ancient texts is given a miter...but she is not given Holy Orders and is not a Bishop. There are also a myriad of blessings and elevations with mention of the Holy Spirit and the imposition of hands. So that is not an issue. Some think it is but the issue is the invocation of the Holy Spirit in a Sacramental way not as a blessing.

So there are blessings and elevations that have imposition of hands and calling on the Holy Spirit. But what is needed is an invocation of the Holy Spirit that rises to the level required for the Sacrament.

The same Apostolic Constitutions that contain the blessing explicitly state:

"A deaconess does not bless, nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons, but only is to keep the doors, and to minister to the in the of women, on account of decency."

So obviously if you are arguing that the ordination has the character of a Sacrament...the same Apostolic Constitutions that contain the rite..contain the description that limits what can be done and shows that have nothing belonging to the office of priests or deacons.

So why would the Apostolic Constitutions say that a Deaconess:

"nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons"

That and the difference in the actual Sacramental invocation of the Holy Spirit make the ancient practice clear and shows the manipulation of the texts by agenda driven sites.

Or you could look up how the Orthodox used the Ancient office: link

 

[Davidnic]

I mean all of the dodging an sophistry to justify it is amusing. But ultimately...just adding posts.

 

[Struggling Sinner]

Code of Canon Law

Can. 1009 §1. The orders are the episcopate, the presbyterate, and the diaconate.
Can. 1024 A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.

And this.

 

[Davidnic]

So councils and the ancient sources that contain the rite being referred to also say: "nor perform anything belonging to the office of presbyters or deacons" or similar instructions.

canon law lists the diaconate as one of the Orders in Holy Orders...which JPII confirms is for men only.

So ancient and confirmed in 1992 or 1993. Whatever a deaconess received, it was not sacramental orders.

Proven over and over again.

So if there were modern Deaconesses they would not serve the same function as deacons. And the functions they historically served are now served by nuns or not needed anymore.

 

[KatherineS]

I don't care if you call them the same thing, frankly. They're not.

I respect that opinion. Some make the case that women deacons and male deacons were different offices sharing a common name. I'm happy to continue the discussion from that point.

 

[Struggling Sinner]

I respect that opinion. Some make the case that women deacons and male deacons were different offices sharing a common name. I'm hapy to continue the discussion from that point.

The role of deaconesses was to baptize naked women. But since no one today gets baptized naked deaconesses are no longer needed. Plus we have women religious who can do all that a "deaconess" can do.