Nathan Nelson just surprised me

[Aloysius]

Nathan Nelson, better known here as Good Friday, had the most pecuiliar and interesting idea... something that actually gave me pause on this issue.

Imagine for a second there was not a movement that would jump up and twist a female diaconate into some first step towards female priests. Imagine, for a second, that the Church was pure and uninfiltrated by a vast liberal force. In this scenario picture the idea GF proposes here:

[quote]In an earlier entry, I briefly outlined the magisterial argument against conferring priestly ordination upon women. It should be noted that I was very careful to refer to this in terms of priestly ordination alone, and not to ordination in general. The reason for this is because, whereas the reservation of priestly ordination to men alone is an infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium, the ordination of women to the sacramental deaconate is still an open question. The arguments against conferring priestly ordination upon women do not apply to ordaining women to the deaconate:

1. Christ did not ordain deacons, so his precedent cannot be referred to.

2. The apostles began the ordination of deacons, the New Testament does speak of one female deacon (cf. Romans 16:1), and we know for certain that deaconesses were commonplace in the early Church and that their ordination rite was very similar to that of deacons.

3. Whereas bishops and priests act in the person of Christ the Head (in persona Christi Capitis), deacons act in the person of Christ the Servant (in persona Christi Servi), which seems to eliminate the ontological argument because deacons do not share ministerially in the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church.

The first two of these points are self-explanatory. The third point deserves a bit more explanation.

The difference between acting in the person of Christ the Head and acting in the person of Christ the Servant is an important one. Bishops and priests act in the person of Christ the Head, which allows Christ's spousal relationship to the Church to be extended to them. Deacons, however, while participating in the sacrament of holy orders, nevertheless do so in a different manner: they act in the person of Christ the Servant, which is to say that they act in the person of Christ in his Church. Whereas bishops and priests are primarily acting on behalf of Christ as Head of the Church, deacons are primarily acting on behalf of the Mystical Body of Christ -- that is, the Church itself. This difference between the deaconate on the one hand and the priesthood and episcopate on the other is the primary reason that deacons are restricted in their dispensation of the sacraments; some sacraments, such as the Eucharist, require the minister to act in the person of Christ the Head -- something that deacons cannot do. Meanwhile, the only sacrament that priests absolutely cannot confer is the sacrament of holy orders, because the priest, unlike the deacon, can act in the person of Christ the Head.

In light of this, I see no ontological reason why women cannot act in the person of Christ the Servant just as men can, and therefore I don't see any reason why women can't be ordained to the deaconate.[/quote]

Now my own ideas on this; a sort of Chestertonian Feminism that I have makes me inclined to consider the possibility.

That such a female deacon would have a specifically different dress than priests and deacons. That there would be a symbolic division and this would be a distinctly feminine role. For instance, a female deacon must wear a head covering, and would have a place perhaps at the foot of the altar. she would approach the altar and help as needed.

See, basically, we have the equivalent of a 1st century christian diaconate (like the infamous female deacon mentioned by paul) in all of our lay ministries.. the pastoral assosiates and stephens ministers et al. But they're kind of... modernized and americanized roles... what if there was ritualism attached to it? what if there were more ceremonial titles and such?

anyway, I am intrigued by this idea. So... I shall take it to PhatMass to have it torn to shreds and then figure out where to go from there. BTW, GF is in an obedient phase, hope and pray it lasts!

-pax-

[Thy Geekdom Come]

Female "deacons" were never ordained. They were diakonai in the sense of assistants, not ordained deacons.

[kateri05]

except, as i understood it, ordination is an indelible mark on the soul (like baptism or confirmation) that includes those men ordained to the permanent deaconate. this mark is unable to be received by women. that is the problem. it doesn't matter that Christ didnt' create deacons, its the nature of the sacrament of ordination itself.

like i said, as i understood it. so i'll wait until more intelligent and more knowledgable people respond so that i can agree with them

[Aloysius]

I am not sure the term "ordination" or the term "deacon" ought to be used because these two ideas are now far more developed. I'm still intrigued by the notion.

Deacons were not ordained in the first century in the sense that we understand "ordaining" the concept and terminology is developed. which is why the term "deacon" may no longer be acceptable here, and the term "ordination" also may not be acceptable.

but in the original meanings of the term... installing an assistant... but come up with something with far more ceremonious a title.

[Aloysius]

so here's a question... does the modern understanding of the deaconate and an ordination with an indullable mark on the soul include seeing the deacon as being, even to a low level, in persona Christi Capitis? it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong, that the modern deacon would be the lowest end of acting in the person of Christ the Head.

[Apotheoun]

The following instruction was issued on 17 September 2001 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Congregation for Divine Worship, and the Congregation for the Clergy, with the approval of Pope John Paul II:

[quote][b][i]Notification of the Congregations for the Doctrine of the Faith, for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, and for the Clergy[/i][/b]

1. Our Dicasteries have heard reports from some countries of programs and developments under way, geared either directly or indirectly to the diaconal ordination of women. Thus, certain expectations are being established, which are lacking in solid doctrinal foundation and which, consequently, can generate pastoral confusion.

2. Since ecclesial ordination does not foresee the possibility of such an ordination, it is not licit to implement initiatives that, in some way, look to preparing candidates for the diaconal Order.

3. In keeping with the constant ecclesiastical Magisterium, with special reference to that of His Holiness John Paul II, the authentic promotion of woman in the Church opens other ample prospects of service and collaboration.

4. Therefore, in the area of their own competence, the undersigned Congregations turn to the individual Ordinaries so that they will explain this to their own faithful and apply the foregoing directive diligently.

This Notification was approved by the Holy Father on September 14, 2001.

From the Vatican, September 17, 2001

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Jorge Arturo Cardinal Medina Estévez
Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments

Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos
Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy[/quote]

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Raphael']Female "deacons" were never ordained. They were diakonai in the sense of assistants, not ordained deacons.[/quote]
This is not, however, magisterial teaching (if you're going to say it is, I challenge you to cite [i]any[/i] document). This is the view taken by the International Theological Commission, which is a consultative body for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a consultative body that has no authority whatsoever. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith itself has not ruled on this; neither has any pope. The ITC, while taking the view you cited, nevertheless said that the ordination of women to the deaconate was an open question that would have to be decided by the magisterium.

[quote name='kateri05']except, as i understood it, ordination is an indelible mark on the soul (like baptism or confirmation) that includes those men ordained to the permanent deaconate. this mark is unable to be received by women. that is the problem. it doesn't matter that Christ didnt' create deacons, its the nature of the sacrament of ordination itself.[/quote]
I think your understanding of this is somewhat flawed. The two primary reasons that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood are these: 1) Christ chose male apostles, and the apostles chose male successors; 2) By acting in the person of Christ the Head ([i]in persona Christi Capitis[/i]), priests and bishops share in Christ's spousal relationship with the Church, and therefore must be men in order to image this relationship. The teaching that women cannot be ordained to the priesthood is an infallible teaching of the ordinary and universal magisterium, which must be definitively held by the faithful. But you'll note that neither the CDF's [i]Inter Insigniores[/i], nor [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i], even [i]begin[/i] to touch on the ordination of women to the deaconate. The question is still open; it has not been defined by the Church's magisterium.

The reason for this is because: 1) Christ did not ordain deacons, so his precedent can't be referred to; 2) there is biblical and historical evidence that women were ordained to the deaconate by the apostles, their immediate successors, and the Church Fathers; 3) deacons act in the person of Christ the Servant ([i]in persona Christi Servi[/i]) and not in the person of Christ the Head ([i]in persona Christi Capitis[/i]), and therefore are not required to image Christ's spousal relationship with the Church. They validly participate in the sacrament of holy orders, but in an entirely different way than priests and bishops. They exercise Christ's ministry of service; bishops, and by extension priests, exercise his ministry of authority.

[quote name='Apotheoun']2. Since ecclesial ordination [b]does not foresee the possibility[/b] of such an ordination, it is not licit to implement initiatives that, in some way, look to preparing candidates for the diaconal Order.[/quote]
One will note that this letter by the Holy See's dicasteries does not exclude the possibility of women being ordained to the deaconate, it simply says that this is not in the foreseeable future. The letter prohibits the training of women for the deaconate (and rightfully so since they cannot currently be ordained to the deaconate), but it does not by any means say that such an ordination is impossible. One can be sure, given the strong tone of [i]Ordinatio Sacerdotalis[/i] and the subsequent letters by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that if the ordination of women to the deaconate were impossible then this letter would make that unambiguously clear; it does not.

I'm willing to admit the possibility that women cannot be ordained to the deaconate, but I am not willing to concede my right to argue that they can be, in light of the fact there is no magisterial teaching [i]at all[/i] on the subject -- there is not even a teaching of ordinary papal magisterium, let alone a divinely revealed or definitively proposed teaching of extraordinary papal magisterium or ordinary and universal magisterium.

If the magisterium teaches that women cannot be ordained to the deaconate, I will accept that teaching and even argue for it; until then, however, I see no impediment to ordaining women to the deaconate other than serious prudential issues which must be addressed in order to avoid scandal. I'm willing to discuss this, but not if the other end of the discussion is only going to appeal to a magisterial authority that does not yet exist on this subject.

[Myles Domini]

[b]From the 1st Ecumenical Council of Nicea:[/b]

[quote]Canon 19. Concerning the Paulianists who have flown for refuge to the Catholic Church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized; and if any of them who in past time have been numbered among their clergy should be found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the Bishop of the Catholic Church; but if the examination should discover them to be unfit, they ought to be deposed. Likewise in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy, let the same form be observed. [i]And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands, are to be numbered only among the laity.[/i] [/quote]

Deaconesses were never ordained they simply carried out a function which was superseded by the growth of religious communities of women. Deaconesses as great as they were i.e. St Olympias of Constantinople were not ordained they were simply great women who pledged virginity and served the community. In the 21st century religious sisters carry out the role the deaconess once exercised and thus their service is no longer required. However, even were it needed again as Canon 19 from the 1st Ecumenical Council makes clear the deaconess would not be regarded as having any share in the [url="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P4U.HTM"]Three Degrees of the Sacrament of Holy Orders[/url] because these degrees are derived from the episcopal office: An episcopal office that dervices its efficacy, as we all know, from the succession to the apostolic college established by God Himself to be male only and act in His person just as you said Friday.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 27 2005, 12:45 AM'] [. . .]

I'm willing to admit the possibility that women cannot be ordained to the deaconate, but I am not willing to concede my right to argue that they can be, in light of the fact there is no magisterial teaching [i]at all[/i] on the subject -- there is not even a teaching of ordinary papal magisterium, let alone a divinely revealed or definitively proposed teaching of extraordinary papal magisterium or ordinary and universal magisterium.

If the magisterium teaches that women cannot be ordained to the deaconate, I will accept that teaching and even argue for it; until then, however, I see no impediment to ordaining women to the deaconate other than serious prudential issues which must be addressed in order to avoid scandal.  I'm willing to discuss this, but not if the other end of the discussion is only going to appeal to a magisterial authority that does not yet exist on this subject. [/quote]
Deaconesses within the Eastern Churches were not ordained, and were in fact the equivalent of today's consecrated women religious.

The practice of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of not ordaining women is a diachronic expression of a definitive teaching. The sacrament of Orders is one sacrament with three grades or degrees, not three sacraments, and so to receive one degree within the one Sacrament of Orders implies the ability to receive the other degrees as well. As a consequence, women cannot receive any one of the grades of Sacred Orders, and this teaching of the Magisterium is based upon the Church's canonical tradition and her catechetical tradition (see CIC canon 1024; CCEO canon 754; and CCC no. 1577).

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 26 2005, 09:26 PM'] [. . . ]

That such a female deacon would have a specifically different dress than priests and deacons. That there would be a symbolic division and this would be a distinctly feminine role. For instance, a female deacon must wear a head covering, and would have a place perhaps at the foot of the altar. she would approach the altar and help as needed.

[. . .] [/quote]
In the Byzantine Church women are not permitted to go through the doors of the iconostas; thus any type of service at the altar by women is impossible.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 27 2005, 12:45 AM'] [quote name='Apotheoun']2. Since ecclesial ordination [b]does not foresee the possibility[/b] of such an ordination, it is not licit to implement initiatives that, in some way, look to preparing candidates for the diaconal Order.[/quote]
One will note that this letter by the Holy See's dicasteries does not exclude the possibility of women being ordained to the deaconate, it simply says that this is not in the [b]foreseeable future[/b]. [. . .] [/quote]
There are no temporal limitations present within the statement issued by the Roman dicasteries.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 27 2005, 01:26 AM'] Nathan Nelson, better known here as Good Friday, had the most pecuiliar and interesting idea... something that actually gave me pause on this issue.

Imagine for a second there was not a movement that would jump up and twist a female diaconate into some first step towards female priests.  Imagine, for a second, that the Church was pure and uninfiltrated by a vast liberal force.  In this scenario picture the idea GF proposes here:



Now my own ideas on this; a sort of Chestertonian Feminism that I have makes me inclined to consider the possibility.

That such a female deacon would have a specifically different dress than priests and deacons.  That there would be a symbolic division and this would be a distinctly feminine role.  For instance, a female deacon must wear a head covering, and would have a place perhaps at the foot of the altar.  she would approach the altar and help as needed. 

See, basically, we have the equivalent of a 1st century christian diaconate (like the infamous female deacon mentioned by paul) in all of our lay ministries.. the pastoral assosiates and stephens ministers et al.  But they're kind of... modernized and americanized roles... what if there was ritualism attached to it?  what if there were more ceremonial titles and such?

anyway, I am intrigued by this idea.  So... I shall take it to PhatMass to have it torn to shreds and then figure out where to go from there.  BTW, GF is in an obedient phase, hope and pray it lasts!

-pax- [/quote]
Deaconesses were the forerunners for modern nuns.

The deaconesses never had the same responsibilities of the deacons.

[quote]Their principal duties were to assist at the baptism of women and to care for the poor and sick." In other words, these were lay women who took on religious duties analogous to those taken on by many nuns today, but they weren't female deacons because they weren't ordained.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309ltrs.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9309ltrs.asp[/url]
[/quote]


A simple reason why no female deacons anymore would be because the Church has spoken.


[quote]
[b]Council of Nicea I[/b]

Likewise in the case of their [the Paulianists’] deaconesses . . . let the same form be observed. And we mean by deaconesses such as have assumed the habit, but who, since they have no imposition of hands [holy orders], are [b]to be numbered only among the laity[/b]. (Canon 19 [A.D. 325])[/quote]

God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited May 27, 2005 by ironmonk

[Good Friday]

The quotation from the First Council of Nicea very clearly refers to the deaconesses from the heretical Paulianist sect. It says that they are to be numbered among the laity because they received no imposition of hands; meanwhile, deaconesses ordained within the Church [i]did[/i] receive the imposition of hands in their ordination rites.

[quote name='Apotheoun']The practice of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of not ordaining women is a diachronic expression of a definitive teaching. The sacrament of Orders is one sacrament with three grades or degrees, not three sacraments, and so to receive one degree within the one Sacrament of Orders implies the ability to receive the other degrees as well. As a consequence, women cannot receive any one of the grades of Sacred Orders, and this teaching of the Magisterium is based upon the Church's canonical tradition and her catechetical tradition (see CIC canon 1024; CCEO canon 754; and CCC no. 1577).[/quote]
The problem with this is that [b]the Church does not teach this[/b], which is why you're all having such a hard time citing a document that means anything. You'd really [i]like[/i] for the Church to teach this, and your personal magisteriums certainly teach it, but in actuality you can find no instance of the Church actually teaching what you're saying.

As usual, the folks at Phatmass ignore any argument that conflicts with their agenda and try to apply the Church's authority to their own subjective views. I don't know why I'm surprised, and I don't know why I ever bother coming back here.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 27 2005, 08:30 AM'] [quote name='Apotheoun']The practice of the Ordinary and Universal Magisterium of not ordaining women is a diachronic expression of a definitive teaching. The sacrament of Orders is one sacrament with three grades or degrees, not three sacraments, and so to receive one degree within the one Sacrament of Orders implies the ability to receive the other degrees as well. As a consequence, women cannot receive any one of the grades of Sacred Orders, and this teaching of the Magisterium is based upon the Church's canonical tradition and her catechetical tradition (see CIC canon 1024; CCEO canon 754; and CCC no. 1577).[/quote]
The problem with this is that [b]the Church does not teach this[/b], which is why you're all having such a hard time citing a document that means anything. You'd really [i]like[/i] for the Church to teach this, and your personal magisteriums certainly teach it, but in actuality you can find no instance of the Church actually teaching what you're saying.

As usual, the folks at Phatmass ignore any argument that conflicts with their agenda and try to apply the Church's authority to their own subjective views. I don't know why I'm surprised, and I don't know why I ever bother coming back here. [/quote]
The practice of the Church is the teaching of the Church. If the Church in her daily living and practice of the faith doesn't do something, like bestow Sacred Orders upon women, that is a teaching of the Church. In other words, a teaching of the Magisterium is not limited to the issuance of documents.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 27 2005, 08:30 AM'] The quotation from the First Council of Nicea very clearly refers to the deaconesses from the heretical Paulianist sect. It says that they are to be numbered among the laity because they received no imposition of hands; meanwhile, deaconesses ordained within the Church [i]did[/i] receive the imposition of hands in their ordination rites. [/quote]
Many groups have had hands laid upon them, but the intention was not to ordain them to a sacred ministry in the Church. Although I understand that you really want women to be able to be ordained, it is simply impossible for women to receive Sacred Orders, and this teaching is definitive.

If a woman could receive one grade of the Sacrament of Orders, she could receive them all, because the Sacrament of Orders is one sacrament, not three.