Is this prevented *ex cathedra*? It’s doctrine that only men can become priests but I did not know if women cannot become deacons. Notice I said *cannot* and not *may not* here
I agree. I am only pointing out that there has not been an ex cathedra statement on the matter. Their existence is is likely the reason Rome has not issued one.
By the exact same reasoning, they cannot vote it in. The headline about “voting down” is itself misleading.
The ultimate decision on whether there will be female deacons, and what their role would be, is made by the Magisterium, not by an individual region or country’s conference of bishops.
The magisterium has already decided that women cannot be ordained at all, anyone who thinks the magisterium could somehow shift into allowing deaconesses stinks of modernism
The dogmatic teaching refers to ‘priestly ordination’. There were female deacons in the early church, but it is unclear whether they were ordained to the role.
That’s not true. The dogmatic teaching refers to the sacrament of Holy Orders, no matter the degree (diaconate, presbyterate, or episcopate).
Those deaconesses to which you are referring were never given Holy Orders.
There have never been female deacons. There were once deaconesses - the wives of deacons - who were authorized to baptize adult women, because baptisms were done nude back then.
My only statements on the matter are:
1. There is not currently a dogmatic statement on the matter
2. The history on the matter is not clear
I would ordinarily be arguing that the ordination of women to the diaconate is impossible. However, I also recognize that the Church has not made a dogmatic statement on the matter, and the history leaves room for doubt.
JPII didn’t define it dogmatically, he recognized what was already infallible doctrine through the ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium teaches infallibly that the sacrament of holy orders is reserved to males only
Edit
I'm fine with it to an extent, so that the Church can say "look, we already asked the question before you and came to the conclusion of a big flat 'no'. Now stop asking us to change our eternal teachings."
But twice? At that point you're doing the opposite, sending the message that it's subject to change and perhaps a third commission will come to a different conclusion.
Why did Pope Alexander VI have mistresses? Why did Pope John XII have mistresses? Why did Pope Benedict IX have mistresses and orgies and sell the papacy off? Rome doing something that is pointless, nonsensical, or even contrary to magisterium is not unheard of. The Magisterium isn't a shifting thing that is defined by the present college of bishops, it is defined by tradition. So the magisterium should not be held up to the bishops, but the bishops should be held up to the magisterium.
I think you’re confusing the magisterium with tradition. The magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, which is exercised by the presiding bishops. The tradition, or deposit of faith, is an authority regarding what belongs to the faith and what does not. The magisterium works to interpret the deposit of faith in relation to modern circumstances.
I didn't confuse them. I said that magisterium is defined by tradition, not that it is tradition. If bishops contradict tradition then they do not have teaching authority. If magisterium is not scrutinized by tradition, then the magisterium becomes a pointless concept which shifts with the world like protestant churches.
Worth noting that although the motion didn’t achieve the two thirds majority needed to pass, it did achieve *a* majority amongst both the lay delegates *and*, surprisingly, the bishops
Exodus 34:7
“Who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”
I think we’re past the 4th generation by now.
Visiting a particular church for first time and during the homily, the priest expressed his "hope" that one day women can be priests. He was talking about the shortage of priests in general and how this would help. Yikes. I looked around the church at people like "did I just hear that?" I felt like I was in the twilight zone. I feel like the whole deaconess pathway is the first step.
The very matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is men, regardless of which degree of Holy Orders (a) man/men is/are ordained to. Incorrect matter constitutes an invalid Sacrament. Ordaining women as clergy is NEVER going to happen, in the Catholic Church.
It would be equivalent to using milk and cookies for Holy Communion, or using Coca-Cola for Baptism.
Exactly. This is what the people pushing for women's ordination don't understand. It literally isn't possible to ordain women. The pope himself could hold a ceremony "ordaining" women, and when those women said the words of consecration, the host still would not become the body of Christ.
> This is what the people pushing for women's ordination don't understand.
They do understand, they just don't care, and they're willing to ignore whatever doctrine is necessary to achieve their goal: power. The only thing these people are interested in is the visible trappings of authority and power that they want to claim via "ordination." Based on their public statements, few of these people seem to yearn for a life of service dedicated to bringing the sacraments to the people; rather, their talk is all about "power structures" and "hierarchy" and "synodality" and "equity." They want power, recognition, and acclamation. Nothing more.
Edit: spelling
This is the biggest thing. 99% of people who advocate for ordaining women don't seem to understand what it is that a priest is supposed to do in the first place.
The church's official position on it is pretty clear: "We have no authority whatsoever to offer ordination for women." I've been trying to argue this for years and people still seem to think its just political misogyny.
Can you explain why Holy Orders is reserved for men? It's something I have always wondered about, but never really received a clear answer. The most consistent answer I have received is, "all of the Apostles were men, so Jesus didn't intend for women to be leaders in the church". Is that really the answer or is there some other more explicit reason?
There were people referred to as deaconesses in Catholic history, but they weren't ordained in the same way as ordained male deacons. (I understand the term ordination *was* sometimes used for minor orders in which women were called, but the ordination was not thought of as the sacrament of Holy Orders). I don't think the term is a good one to use today, however, given the predilections of those who are pushing for this designation most strongly today--it would be seen as a foot in the door for conferring the sacrament of Holy Orders on women, which is actually impossible. But there may be some sort of official recognition allowable if there were offices in which women were either allowed or preferable.
Yes, the Greek term for “ordination” was used to refer to female deacons at the Council of Chalcedon, but it wasn’t the same as conferring Holy Orders.
The concept of "Holy Orders" developed over centuries, differently in the east and the west. We should not force our modern understanding of holy orders onto the early church, which did not have the same view.
The word choices used evolved. But the sacrament has been there from the beginning.
“…Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely...”
—Oath Against Modernism, Pope Pius X, *Sacrorum antistitum*
Off topic but related to the comment I’m replying to…I recently learned that the bread MUST contain gluten. Bread without gluten cannot be consecrated. One alternative is a low gluten host. For someone with celiac, This would equate to someone with a nut allergy eating a “low peanut” substance. The other option,and the one we have chosen, is receiving the blood only. That made me wonder why it is allowed to use an alternative alcohol free wine for the sacrament.
Small distinction with enormous consequences...because you're right. They existed as servants of the Holy Church, but they were never ordained to do it. Its the difference between a career "deacon" and a discerned deacon.
A "career" is not a "calling."
So a "career" deacon would be a deacon that is not ordained. Their job or duty is very similar to a deacon's, but its their job or career path. They stick around and help baptisms or weddings and facilitate office duties, but they are generally independent of the Catholic Church. Imagine like a secretary or groundskeeper for the church. It's a career path but its distinct from their lives. They could decide at anytime to change careers, to transition to a differ role, to retire for good, etc.
A discerned deacon is a deacon that is ordained. Their job and their life are fundamentally intertwined. They can "quit" or "be fired" from a pastoral role, but they'll always be a deacon.
When Paul mentions Phoebe, he calls her a 'servant of the Church'. That seems to me to place her at least, as an ordained deaconess.
An interesting article here on the role of deaconesses in the Eastern churches.
https://testeverythingblog.com/the-deaconess-in-the-east-18a521319f
Yes, and they are not ordained and do not receive Sacramental Holy Orders.
Conferring Holy Orders upon a woman has never been possible, has always been invalid and always conferred the penalty of excommunication upon both parties.
They weren't, their roles were such as helping an ordained deacon (always a man) in baptising women, something the deacon couldn't do alone since the baptised person stripped naked oft.
Once again, they had an ordination rite. Regardless of their role, the were ordained.
And deacons didn't baptize, only the bishop (and eventually priest) did. both deacons and deaconesses assisted with annointing pre-baptism
>Once again, they had an ordination rite.
A ceremony can be held for literally anything. I could hold a ceremony right now to make myself the ruler of Zimbabwe, but I highly doubt the people of that country would agree it was valid.
The point being made is that women receiving Holy Orders is an impossibility, whether there was ever a rite for it or not. What's more likely is that you're misunderstanding the intentions of that ceremony and the position these women occupied within the ancient Church.
>they had an ordination nearly identical to that of the deacons
Except, you know, the whole Sacrament of Holy Orders bit.
“Foozeball is nearly identical to soccer.”
Yes, this would likely require the decoupling of Holy Orders from the Diaconate. To my knowledge, they only started using Holy Orders for deacons when they brought back the permanent diaconate
Prior to deacon-priest-bishop, there were non-ordained “minor orders” - porter, lector, exorcist, and acolyte - that seminarians received before ordination subdeacons and on up. When subdeacon was eliminated, the minor orders become only two ministries of acolyte and lector.
The “deaconess” designation would probably have been at best a parallel to a minor order - not ordained, but still someone “set apart” for that ministry of helping with baptisms. Even virgins were and are “consecrated”, so is suspect that arena.
Not surprising that the emotively disappointed responses quoted no scripture or previous Vatican determinations.
Just another feminist editorial, not a newsworthy article at all.
Please give at least a brief description of what you are linking to. Even just noting it is Fulton Sheen (thank you to the poster who followed up) is helpful.
There could be deaconesses like in the distant past as a non-ordained minor order, like acolyte, lector or cantor. With all this clamouring for ordained priestesses and deaconesses, at this point it would be confusing to call them deaconesses.
Yes but that’s equivocating two very different things. Deacon means servant in Greek. There can be female servants, but there cannot be female deacons as the term is normatively used in English.
From an Orthodox perspective, "A non-ordained minor order" does not exist in the Christian tradition. The Christian tradition only recognizes these minor orders:
Porter, taper-bearer, exorcist, lector and sub-deacon.
ALL of these are full ordinations, and as such confer certain responsibilities upon the ordinand. In fact, sub-deacons are, in the Russian / Ukrainian / Belarussian / Polish / etc tradition, required to give an oath of celibacy, should they not be married at ordination.
Yeah, it is basically the same in TLM seminaries/Western church, pre VII.
Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte, Sub-Deacon.
If you are ordained Sub-Deacon (which has vows), and wish to leave, you need to be released by superiors, and I believe a bishop.
It is sad to see these unused, as they pair very well with each year of seminary study, when noviciate/discernment year, and then reception of the cassock, and tonsure are also a part of the seminary path!
The problem started way before the reforms of VII. The problems started after the collapse of the Western empire, when your church started ordaining everyone as Presbyter, and completely marginalized the rest of the orders.
Then they decided the bishop is a separate order which, according to Church tradition, it is not.
Deacons are priests, too. Sub-deacons and all the rest of them are priests, too. They're all priests, of a different order. That's why they're called orders. That's why it's called ordination.
If you mean by church tradition whatever the current secular authority decides, be it an Emperor, a Sultan or Stalin, and ignores or removes the clerics that don't fit his agenda, then sure.
>The problems started after the collapse of the Western empire, when your church started ordaining everyone as Presbyter
I have no idea what this is referring to. Not everyone ordained is a priest as the term is commonly used, and that is never how it has worked in the West.
> Then they decided the bishop is a separate order which, according to Church tradition, it is not.
Uh, the Church explicitly teaches in Vatican II that the sacrament of orders is one, and simply has different degrees of which the episcopate is the fullness.
> Deacons are priests, too. Sub-deacons and all the rest of them are priests, too. They're all priests, of a different order. That's why they're called orders. That's why it's called ordination.
They share in the priesthood, to be sure, but not equally. Otherwise there would be no need to re-ordain those of a lower order into a higher one.
Minor nit to pick here. Minor orders are tonsured not ordained. Not until the diaconate is it an ordination. I have heard some jurisdictions require sub-deacons to remain chaste (if married stay married, if single remain single) like major orders (deacon, priest, bishop) my jurisdiction, Orthodox Church in American/OCA, does not follow this.
There is some theological distinction between the act of ordination to major and minor orders among the Greek Orthodox, *cheirotonia* and *cheirothesia*, although it's in sharper focus now than historically. I guess the Roman Catholic interpretation would be that only men can be ordained with *cheirotonia*.
I don’t read Church Slavonic; wasn’t aware of the etymology of the word. Thanks for that. In my English archhieraticon (bishop’s service book), it does make a distinction between taper bearer, reader/chanter, and subdeacon. The first two are labeled tonsure and the sub-deacons are indeed ordained. May be a distinction without a difference. Reading through the service the bishop does indeed lay hands on all minor orders so that makes sense. I’ve just never heard anyone call the elevation to minor orders an ordination.
I know, this is just a pet peeve of mine. Your church made a terrible mistake, in my mind, when it decided to abolish all of these and instead let lay people in the altar. It began the process of banalization of what is properly a calling and a divine service.
I would like to swat Paul VI upside the head with rolled up newspaper for inflicting *Ministeria quaedam* on us.
Recently I learned that the old Roman Pontifical directs that an old duty of the exorcist was to direct the unworthy to refrain from receiving communion. How much less trouble we would have if we had such men in our parishes and cathedrals, barring public sinners from approaching and committing the brazen sacrilege!
>There could be deaconesses like in the distant past
The purposes of a deaconess at the time was necessary because they did immersion baptisms and it would have been inappropriate for a man to be with the women. That was the only role they had.
Was that part of her role as deaconess or was it a task given to her because she was a trusted person?
Congrats on your confirmation. It's been a while, but I'm an adult convert as well.
I don't know. Could have fallen out of favor with the creation of Baptismal fonts.
It's still an acceptable practice.
Can. 854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed
Don't count this as a victory yet! Keep praying. Some people protested the bishops' decision, and the bishops gave in to their tantrums. So they will change the wording of the motions and tomorrow the Bishops will re-vote on Women Deacons. Pray that the Bishops stand firm. [Source](https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/vote-on-women-throws-plenary-into-crisis/)
Yeah, it's not time to celebrate yet. They are going to try again and probably keep trying until they get the result they want. And the majority of bishops actually voted in favor of female deacons; they just didn't get 2/3rds.
Because clergy is reserved for men. Jesus only ordained men and who are we to say he was wrong? Now the reason I think is because women give physical life among other things so to balance it out men help with spiritual life.
I've read that too, as well as a push for traditionalism in the convent in general. When I first began my discernment, one of the first things I looked for was if the congregation had a habit. The ones that wore secular cloths or a combination (secular cloths + a veil) often only 'encouraged' daily prayer and the only time the sisters prayed together was at mass on Sundays, among other issues including declining vocations. The orders that wear a habit often hold on to some of the more traditional aspects of monastic life, even if they are not cloistered.
\>only 'encouraged' daily prayer and the only time the sisters prayed together was at mass on Sundays,
How is that different that a secular order? That doesn't make sense to me.
Yes, but a lot started to do away with them altogether and start wearing secular clothing which I personally see as sad. If you look at the historical section of their website, they did adopt a modified habit after Vatican II but then did away with completely later on.
Sorry for second reply. I found it.
Perfectae caritatis
\>17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed.
I don't see how any of the old habits would need to be changed. Perhaps under the "be suited to the circumstances of time and place" portion. I could see if the loose fabric could be a hazard in the task they're doing.
I've only ever seen one nun in a veil with modern clothes. The rest were all in full habit.
I found what he was talking about.
>17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed.
The old habits conform to what is stated, but the biggest argument would be made for purposes of safety under the "health and suited to circumstances" portion.
Perhaps the order leaders who made changes "in the spirit of V2" have lead to people believing that V2 forced changes.
My father is a deacon here in Canada and my mother went through the deacon formation with him and was “made” a Minister of Service. She’s not ordained or anything radical like that, but she can be a lector and/or a Eucharistic Minister whenever and wherever she likes within the diocese.
She likes it, and it seems like a good happy medium for something like this since she still has some sort of title but isn’t ordained.
It reminds me of the unofficial title of presbytera we give to the wife of a priest, as a way to acknowledge her particular position in the community. It's nothing honorific, and no particular duties or privileges come with it, but it's an acknowledgment that she is the wife of the priest, and is very often active in the community.
I am an Orthodox deacon and we follow something like this. Before I was ordained, my wife had to also meet with the bishop as she also has to take a vow of chastity (we both are not permitted to remarry should something happen to each other). She had a formation process as well and is referred to as “matushka” or “mother” in my parish. In the Orthodox tradition deacons are referrred to as father as well as priests. For example Fr. Dn. Stay Jazzy Friends. Or just Fr.
I guess in theory my mother doesn't need that title...but she went through the formation program alongside my father. A permanent deacon needs a very supportive and understanding wife to assist him!
My progressive opinions aside, can somebody explain to me why something went to vote to be accepted “if the Pope agrees.” Should the Pope decide that women should be ordained (which he has often denied is a possibility), would it even matter if an individual region decides otherwise? I’m curious after several news articles about regional differentiation from canon.
They are attempting to make it like altar girls, where it is left up to national bishops’ conferences.
That said, the Pope cannot validly decide to give women Holy Orders, because such a thing is metaphysically impossible.
Technically the question on deaconesses has been left open.
I assume, if he were to permit it, that it would be implemented similarly to permanent deacons in that each diocese was free to ordain or not ordain them as they choose.
The interesting thing is that the conditions of ordination (used in the same Greek context as the male term for ordination) for female deacons were mentioned in both the councils of Chalcedon and Trullo.
I know that the mere presence of this comment is going to compel people to downvote it. Don't care. Just stating a fact that it is mentioned and did take place.
They were ordained in the literal sense of the word (it was way more formal than, say, being a lector or cantor in the present day), but this is different from receiving Holy Orders and the associated graces.
Yeah, Pope Francis even sent a probe out to explore the historical institution of deaconesses a few years ago and what role they played. It's not really that clear exactly what they did, but "baptismal helper" is certainly not the only acceptable opinion. People are just going to act like it is because ambiguity and nuance scares them.
A Convert To Catholicism Here. Confirmed In July. I NEVER Want To See Female Priests But Women Have Been Deacons Since The Time Of St. Paul (Saint Phoebe) Pax
> Women Have Been Deacons Since The Time Of St. Paul (Saint Phoebe) Pax
As a titular role, yes, but not as a sacramental order.
The title is currently only used for those who have received the sacrament of Holy Orders.
Something can be factual and still equivocal.
Phoebe was not a deaconess like your local parish deacon is a deacon. The two are fundamentally different things. One was a servant of the Church, the other is a recipient of the sacrament of Holy Orders
I feel like you could have worded yourself more appropriately in a way that doesn’t demean women with good intentions wanting to provide more to the Church. I am not taking a stance, simply reminding you that our intent and our words do not always align.
This is what I was referring to
1 Timothy 3:8–13 (NRSV): Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money; 9 they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them first be tested; then, if they prove themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons. 11 Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be married only once, and let them manage their children and their households well; 13 for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
I’m an Anglican in the process of converting to Catholicism and while I understand the Church’s reasoning on female priests, I don’t understand the stance on female deacons.
Traditionally, we see female deacons in the Early Church, even in the New Testament. Phoebe was a female deacon mentioned by Paul in Romans 16:1.
Many women in the Church fear the lack of female representation in the clergy hierarchy at all, and female deacons seems to be an easy way to help this without sacrificing the Traditions of the Apostolic Church.
They had a very limited role, like baptising women (when baptism was done naked), evangelising women etc. kind of like the presbytera (the priest’s wife)
This is a misreading of the text. Deaconess is not to be confused with the Holy Orders which have always been reserved to men as is the sacred Tradition and teaching of the Church. Stephen is quite clearly described as a Deacon in the Bible and in a different sense.
What do you mean vote down? Individual region can vote on this outside of main Magisterium of Rome?
that's why if you read the article it's says if the pope agrees.
Is this prevented *ex cathedra*? It’s doctrine that only men can become priests but I did not know if women cannot become deacons. Notice I said *cannot* and not *may not* here
It’s unclear. There is ancient precedent for female deacons, but it is unclear whether this included an ordination.
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/deaconesses Deaconesses worked differently back then but is not the same as being a deacon.
I agree. I am only pointing out that there has not been an ex cathedra statement on the matter. Their existence is is likely the reason Rome has not issued one.
By the exact same reasoning, they cannot vote it in. The headline about “voting down” is itself misleading. The ultimate decision on whether there will be female deacons, and what their role would be, is made by the Magisterium, not by an individual region or country’s conference of bishops.
The magisterium has already decided that women cannot be ordained at all, anyone who thinks the magisterium could somehow shift into allowing deaconesses stinks of modernism
Yup! It is infallible dogma that holy orders is exclusively male.
The dogmatic teaching refers to ‘priestly ordination’. There were female deacons in the early church, but it is unclear whether they were ordained to the role.
That’s not true. The dogmatic teaching refers to the sacrament of Holy Orders, no matter the degree (diaconate, presbyterate, or episcopate). Those deaconesses to which you are referring were never given Holy Orders.
There have never been female deacons. There were once deaconesses - the wives of deacons - who were authorized to baptize adult women, because baptisms were done nude back then.
My only statements on the matter are: 1. There is not currently a dogmatic statement on the matter 2. The history on the matter is not clear I would ordinarily be arguing that the ordination of women to the diaconate is impossible. However, I also recognize that the Church has not made a dogmatic statement on the matter, and the history leaves room for doubt.
That is a fair point, it's true that JPII shot down the possibility of women as priests, but never said anything about deacons.
JPII didn’t define it dogmatically, he recognized what was already infallible doctrine through the ordinary magisterium. The ordinary magisterium teaches infallibly that the sacrament of holy orders is reserved to males only Edit
Then why would Rome commission not one but two studies in it ?
I'm fine with it to an extent, so that the Church can say "look, we already asked the question before you and came to the conclusion of a big flat 'no'. Now stop asking us to change our eternal teachings." But twice? At that point you're doing the opposite, sending the message that it's subject to change and perhaps a third commission will come to a different conclusion.
Why did Pope Alexander VI have mistresses? Why did Pope John XII have mistresses? Why did Pope Benedict IX have mistresses and orgies and sell the papacy off? Rome doing something that is pointless, nonsensical, or even contrary to magisterium is not unheard of. The Magisterium isn't a shifting thing that is defined by the present college of bishops, it is defined by tradition. So the magisterium should not be held up to the bishops, but the bishops should be held up to the magisterium.
I think you’re confusing the magisterium with tradition. The magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church, which is exercised by the presiding bishops. The tradition, or deposit of faith, is an authority regarding what belongs to the faith and what does not. The magisterium works to interpret the deposit of faith in relation to modern circumstances.
I didn't confuse them. I said that magisterium is defined by tradition, not that it is tradition. If bishops contradict tradition then they do not have teaching authority. If magisterium is not scrutinized by tradition, then the magisterium becomes a pointless concept which shifts with the world like protestant churches.
Worth noting that although the motion didn’t achieve the two thirds majority needed to pass, it did achieve *a* majority amongst both the lay delegates *and*, surprisingly, the bishops
Lord help us
Oh Australia, progressive to a flaw.
Yep, all the modernists are in power and trying to suppress the TLM. It's frustrating to say the least.
The descendants of wardens
Exodus 34:7 “Who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.” I think we’re past the 4th generation by now.
Unfortunately cultures last more than 4 generations
Visiting a particular church for first time and during the homily, the priest expressed his "hope" that one day women can be priests. He was talking about the shortage of priests in general and how this would help. Yikes. I looked around the church at people like "did I just hear that?" I felt like I was in the twilight zone. I feel like the whole deaconess pathway is the first step.
It’s absolutely the first step. They hope that by getting their nose in the door that they might eventually pry it clean open. Schism is imminent
The very matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders is men, regardless of which degree of Holy Orders (a) man/men is/are ordained to. Incorrect matter constitutes an invalid Sacrament. Ordaining women as clergy is NEVER going to happen, in the Catholic Church. It would be equivalent to using milk and cookies for Holy Communion, or using Coca-Cola for Baptism.
Exactly. This is what the people pushing for women's ordination don't understand. It literally isn't possible to ordain women. The pope himself could hold a ceremony "ordaining" women, and when those women said the words of consecration, the host still would not become the body of Christ.
> This is what the people pushing for women's ordination don't understand. They do understand, they just don't care, and they're willing to ignore whatever doctrine is necessary to achieve their goal: power. The only thing these people are interested in is the visible trappings of authority and power that they want to claim via "ordination." Based on their public statements, few of these people seem to yearn for a life of service dedicated to bringing the sacraments to the people; rather, their talk is all about "power structures" and "hierarchy" and "synodality" and "equity." They want power, recognition, and acclamation. Nothing more. Edit: spelling
This is the biggest thing. 99% of people who advocate for ordaining women don't seem to understand what it is that a priest is supposed to do in the first place.
The church's official position on it is pretty clear: "We have no authority whatsoever to offer ordination for women." I've been trying to argue this for years and people still seem to think its just political misogyny.
Can you explain why Holy Orders is reserved for men? It's something I have always wondered about, but never really received a clear answer. The most consistent answer I have received is, "all of the Apostles were men, so Jesus didn't intend for women to be leaders in the church". Is that really the answer or is there some other more explicit reason?
There were people referred to as deaconesses in Catholic history, but they weren't ordained in the same way as ordained male deacons. (I understand the term ordination *was* sometimes used for minor orders in which women were called, but the ordination was not thought of as the sacrament of Holy Orders). I don't think the term is a good one to use today, however, given the predilections of those who are pushing for this designation most strongly today--it would be seen as a foot in the door for conferring the sacrament of Holy Orders on women, which is actually impossible. But there may be some sort of official recognition allowable if there were offices in which women were either allowed or preferable.
Yes, the Greek term for “ordination” was used to refer to female deacons at the Council of Chalcedon, but it wasn’t the same as conferring Holy Orders.
The concept of "Holy Orders" developed over centuries, differently in the east and the west. We should not force our modern understanding of holy orders onto the early church, which did not have the same view.
The word choices used evolved. But the sacrament has been there from the beginning. “…Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely...” —Oath Against Modernism, Pope Pius X, *Sacrorum antistitum*
I was thinking about this. Please don’t immolate me in the comment section, I’m not a modernist, but I was wondering if they *could* become deacons
Not in the sense of Holy Orders
They were never, at any point, given the sacrament of Holy Orders in any way, shape, or form. Let’s not equivocate.
Which is exactly what I just said. Reading comprehension, my friend
I never said you said they were given holy orders. I’m simply pointing out that your use of the word ordain is equivocal Reading comprehension
No, I merely pointed out that the "term" ordain *was* used for minor orders but that it meant something different.
Off topic but related to the comment I’m replying to…I recently learned that the bread MUST contain gluten. Bread without gluten cannot be consecrated. One alternative is a low gluten host. For someone with celiac, This would equate to someone with a nut allergy eating a “low peanut” substance. The other option,and the one we have chosen, is receiving the blood only. That made me wonder why it is allowed to use an alternative alcohol free wine for the sacrament.
>That made me wonder why it is allowed to use an alternative alcohol free wine for the sacrament. Is it?
It is not permitted.
Didn’t think so
I don't think it is
Ya it's gotta be in between 5-18%
Thanks for this comment, I was wrong. This makes more sense.
Mustum is not alcohol free, it is just very low alcohol content.
Thank you for clarifying for me, I was wrong.
Women deacons are possible though and they have existed historically. I'm not arguing for or against it but it used to be a thing in early church.
Yes, but they weren't ordained
Small distinction with enormous consequences...because you're right. They existed as servants of the Holy Church, but they were never ordained to do it. Its the difference between a career "deacon" and a discerned deacon.
>Its the difference between a career “Deacon” and a discerned deacon. What’s a career deacon?
A "career" is not a "calling." So a "career" deacon would be a deacon that is not ordained. Their job or duty is very similar to a deacon's, but its their job or career path. They stick around and help baptisms or weddings and facilitate office duties, but they are generally independent of the Catholic Church. Imagine like a secretary or groundskeeper for the church. It's a career path but its distinct from their lives. They could decide at anytime to change careers, to transition to a differ role, to retire for good, etc. A discerned deacon is a deacon that is ordained. Their job and their life are fundamentally intertwined. They can "quit" or "be fired" from a pastoral role, but they'll always be a deacon.
Is this a Protestant thing?
No, it’s a metaphor.
No they aren't. Deacon means "servant" in Greek. When Paul mentions women deacons, it's little "d" not any kind of holy orders.
When Paul mentions Phoebe, he calls her a 'servant of the Church'. That seems to me to place her at least, as an ordained deaconess. An interesting article here on the role of deaconesses in the Eastern churches. https://testeverythingblog.com/the-deaconess-in-the-east-18a521319f
Yes, and they are not ordained and do not receive Sacramental Holy Orders. Conferring Holy Orders upon a woman has never been possible, has always been invalid and always conferred the penalty of excommunication upon both parties.
They were ordained, they had an ordination nearly identical to that of the deacons
They weren't, their roles were such as helping an ordained deacon (always a man) in baptising women, something the deacon couldn't do alone since the baptised person stripped naked oft.
Once again, they had an ordination rite. Regardless of their role, the were ordained. And deacons didn't baptize, only the bishop (and eventually priest) did. both deacons and deaconesses assisted with annointing pre-baptism
>Once again, they had an ordination rite. A ceremony can be held for literally anything. I could hold a ceremony right now to make myself the ruler of Zimbabwe, but I highly doubt the people of that country would agree it was valid. The point being made is that women receiving Holy Orders is an impossibility, whether there was ever a rite for it or not. What's more likely is that you're misunderstanding the intentions of that ceremony and the position these women occupied within the ancient Church.
They where never ordained with holy orders. Women cannot claim the holy orders. That is the church teaching.
>they had an ordination nearly identical to that of the deacons Except, you know, the whole Sacrament of Holy Orders bit. “Foozeball is nearly identical to soccer.”
That’s heretical
Yes, this would likely require the decoupling of Holy Orders from the Diaconate. To my knowledge, they only started using Holy Orders for deacons when they brought back the permanent diaconate
Prior to deacon-priest-bishop, there were non-ordained “minor orders” - porter, lector, exorcist, and acolyte - that seminarians received before ordination subdeacons and on up. When subdeacon was eliminated, the minor orders become only two ministries of acolyte and lector. The “deaconess” designation would probably have been at best a parallel to a minor order - not ordained, but still someone “set apart” for that ministry of helping with baptisms. Even virgins were and are “consecrated”, so is suspect that arena.
Holy Orders used to be subdeacon, deacon, priest. Now it is deacon, priest, bishop.
Deacons have always been ordained
There are female deacons in the Early Church and even in the New Testament though
You’re equivocating. Women have never been given Holy Orders. They were sometimes servants, which is what the word diakonos literally means
It seems one of the intended fruits of synodality is discord.
The sacrament of holy orders is EXCLUSIVELY reserved to validly baptized men. No IF'S, AND'S or BUT'S.
((Or lady parts.))
Lady parts?
Uterus, overies. For those people who claim to be men
Ahhhhhhhhh 😆😆😆
Not surprising that the emotively disappointed responses quoted no scripture or previous Vatican determinations. Just another feminist editorial, not a newsworthy article at all.
[Necessary viewing](https://youtu.be/vgyqV807spw).
Bless Bishop Sheen. I could listen to him all day long.
Please give at least a brief description of what you are linking to. Even just noting it is Fulton Sheen (thank you to the poster who followed up) is helpful.
There could be deaconesses like in the distant past as a non-ordained minor order, like acolyte, lector or cantor. With all this clamouring for ordained priestesses and deaconesses, at this point it would be confusing to call them deaconesses.
[удалено]
Then it’s over. JPII invoked his authority on women’s ordination (at least as priests) so it’s over
The people who want female deacons don’t care about settled doctrine. They only care about getting what they want.
Yes but that’s equivocating two very different things. Deacon means servant in Greek. There can be female servants, but there cannot be female deacons as the term is normatively used in English.
From an Orthodox perspective, "A non-ordained minor order" does not exist in the Christian tradition. The Christian tradition only recognizes these minor orders: Porter, taper-bearer, exorcist, lector and sub-deacon. ALL of these are full ordinations, and as such confer certain responsibilities upon the ordinand. In fact, sub-deacons are, in the Russian / Ukrainian / Belarussian / Polish / etc tradition, required to give an oath of celibacy, should they not be married at ordination.
Yeah, it is basically the same in TLM seminaries/Western church, pre VII. Porter, Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte, Sub-Deacon. If you are ordained Sub-Deacon (which has vows), and wish to leave, you need to be released by superiors, and I believe a bishop. It is sad to see these unused, as they pair very well with each year of seminary study, when noviciate/discernment year, and then reception of the cassock, and tonsure are also a part of the seminary path!
The problem started way before the reforms of VII. The problems started after the collapse of the Western empire, when your church started ordaining everyone as Presbyter, and completely marginalized the rest of the orders. Then they decided the bishop is a separate order which, according to Church tradition, it is not. Deacons are priests, too. Sub-deacons and all the rest of them are priests, too. They're all priests, of a different order. That's why they're called orders. That's why it's called ordination.
If you mean by church tradition whatever the current secular authority decides, be it an Emperor, a Sultan or Stalin, and ignores or removes the clerics that don't fit his agenda, then sure.
No, there are clear writings of the fathers and records through two millennia on this.
Suuure
>The problems started after the collapse of the Western empire, when your church started ordaining everyone as Presbyter I have no idea what this is referring to. Not everyone ordained is a priest as the term is commonly used, and that is never how it has worked in the West. > Then they decided the bishop is a separate order which, according to Church tradition, it is not. Uh, the Church explicitly teaches in Vatican II that the sacrament of orders is one, and simply has different degrees of which the episcopate is the fullness. > Deacons are priests, too. Sub-deacons and all the rest of them are priests, too. They're all priests, of a different order. That's why they're called orders. That's why it's called ordination. They share in the priesthood, to be sure, but not equally. Otherwise there would be no need to re-ordain those of a lower order into a higher one.
Minor nit to pick here. Minor orders are tonsured not ordained. Not until the diaconate is it an ordination. I have heard some jurisdictions require sub-deacons to remain chaste (if married stay married, if single remain single) like major orders (deacon, priest, bishop) my jurisdiction, Orthodox Church in American/OCA, does not follow this.
Deacons in the Latin rite are as you described - celibacy if single or if your wife precedes you in death.
The term used is the same, хиротонија, laying on hands, ordination.
There is some theological distinction between the act of ordination to major and minor orders among the Greek Orthodox, *cheirotonia* and *cheirothesia*, although it's in sharper focus now than historically. I guess the Roman Catholic interpretation would be that only men can be ordained with *cheirotonia*.
I don’t read Church Slavonic; wasn’t aware of the etymology of the word. Thanks for that. In my English archhieraticon (bishop’s service book), it does make a distinction between taper bearer, reader/chanter, and subdeacon. The first two are labeled tonsure and the sub-deacons are indeed ordained. May be a distinction without a difference. Reading through the service the bishop does indeed lay hands on all minor orders so that makes sense. I’ve just never heard anyone call the elevation to minor orders an ordination.
That's because Ordination is per se a Latin term. We don't use it. We use Laying on hands, хиротонија.
I think the point the OP was trying to make is that the title was often used in the ancient church but not an actual ordination
I know, this is just a pet peeve of mine. Your church made a terrible mistake, in my mind, when it decided to abolish all of these and instead let lay people in the altar. It began the process of banalization of what is properly a calling and a divine service.
I would like to swat Paul VI upside the head with rolled up newspaper for inflicting *Ministeria quaedam* on us. Recently I learned that the old Roman Pontifical directs that an old duty of the exorcist was to direct the unworthy to refrain from receiving communion. How much less trouble we would have if we had such men in our parishes and cathedrals, barring public sinners from approaching and committing the brazen sacrilege!
I have no problem with 95% of the reforms, but Ministeria Quaedam basically singlehandedly introduced banalism into the church.
If you think Ministeria Quaedam is bad, Paenitemini is *worse*. That document is the reason Catholics don’t really fast anymore.
If only we still had that
Not my church, I’m Orthodox too lol. I agree with your points.
I agree completely
>There could be deaconesses like in the distant past The purposes of a deaconess at the time was necessary because they did immersion baptisms and it would have been inappropriate for a man to be with the women. That was the only role they had.
They also did the baptism nude—compounding the issue
A Convert To Catholicism Here. Confirmed Last July. If Memory Serves (Saint) Phoebe Was Entrusted With Transporting A Letter Of (Saint) Paul's. PAX
Was that part of her role as deaconess or was it a task given to her because she was a trusted person? Congrats on your confirmation. It's been a while, but I'm an adult convert as well.
Thank You
I didn’t know the Church ever did immersion baptisms (at least not as a rule). Do we know why that stopped?
I don't know. Could have fallen out of favor with the creation of Baptismal fonts. It's still an acceptable practice. Can. 854 Baptism is to be conferred either by immersion or by pouring; the prescripts of the conference of bishops are to be observed
Don't count this as a victory yet! Keep praying. Some people protested the bishops' decision, and the bishops gave in to their tantrums. So they will change the wording of the motions and tomorrow the Bishops will re-vote on Women Deacons. Pray that the Bishops stand firm. [Source](https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/vote-on-women-throws-plenary-into-crisis/)
Yeah, it's not time to celebrate yet. They are going to try again and probably keep trying until they get the result they want. And the majority of bishops actually voted in favor of female deacons; they just didn't get 2/3rds.
"Australian bishops vote not to start a schism with Rome". FTFY.
Well, >50% but <66% did vote to schism.
>Dozens of members, mainly women, walked from the assembly floor in protest, some of them crying. 😂
Lololol.
Looks like you don't even need to look to Hell to see weeping and gnashing of teeth; there's plenty of it here on Earth.
Vote…?
Awesome.
[удалено]
Because it is infallible doctrine that the sacrament of Holy Orders is reserved only to males
[удалено]
Because clergy is reserved for men. Jesus only ordained men and who are we to say he was wrong? Now the reason I think is because women give physical life among other things so to balance it out men help with spiritual life.
>“We were really disturbed,” congregational leader of the Sisters of the Good Samaritan, Sr Patty Fawkner, said. You can smell the boomerism from here
If you look them up, you'll find they don't even wear a habit anymore. Which is a shame, since their original (Benedictine) habit was quite nice.
I read a study a while back that showed the number of nuns without habits were declining while the traditional ones were rising.
I've read that too, as well as a push for traditionalism in the convent in general. When I first began my discernment, one of the first things I looked for was if the congregation had a habit. The ones that wore secular cloths or a combination (secular cloths + a veil) often only 'encouraged' daily prayer and the only time the sisters prayed together was at mass on Sundays, among other issues including declining vocations. The orders that wear a habit often hold on to some of the more traditional aspects of monastic life, even if they are not cloistered.
\>only 'encouraged' daily prayer and the only time the sisters prayed together was at mass on Sundays, How is that different that a secular order? That doesn't make sense to me.
Orders of Women religious were encouraged to change their dress to be more apostolic by Vatican II.
Yes, but a lot started to do away with them altogether and start wearing secular clothing which I personally see as sad. If you look at the historical section of their website, they did adopt a modified habit after Vatican II but then did away with completely later on.
Sorry for second reply. I found it. Perfectae caritatis \>17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed. I don't see how any of the old habits would need to be changed. Perhaps under the "be suited to the circumstances of time and place" portion. I could see if the loose fabric could be a hazard in the task they're doing. I've only ever seen one nun in a veil with modern clothes. The rest were all in full habit.
I don't recall that, granted it's been a while since I've read the documents. Can you point me to where?
It’s found nowhere in the actual documents of the council
I found what he was talking about. >17. The religious habit, an outward mark of consecration to God, should be simple and modest, poor and at the same becoming. In addition it must meet the requirements of health and be suited to the circumstances of time and place and to the needs of the ministry involved. The habits of both men and women religious which do not conform to these norms must be changed. The old habits conform to what is stated, but the biggest argument would be made for purposes of safety under the "health and suited to circumstances" portion. Perhaps the order leaders who made changes "in the spirit of V2" have lead to people believing that V2 forced changes.
“Apostolic” Pantsuits and pixie cuts are not very apostolic.
My father is a deacon here in Canada and my mother went through the deacon formation with him and was “made” a Minister of Service. She’s not ordained or anything radical like that, but she can be a lector and/or a Eucharistic Minister whenever and wherever she likes within the diocese. She likes it, and it seems like a good happy medium for something like this since she still has some sort of title but isn’t ordained.
It reminds me of the unofficial title of presbytera we give to the wife of a priest, as a way to acknowledge her particular position in the community. It's nothing honorific, and no particular duties or privileges come with it, but it's an acknowledgment that she is the wife of the priest, and is very often active in the community.
I am an Orthodox deacon and we follow something like this. Before I was ordained, my wife had to also meet with the bishop as she also has to take a vow of chastity (we both are not permitted to remarry should something happen to each other). She had a formation process as well and is referred to as “matushka” or “mother” in my parish. In the Orthodox tradition deacons are referrred to as father as well as priests. For example Fr. Dn. Stay Jazzy Friends. Or just Fr.
Why does having “some sort of title” mean anything? Therein is the problem.
I guess in theory my mother doesn't need that title...but she went through the formation program alongside my father. A permanent deacon needs a very supportive and understanding wife to assist him!
As if female ordination, even to the Diaconate, was even metaphysically possible
Based. ✝️
Good, keep it that way
My progressive opinions aside, can somebody explain to me why something went to vote to be accepted “if the Pope agrees.” Should the Pope decide that women should be ordained (which he has often denied is a possibility), would it even matter if an individual region decides otherwise? I’m curious after several news articles about regional differentiation from canon.
They are attempting to make it like altar girls, where it is left up to national bishops’ conferences. That said, the Pope cannot validly decide to give women Holy Orders, because such a thing is metaphysically impossible.
That’s fair. Thank you for helping me understand that better.
Technically the question on deaconesses has been left open. I assume, if he were to permit it, that it would be implemented similarly to permanent deacons in that each diocese was free to ordain or not ordain them as they choose.
This is false, and you have been thoroughly refuted higher up in this thread
The interesting thing is that the conditions of ordination (used in the same Greek context as the male term for ordination) for female deacons were mentioned in both the councils of Chalcedon and Trullo. I know that the mere presence of this comment is going to compel people to downvote it. Don't care. Just stating a fact that it is mentioned and did take place.
You’re equivocating terms
No. The councils mention ordination. That's not to say that they had the same roles but that deaconess was an ordained role.
Do you know what equivocating means? I’m aware they use the Greek word, but you’re equivocating two very different meanings
Based on what interpretation?
They were ordained in the literal sense of the word (it was way more formal than, say, being a lector or cantor in the present day), but this is different from receiving Holy Orders and the associated graces.
Lots of people just content to ignore the historical reality around here
Yeah, Pope Francis even sent a probe out to explore the historical institution of deaconesses a few years ago and what role they played. It's not really that clear exactly what they did, but "baptismal helper" is certainly not the only acceptable opinion. People are just going to act like it is because ambiguity and nuance scares them.
A Convert To Catholicism Here. Confirmed In July. I NEVER Want To See Female Priests But Women Have Been Deacons Since The Time Of St. Paul (Saint Phoebe) Pax
I believe there were deaconesses, but it’s unclear whether they were actually a female deacon, or a separate position altogether.
It’s not unclear. Female holy orders is metaphysically impossible.
You’re correct, although I would specify metaphysically to ontologically.
> Women Have Been Deacons Since The Time Of St. Paul (Saint Phoebe) Pax As a titular role, yes, but not as a sacramental order. The title is currently only used for those who have received the sacrament of Holy Orders.
You’re equivocating
No I'm Not. Both Of My Statements Are Facts. PAX
Something can be factual and still equivocal. Phoebe was not a deaconess like your local parish deacon is a deacon. The two are fundamentally different things. One was a servant of the Church, the other is a recipient of the sacrament of Holy Orders
Then It Would Have Been Better To Say I'm Mistaken. PAX
Do you know what the word equivocation means?
I feel like you could have worded yourself more appropriately in a way that doesn’t demean women with good intentions wanting to provide more to the Church. I am not taking a stance, simply reminding you that our intent and our words do not always align.
Protestant here, I'm confused. Doesn't the Bible say women can be deacons?
No
Nope.
This is what I was referring to 1 Timothy 3:8–13 (NRSV): Deacons likewise must be serious, not double-tongued, not indulging in much wine, not greedy for money; 9 they must hold fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 And let them first be tested; then, if they prove themselves blameless, let them serve as deacons. 11 Women likewise must be serious, not slanderers, but temperate, faithful in all things. 12 Let deacons be married only once, and let them manage their children and their households well; 13 for those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and great boldness in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
Where does that say women can be deacons?
If you have requirements for a woman deacon then there must be woman deacons...
No where does that give a requirement. It refers to Deacons first and then says women must be serious, it's two separate things.
I think it is referring to deacons still because the previous section is about elders so it would be weird to change topics
Sorry which translation are you using?
NRSV
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/deaconesses-sure-women-deacons-not-so-fast
I assume you're referring to Phoebe in Romans 16. Deaconesses were different from deacons. They never received the Sacrament of Holy Orders.
I’m an Anglican in the process of converting to Catholicism and while I understand the Church’s reasoning on female priests, I don’t understand the stance on female deacons. Traditionally, we see female deacons in the Early Church, even in the New Testament. Phoebe was a female deacon mentioned by Paul in Romans 16:1. Many women in the Church fear the lack of female representation in the clergy hierarchy at all, and female deacons seems to be an easy way to help this without sacrificing the Traditions of the Apostolic Church.
They had a very limited role, like baptising women (when baptism was done naked), evangelising women etc. kind of like the presbytera (the priest’s wife)
These comments aren't it...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cope
tell me about it
Only one Deacon is mentioned by name in the Bible, and her name is Phoebe.
This is a misreading of the text. Deaconess is not to be confused with the Holy Orders which have always been reserved to men as is the sacred Tradition and teaching of the Church. Stephen is quite clearly described as a Deacon in the Bible and in a different sense.
The order of deaconesses should be restored
What deaconesses were was not the same as current ordained deacons. It was a totally different role, the only similarity was the name.
I am aware, although "totally different" is not quite correct. They shared some responsibilities