Nathan Nelson just surprised me

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 27 2005, 03:12 PM'] [quote name='Apotheoun']I could make the same argument. Why would anyone read your blog, when it is filled with assertions that are contrary to the definitive teaching of the Church? But should I expect anything other than dissent from you on socalled "liberal" issues? I think not, because it is clear from your own writings that you are more interested in a political agenda, than in doing theology.[/quote]
Yes, let's discuss my liberal political agenda, O devout reader of my blog...

[. . .]

Yes, I am just [i]so darn liberal[/i] -- I shall burn in hell. [/quote]
Nathan,

Thank you for responding, and I will read through all of your linked posts. I have visited your blog on a regular basis over the past year, or rather, your many and various blogs, and I am pleased by some of your recent posts. Sadly you have erased your older blogs, but then again, the offending comments were made in those blogs, and so perhaps it is good that you have started over with a clean slate.

I will continue to pray for you, and may you experience this day the blessings of the feast of the Holy Hieromartyr Eutiches, bishop of Melitene,

Todd

P.S. - One of my friends from FUS posted comments on one of your earlier blogs (Fides, Spes, Caritas) concerning the nature and operation of the Church's Magisterium. Sadly that blog no longer exists.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 27 2005, 06:22 PM'] Okay, here's the deal:

1. You people don't know anything about me.

2. I wanted to discuss this civilly, but of course the Phatmass barbarians (they know who they are) who patrol the phorum and insist upon creating constant incivility have made that impossible.

3. Therefore, if this can't be discussed civilly, I'm not going to discuss it at all.

4. I accept the Church's teaching, all of it, but I don't believe the reservation of the deaconate to be a magisterial teaching, then-Cardinal Ratzinger himself said that the matter was "under study" some years ago, and none of you have at all demonstrated that this is a magisterial teaching.

5. The International Theological Commission, over which then-Cardinal Ratzinger presided, declared this an open question that still had to be resolved by the magisterium.  The magisterium has not since resolved it.

6. I believe you are motivated by an understandable fear that the ordination of women to the deaconate will be used as a stepping stone to women's ordination to the priesthood, and while I see your concern, that is not a valid reason to oppose female ordination to the deaconate -- steps can be taken to ensure that it is not a cause for scandal.

7. I was gone for a very long time because I was tired of being insulted here; I thought perhaps that I could come back without being insulted, but of course the moment that I post anything that varies even slightly from the majority opinion (not the teaching of the Church) I am openly insulted.  As a result, I may not come back.

8. For a so-called Church Scholar, Apotheoun doesn't know squat.

9. I couldn't be more annoyed right now.

10. Have a nice day. [/quote]
Things are a lot simpler than you believe. There are simple facts in this world that you seem not to understand. If you were more logical, then maybe you would not feel that some things are "barbarian".

Why do you think you can understand the Church teachings in just a few years?

Read the bible a dozen or so times - keep reading it endlessly, read the Church fathers endlessly, and the Catechism endlessly, then maybe you will understand what those of us here already know in regards to the subject. It seems you have a lot of humanistic/realative things still to work through that hold you back. Of course you might not think that they hold you back... but they do. It's not about what you believe to be right... it's about what the God teaches through the Church.

It is going to take a long time to understand everything, it'll be much easier for you if you just accept (or at least don't try to argue against it) the Church teaching until you understand it.

Many of your assumptions are simply wrong which is seems a little hard for you to accept. It seems you continue to selective read things and add your own context, not taking into account the authors context.

It's not all about you nate... when are you going to learn that?


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited May 29, 2005 by ironmonk

[Good Friday]

[quote name='ironmonk']It is going to take a long time to understand everything, it'll be much easier for you if you just accept (or at least don't try to argue against it) the Church teaching until you understand it.[/quote]
What I've tried to say, and what you are not understanding, is that I'm not trying to argue against Church teaching. I'm trying to accept Church teaching. I will be glad to accept Church teaching, but I will not be glad to accept what others say is Church teaching, because such can be easily misrepresented. I am reviewing what you have all posted in regard to this, but I am also bearing in mind that as prefect of the CDF, then-Cardinal Ratzinger said the ordination of women to the deaconate was "under study," and the International Theological Commission declared this an open question that would have to be -- meaning that it has not yet been -- decided by the magisterium.

I intend to submit a [i]dubium[/i] to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; when and if I receive a response, I will accept whatever it says. You see, I believe that the CDF knows more about this than I do and I am willing to accept what they say; I am not, however, willing to accept what all of you say -- I think that's understandable, you're a bunch of folks on the internet, and I don't know anything about you. I am giving the most weight to Apotheoun, who is designated as a Church Scholar (my previous comments aside). Frankly, though, I'm taking what the rest of you say with a grain of salt. I don't mean that as an insult, but I just don't feel that I can trust what you're saying on this as authoritative. I hope you understand why.

Meanwhile, I will refrain from writing anymore on the female deaconate on my blog until I've received a response from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If I don't receive a response -- I'm not sure whether or not they answer all of the [i]dubia[/i] that they receive -- then I won't write on it at all, ever again. It was not my intention to contradict Church teaching. I believed that I was working from within Church teaching; now that this is in doubt, I will not write on the subject again until the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith either confirms that this has not yet been decided or confirms that it has been.

What I would ask, though, is that everyone please refrain from insulting me without cause. I didn't post anything here to begin with (my blog post was posted here without consulting me), and when I did post I was quite charitable about it. Then I was insulted; and then I was not charitable. I shouldn't have been rude or insulted anyone, but I did after I was insulted. I don't know why anyone felt the need to insult me, and I don't appreciate it.

- - -

Ironmonk: Could you e-mail me, please? I need to ask you about something totally unrelated to this or Church teaching. But I don't have your e-mail address, and because I'm labelled a "non-Catholic," I can't use the phorum's e-mail feature.

Edited May 29, 2005 by Good Friday

[Aloysius]

I'm sorry for posting without consulting you Nathan. I will refrain from it in the future, though I just read your post "Utilitaria" and it was amazing.

[Good Friday]

[quote name='Aloysius']I'm sorry for posting without consulting you Nathan. I will refrain from it in the future, though I just read your post "Utilitaria" and it was amazing.[/quote]
I really didn't have a problem with it at first, but there are people here who simply don't like me (some of them for good reason) who will find something wrong with anything I write.

You can post Utilitaria anywhere you want; I don't see what conceivable problem anyone could find with it, it is firmly rooted in Church teaching and not controversial.

[crusader1234]

For the sake of everyones sanity and respect for everyones viewpoints, could everyone slow down in the posting? It looks like about 5 people are attacking one idea at once, which means that nobody is giving anybody a chance to explain anything. Thats not how debate works.

[Apotheoun]

It should be borne in mind that the Church's Magisterium has already issued pronouncements on the nature of the Sacrament of Orders and who can receive it.

Thus, the [u]Catechism of the Catholic Church[/u] (1992) is preciisely worded in paragraph no. 1577 in order to make it clear that only men can receive Sacred Orders:

[quote name='CCC' date=' no 1577']Only a baptized man ([b]vir[/b]) validly receives sacred ordination.[/quote]

This is of course a quotation of canon 1024 from the [u]Code of Canon Law[/u] (1983), which says:

[quote name='CIC (1983)' date=' canon 1024']A baptized male ([b]vir[/b]) alone receives sacred ordination validly.[/quote]

Moreover, this canon itself is simply a reaffirmation of canon 968 § 1 of the [u]Code of Canon Law[/u] (1917), which reads:

[quote name='CIC (1917)' date=' canon 968 § 1']Sacram ordinationem valide recipit solus [b]vir[/b] (male) baptizatus . . .[/quote]

In fact the Latin editions of the two newer texts quoted above are identical to the Latin phrasing of the 1917 [u]Code of Canon Law[/u].

The unity of the Sacrament of Orders is involved in this discussion, and the document on the diaconate issued by the International Theological Commission itself makes note of this fact. Moreover, the ITC's own document goes out of its way to emphasize that there is no equivalency between the order of deacons as a sacramental ministry, and the instituted ministry of deaconesses.

[Aloysius]

does a deacon share in any way of acting in the person of Christ the head?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='May 29 2005, 12:06 PM'] does a deacon share in any way of acting in the person of Christ the head? [/quote]
The International Theological Commission's document indicates that a deacon acts [i]in persona Christi servi[/i], and not [i]in persona Christi capitas[/i].

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='journeyman' date='May 28 2005, 01:27 AM']general article on the topic
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/AROSEBY.TXT"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/LITURGY/AROSEBY.TXT[/url]


Regardless of the later actions of other councils, there appears to be historical evidence that women were ordained as deaconess.

[/quote]
oh piffle.

they weren't really ordained (even if they or others thought they were) because that is not possible. Liken the helpers to pastoral coordinators, and make all the necessary connections regarding their being surplus to requirements. I bet these 'deaconesses' had no illusions about their exact status. and if they did, more's the pity.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 29 2005, 01:54 AM'] [quote name='ironmonk']It is going to take a long time to understand everything, it'll be much easier for you if you just accept (or at least don't try to argue against it) the Church teaching until you understand it.[/quote]
What I've tried to say, and what you are not understanding, is that I'm not trying to argue against Church teaching. I'm trying to accept Church teaching. I will be glad to accept Church teaching, but I will not be glad to accept what others say is Church teaching, because such can be easily misrepresented. I am reviewing what you have all posted in regard to this, but I am also bearing in mind that as prefect of the CDF, then-Cardinal Ratzinger said the ordination of women to the deaconate was "under study," and the International Theological Commission declared this an open question that would have to be -- meaning that it has not yet been -- decided by the magisterium.

I intend to submit a [i]dubium[/i] to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; when and if I receive a response, I will accept whatever it says. You see, I believe that the CDF knows more about this than I do and I am willing to accept what they say; I am not, however, willing to accept what all of you say -- I think that's understandable, you're a bunch of folks on the internet, and I don't know anything about you. I am giving the most weight to Apotheoun, who is designated as a Church Scholar (my previous comments aside). Frankly, though, I'm taking what the rest of you say with a grain of salt. I don't mean that as an insult, but I just don't feel that I can trust what you're saying on this as authoritative. I hope you understand why.

Meanwhile, I will refrain from writing anymore on the female deaconate on my blog until I've received a response from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. If I don't receive a response -- I'm not sure whether or not they answer all of the [i]dubia[/i] that they receive -- then I won't write on it at all, ever again. It was not my intention to contradict Church teaching. I believed that I was working from within Church teaching; now that this is in doubt, I will not write on the subject again until the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith either confirms that this has not yet been decided or confirms that it has been.

What I would ask, though, is that everyone please refrain from insulting me without cause. I didn't post anything here to begin with (my blog post was posted here without consulting me), and when I did post I was quite charitable about it. Then I was insulted; and then I was not charitable. I shouldn't have been rude or insulted anyone, but I did after I was insulted. I don't know why anyone felt the need to insult me, and I don't appreciate it.

- - -

Ironmonk: Could you e-mail me, please? I need to ask you about something totally unrelated to this or Church teaching. But I don't have your e-mail address, and because I'm labelled a "non-Catholic," I can't use the phorum's e-mail feature. [/quote]
Thanks for the clarification. I can understand your point of view better. I do think that you'll get the answer that we believe to be correct. That is very honorable that you are writing them.

My email: iron_monk@hotmail.com


God Bless,
ironmonk

Edited May 29, 2005 by ironmonk

[journeyman]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='May 29 2005, 02:32 PM'] oh piffle.

they weren't really ordained (even if they or others thought they were) because that is not possible. Liken the helpers to pastoral coordinators, and make all the necessary connections regarding their being surplus to requirements. I bet these 'deaconesses' had no illusions about their exact status. and if they did, more's the pity. [/quote]
Whether the ordinations referenced in those publications meet the standards of today is irrelevant to the question asked and answered. That question was what was the form of the language used. The citations lead to other quotations and the quotation (from the Catholic Encyclopedia) answers that question, and that question only.

If the language and ceremonial rites were virtually identical to those used for male deacons, then the different words need to be crucial. or the argument moves from "the church has never ordained a women in any way shape or form . . . and never will" . . . to "ordination in the lesser orders is not sacramental ordination, but an appointment" and the male deacons aren't really ordained either . . . or (as is the case of priestly celibacy) it becomes a question of discipline, rather than theology . . . or some other basis

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='May 29 2005, 06:50 PM'] Whether the ordinations referenced in those publications meet the standards of today is irrelevant to the question asked and answered.  That question was what was the form of the language used.  The citations lead to other quotations and the quotation (from the Catholic Encyclopedia) answers that question, and that question only. 

If the language and ceremonial rites were virtually identical to those used for male deacons, then the different words need to be crucial.  or the argument moves from "the church has never ordained a women in any way shape or form . . . and never will" . . .  to "ordination in the lesser orders is not sacramental ordination, but an appointment" and the male deacons aren't really ordained either . . . or (as is the case of priestly celibacy) it becomes a question of discipline, rather than theology . . . or some other basis [/quote]
The words used in prayers are very important, but they alone do not determine the nature of a sacrament or a sacramental, because the requisite intention is also required for a true sacrament. In addition the practice of the Church in the liturgical synaxis also matters, and since deaconesses of the East had no liturgical role it speaks against their having Sacred Orders. Now it is true that Sacred Ordination requires the laying on of hands for validity, but this action was also used in instituting the non-ordained ministries of sub-deacons, acolytes, lectors, deaconesses, etc., and so simply having hands laid upon a person accompanied by an epicletic prayer does not equal Sacred Ordination.

[toledo_jesus]

as i said, piffle.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

we had this "expert" come to our Church and talk about restoring the female deaconite and Father Said it was a good idea!