*urge to kill, rising*

[Oik]

The Celibacy requirement won't get lax, it will be tightened.

A new age in coming in our Church and it will be the renewal of Faith.
Heterodoxy is being trampled under foot.

[LittleLes]

Lets see if I understand what some posters are claiming.

Am I to believe that the Barberini gr 336 Mamuscript which describes the ritual used for the ordination of male and female deacons in the early Greek and Syrian Catholic Church is somehow a forgery? Do you think we should notify the Vatican?

And the argument that women deacons only were used to baptize is rather irrelvant. A number of bishops are elevated to that status by the Vatican to occupy curial position not to function as bishops, but that does not affect the validity of their Holy Orders.

Moreover, is ordination to the diaconate needed to validly baptize?

The only issue is whether or not the women validly received Holy Orders.

Not, of course, whether you like the person writing the article.

But, of course, if you have knowledge that the ancient Barberini Manuscript is a forgery, there may be a moral obligation to inform the Vatican. Is anyone seriously making this claim?

LittleLes

Edited April 3, 2005 by LittleLes

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Someone let me know if I'm misunderstanding...

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Apr 3 2005, 07:04 PM'] Lets see if I understand what some posters are claiming.

Am I to believe that the Barberini gr 336 Mamuscript  which describes the ritual used for the ordination of male and female deacons in the early Greek and Syrian Catholic Church is somehow a forgery? Do you think we should notify the Vatican? [/quote]
I think they are saying that you misunderstand and misinterpret...hopefully the first more than the second.

[quote]And the argument that women deacons only were used to baptize is rather irrelvant. A number of bishops are elevated to that status by the Vatican to occupy curial position not to function as bishops, but that does not affect the validity of their Holy Orders.[/quote]

It would be irrelevant, if bishops who were made such solely for curial functions weren't actual bishops. However, for such curial functions, they are. That does not mean that all curial functions require Holy Orders.

[quote]Moreover, is ordination to the diaconate needed to validly baptize?[/quote]

That's not what they were saying. Look at "ordination" as "appointment to a position called the diaconate, but not the sacramental deaconate" and you'll be on the right track. They are saying that these women did not receive Holy Orders, but were "appointed to assistantship" (or, in other lingo which is not always to be understood sacramentally, ordained to deaconate), in order that women could be baptized without scandal.

[Oik]

The link below comes from a prebyterian source. It has an outlook for Biblical evidence and Early Church Father's on "deaconesses."

[url="http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/schwertley/deacon.html"]Female Deacons?[/url]

It doesn't of course, take into account the Sacred Magisterium.

[Oik]

Raph, you got it right on!

[LittleLes]

Hi Raphael,

No. I think I am interpreting correctly.

The Apostolic Constitutions, Book VIII, The Barberini manuscript, and the Grotta Ferrata manuscript among others, all proscribe nearly identical Matter and Form used between 600 A.D. and 900 A.D in the ordination of both male and female deacons.

Moreover, these are extant manuscripts, so they can be studied.

Do you have any evidence to the contrary? Or perhaps this is a fact of history that you have difficulty accepting irrespective of the evidence.

LittleLes

[Oik]

[Oik]

[quote]CONCERNING THE DEACONESS--THE CONSTITUTION OF BARTHOLOMEW.

XIX. Concerning a deaconess, I Bartholomew make this constitution: O bishop, thou shalt lay thy hands upon her in the presence of the presbytery, and of the deacons and deaconesses, and shall say:- THE FORM OF PRAYER FOR THE ORDINATION OF A DEACONESS.

XX. O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of man and of woman, who didst replenish with the Spirit Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna, and Huldah; who didst not disdain that Thy only begotten Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, didst ordain women to be keepers of Thy holy gates,--do Thou now also look down upon this Thy servant, who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess, and grant her Thy Holy Spirit, and "cleanse her from all filthiness of flesh and spirit," that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her to Thy glory, and the praise of Thy Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to Thee and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.[/quote]

LittleLes, are you an Eastern Catholic? If not, Deaconesses shouldn't be an issue...If you are, then this wouldn't be an issue, as you would recognise the authority of your Head, who has sworn alliegeance to the Pope, the Vicar of Christ. either way, the Church is clear here, so why is there so much stife?

The ordaination spoken of here is not consistant with the ordination we know to-day. Please see the link I supplied you with earlier.

God Bless,
Chels

[Cam42]

[quote]The Apostolic Constitutions, Book VIII, The Barberini manuscript, and the Grotta Ferrata manuscript among others, all proscribe nearly identical Matter and Form used between 600 A.D. and 900 A.D in the ordination of both male and female deacons[/quote]

These documents are far too contmeporary....they cannot be trusted. Come on....seriously now. Isn't that your line? I mean they were written 600 and 900 years after the inception of the Sacrament.

And incidentally, what was it that Pope St. Gelasius I said about supposed female ordinands? Come on, you know....it is posted at your link.

You are ubsurd.

Cam

Edited April 4, 2005 by Cam42

[LittleLes]

Oh, I see. Now the documents proscribing the matter and form of administering Holy Orders to women cannot be trusted because they are too contemporary.

Is that your claim?

And whether on not Pope Gelasius liked the idea of ordaining women is rather immaterial, isn't it? But that's true today too.

It was done. That is the only issue. So any "constant teaching" claim to the contrary is shown to be in error.


Little Les

[Oik]

It has been explained to you in Charity LittleLes. If its true, what you claim, then why aren't there deaconesses to-day?

I seem to recall you and Todd (Apotheoun) bumping heads on several issues. He is an Eastern Catholic, take it up with him you you really want to know.

Otherwise, one seems to be lead to the conclusion that there is an attempt to "prove" somehow that the Church is overlooking documents and supressing a 'tradition'?!?

Again, are you an Eastern Catholic, for if you are not, what then is your issue, for the 'tradition' you speak of is an Eastern one, what has this to do with the Western Church? I assure you that if you take this up with an Eastern Catholic, the opposition would be swift and exacting and the old matrons of the Church would surely not stand for it.

[toledo_jesus]

I doubt that facts matter much in this case.

[Cam42]

[quote name='LittleLes' date='Apr 3 2005, 07:16 PM'] Oh, I see. Now the documents proscribing the matter and form of administering Holy Orders to women cannot be trusted because they are too contemporary.

Is that your claim?

And whether on not Pope Gelasius liked the idea of ordaining women is rather immaterial, isn't it? But that's true today too.

It was done. That is the only issue. So any "constant teaching" claim to the contrary is shown to be in error.


Little Les [/quote]
No, that is your claim....I was just showing you how ubsurd you are...do you see it now?

No, I would say that the man intrusted with the care of the Church is not "rather immaterial." You are amazing.

It was done invalidly. There is no proof that it was ever valid. There is proof, however, that it was invalid. And there is proof that it was a corrected error. AND YOU PROVIDED THE PROOF FOR US!!!!!!

Cam

[LittleLes]

Aside from maintaining the party line that ordination of women was invalid, what evidence supports your claim. Or is it one of those things the Church tells you you just have to believe.

LittleLes

[Cam42]

Your statement of Pope St. Gelasius I supports my position just fine. You proved the point for us.

For that we thank you.

Cam