Nathan Nelson just surprised me

[ironmonk]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='May 30 2005, 12:24 PM'] we had this "expert" come to our Church and talk about restoring the female deaconite and Father Said it was a good idea! [/quote]
We already have them, they're called nuns.

The Deacon can read the gospel in Mass, a female cannot. It's very clear in Scripture and the Church Fathers.


God Bless!
ironmonk

[Qoheleth]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' date='May 30 2005, 11:24 AM'] we had this "expert" come to our Church and talk about restoring the female deaconite and Father Said it was a good idea! [/quote]
So much good could be accomplished if there could just be a few devout "experts." But agreeing with the Church is out of fashion, especially, it seems, in some religious circles.

[journeyman]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='May 29 2005, 11:04 PM'] 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. [/quote]
My understanding is that today the lesser orders (acolyte, lector) are "ordination" stepping stones . . . at least within the seminaries, and the pathway culminates with transitional deacon and then priest.

If during the early Church, those positions were not sacramental ordination, then have they been elevated by the modern practice? That would support the hypothesis that deacons and deaconesses underwent similar rites of appointment, neither resulting in ordination. And thus undermining the validity of one argument for "reinstating" female ordination.

That does raise the question of when the appointment of deacons was transformed from an appointment to become sacramental ordination? And possibly opens the door to discipline vs. dogma.

It's hard to get intent out of 1500 year old documents, unless they state their intent. The Catechism and the modern Church documents are clear on their intent that only males may be ordained. The older documents may not be so clear for a number of reasons, among which are the mutually exclusive options of a) the same rule for all and b) no need to mention women (since just like dogs, cats and birds, they can't be ordained because they don't have sufficient status as human beings).

If the rite for deacons used certain words and actions; and the rite for deaconesses used the same words and actions; where do we find an intent to presume a different result.

If that evidence of intent supports option b), then do we need to investigate and educate about the other reasons for selecting candidates for ordination - when the "real" reason doesn't scream gender discrimination, the call for female ordination may diminish




words I had to look up

synaxis

\Syn*ax"is\, n. [L., fr. Gr. ?, fr. ? to bring together. See Synagogue.] A congregation; also, formerly, the Lord's Supper. --Jer. Taylor.

epicletic

couldn't find a dictionary with it - from context, invocative? transforming? Spirit filled?
Richstatter's website:
– the invocation of the Holy Spirit (epiclesis) on the community, and the elements of bread and wine (either before the words of institution or after the memorial, or both; or some other reference to the Holy Spirit which adequately expresses the "epicletic" character of the eucharist);

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='May 30 2005, 08:08 PM'] If the rite for deacons used certain words and actions; and the rite for deaconesses used the same words and actions; where do we find an intent to presume a different result. 

[/quote]
This is where you have made an error in judgment. No one argues that the rites for deacons and deaconesses are identical, quite the contrary scholars recognize that they are different. What historians argue about is the extent of the difference, and what exactly the differences in wording and in actions indicates. It should be noted that even a minor difference can indicate a major theological and ontological distinction. Of course ultimately determining the sacramentality or lack of sacramentality of a particular rite is not merely a matter of historical reconstruction; instead, it is a theological question.

The point of my earlier comments was this: the rite for instituting sub-deacons is far closer to the rite for ordaining deacons than is the rite for deaconesses, and sub-deacons actually had a role in the sanctuary, which as all admit deaconesses lacked. Moreover, as the International Theological Commission's document makes clear, there is a complete absence of deaconesses in the West till after the 5th century and this speaks against the apostolic origins of this female ministry.

Since the Church's Magisterium has declared, quite unequivocally, that the sub-diaconate and the acolytate are not a part of the Sacrament of Orders, even though institution (ordination) to these ministries involved rites that included the laying on of hands and epicletic prayers, and both of these offices had roles in the sanctuary during divine liturgy; it follows that the lesser ministry of deaconesses, which never had a role in the sanctuary, is not a part of Sacred Orders. The suppression of the minor orders shows quite clearly that they were not a part of the Sacrament of Orders, nor were they of divine institution, and the ministry of deaconesses falls within this same category.

The unity of the Sacrament of Orders also argues against the idea that deaconesses were ordained in the sacramental sense, because if they had received one degree of the Sacrament of Orders, they would be eligible to receive them all.

[journeyman]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='May 30 2005, 10:34 PM'] This is where you have made an error in judgment. No one argues that the rites for deacons and deaconesses are identical, quite the contrary scholars recognize that they are different. What historians argue about is the extent of the difference, and the differences in wording and in actions indicates. It should be noted that even a minor difference can indicate a major theological and ontological distinction. Of course ultimately determining the sacramentality or lack of sacramentality of a particular rite is not merely a matter of historical reconstruction; instead, it is a theological question.

The point of my earlier comments was this: the rite for instituting sub-deacons is far closer to the rite for ordaining deacons than is the rite for deaconesses, and sub-deacons actually had a role in the sanctuary, which as all admit deaconesses lacked. Moreover, as the International Theological Commission's document makes clear, there is a complete absence of deaconesses in the West till after the 5th century and this speaks against the apostolic origins of this female ministry.

[/quote]
I'll admit to errors due to ignorance, but I've tried very hard not to interject judgment into the discussion . . . where the language was laid out side by side, it was not identical, but very similar.

side bar interjection
(I talked myself into believing that female ordination would lead to a theological justification for same sex marriages - so I'm generally opposed - but more thinking people than me might like a rational justification)



absence until after the 5th Century?
or
absence since the 5th Century?

from my earlier listing of documents - I had the impression that stamping out the deaconesses started in the 5th Century:


movement to abolish:
“Altogether no women deacons are to be ordained. If some already exist, let them bend their heads to the blessing given to the (lay) people.” Synod of Orange (441 AD), canon 26.
“We abrogate the consecration of widows whom they call ‘deaconesses’ completely from our region. If they wish to convert, no more than the blessing of penance should be imposed on them.” Synod of Epaon (517 AD), canon 21.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='May 30 2005, 08:58 PM'] absence until after the 5th Century?
or
absence since the 5th Century? [/quote]
Absence until after the 5th century. The West had no real tradition of "deaconesses" till after that time.

Deaconesses were found only in the East and mainly in Syria.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='May 30 2005, 08:58 PM'] I'll admit to errors due to ignorance, but I've tried very hard not to interject judgment into the discussion . . . where the language was laid out side by side, it was not identical, but very similar.

[. . .] [/quote]
Similar is just that, similar. Those who advocate the ordination of women would have a stronger historical case if the prayers were identical, and if deaconesses had actually had a function in the sanctuary, but the prayers are not identical and women were not permitted to function in the sanctuary.

Women were forbidden to even approach the altar both in Judaism and in the early Christian Church. The canons of the Council of Laodicea in 343 A.D. attest to this prohibition, which is attested to by various Fathers of the Church as well.

[journeyman]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='May 30 2005, 11:04 PM'] Absence until after the 5th century. The West had no real tradition of "deaconesses" till after that time.

Deaconesses were found only in the East and mainly in Syria. [/quote]
if there was no tradition of deaconesses in the West until after the fifth century, why did the two synods noted enact canons attempting to abolish them in 441 and
517 (but at this point in time, weren't the Orthodox and Roman churches still speaking to each other, so these would be universal synods in impact?)

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='May 31 2005, 08:34 PM'] if there was no tradition of deaconesses in the West until after the fifth century, why did the two synods noted enact canons attempting to abolish them in 441 and
517  (but at this point in time, weren't the Orthodox and Roman churches still speaking to each other, so these would be universal synods in impact?) [/quote]
BTW, 441 is the middle of the 5th century, and I'm simply repeating what the International Theological Commission stated in its own treatment of the topic in its document on the diaconate.

There are no liturgical rites in the Roman tradition for the consecration of women as deaconesses until the Hadrianum in the 8th century. Now since that sacramentary includes a rite of consecration and veiling of deaconesses, it shows that the earlier legislation of particular synods was ignored.

The institution and veiling of deaconesses was an Eastern particular tradition, which most likely originated in Syria.

[Good Friday]

What connection did the ministry of deaconess have to the earlier, more well established ministry of widows?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 31 2005, 10:04 PM'] What connection did the ministry of deaconess have to the earlier, more well established ministry of widows? [/quote]
These two groups are separate "orders," and in fact the [i]Testamentum Domini[/i] makes it clear that the "deaconesses" were under the supervision of the widows (see A. G. Martimort's book [u]Deaconesses: An Historical Study[/u], page 49)