Nathan Nelson just surprised me

[Guest JeffCR07]

This subject I am sure has been beaten to death already, but if I might add my two cents to the conversation:

It is my understanding that the role and function of the female deacon was primarily one tied to the baptising of adult women in the Eastern and Western Church until approximately the middle ages. Because people were still baptised by submersion, it was common to do so naked, and, as such, it would be improper for a male priest/bishop to preside over the rite. Thus, women baptised adult women. The women whose function it was to do so are what are referred to as "female deacons" though there is nothing at all that would ever imply that they received Holy Orders.

Your Brother In Christ,

Jeff

[Aloysius]

well then, perhaps I was just expressing my desire for a reformation and renewell of most female religious orders. I'm not really sure. I think a good case has been presented here against actual sacramental ordination which is why I would return to what I suggested on GF's blog that it be a seperate type of diaconate.

Anyway, I think we should focus more on the Nicaea council quote. What evidence do you present, Nathan, that this refers solely to the heretical groups? It seems to me to be saying that those deaconesses from the Paulianists ought to be put in the same role as regular deaconesses in the Catholic Church, that both are numbered among the laity. What evidence do you present that there was ordination in the actual Catolic deaconesses? You made the claim " deaconesses ordained within the Church did receive the imposition of hands in their ordination rites." then said we're all ignoring your arguments, but didn't provide evidence that they did. Did they? I'm not sure, I've never seen proof that they did. Only reference to it seems to be this reference to the Paulianists that they are to have the "same form be observed".

I hope you didn't mind me posting this here... I felt like discussing it myself and didn't intend to draw you in if you didn't want to.

don't get mad at us... we're all just trying to understand here (though a lot of the people here have already done enough research to be confident that they know what they're talking about).

I would like to see your evidence that they received actual sacramental orders. You seem confident of that but on what basis?

-pax-

[Good Friday]

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.

Edited May 27, 2005 by Good Friday

[Noel's angel]

i actually found your comments quite interesting

[Good Friday]

[quote name='JeffCR07']The women whose function it was to do so are what are referred to as "female deacons" though there is nothing at all that would ever imply that they received Holy Orders.[/quote]
Except of course for their ordination rites, which were virtually identical to those used for the ordination of deacons. But of course there's [i]nothing at all[/i] that would imply they received holy orders, because reality isn't reality, reality is whatever you guys define it to be.

[Good Friday]

[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...

Perhaps part of this agenda was [url="http://exiledcatholic.blogspot.com/2005/05/quo-vadis.html"]fully accepting the teaching of the Church and repudiating all past words and actions in which I dissented from that teaching[/url];

Or maybe you're referring to my [url="http://exiledcatholic.blogspot.com/2005/05/ordaining-female-priests.html"]defense of the magisterium's teaching on the reservation of priestly ordination to men alone, against a friend of mine no less[/url];

Or perhaps you're referring to my [url="http://exiledcatholic.blogspot.com/2005/05/abortions-rising.html"]admission that abortion rates continued to decline during the Bush administration, and my apology and retraction for citing an earlier article which said those abortion rates were increasing[/url];

Or you could be referring to my [url="http://exiledcatholic.blogspot.com/2005/05/agreeing-to-disagree.html"]entry on agreeing to disagree with neo-conservative Catholics on matters of prudential judgment, in which I once again reiterated that Catholics must give full assent to divinely revealed or definitively proposed truth, and religious submission of will and intellect to teachings of ordinary papal magisterium[/url];

Or maybe you're even referring to my [url="http://exiledcatholic.blogspot.com/2005/05/red-russia.html"]condemnation of Russia's clandestine, deceptive neo-communism[/url];

Or, last but not least, you could be referring to my [url="http://socialconcern.blogspot.com/2005/05/slippery-slope.html"]thoroughly Catholic argument against the utilitarianism involved in embryonic stem cell research[/url].

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

[kateri05]

GooD Friday, I'm not sure why you're getting so upset noone has done or said anything rude or cruel or uncharitable EXCEPT to disagree with you, which isn't uncharitable, its simply discussing the issue that aloysius (sp?) presented. people like Todd, jeff, Micah and many others have a whole wealth of knowledge and experience on this issue as well as the appropriate charitable presenation to make a discussion both polite and civil. so i guess i'm not sure whats getting you so upset

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='Good Friday' date='May 27 2005, 05:00 PM'] [quote name='JeffCR07']The women whose function it was to do so are what are referred to as "female deacons" though there is nothing at all that would ever imply that they received Holy Orders.[/quote]
Except of course for their ordination rites, which were virtually identical to those used for the ordination of deacons. But of course there's [i]nothing at all[/i] that would imply they received holy orders, because reality isn't reality, reality is whatever you guys define it to be. [/quote]
Good Friday, God Bless, and the Peace of Christ be upon you,

Do you have a link or some source for me to look at the rite used to initiate a female deacon? I would be very interested in reading such a thing, and comparing it myself to the rite of ordination of a male deacon both today and centuries ago.

[journeyman]

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.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (which states there may be some exaggeration in the older documents): [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm[/url]

Further it is certain that a ritual was in use for the ordination of deaconesses by the laying on of hands which was closely modeled on the ritual for the ordination of a deacon. For example, the Apostolic Constitutions say:

Concerning a deaconess, I, Bartholomew enjoin O Bishop, thou shalt lay thy hands upon her with all the Presbytery and the Deacons and the Deaconesses and thou shalt say: Eternal God, the Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the creator of man and woman, that didst fill with the Spirit Mary and Deborah, and Anna and Huldah, that didst not disdain that thine only begotten Son should be born of a woman; Thou that in the tabernacle of witness and in the temple didst appoint women guardians of thy holy gates: Do thou now look on this thy handmaid, who is appointed unto the office of a Deaconess and grant unto her the Holy Spirit, and cleanse her from all pollution of the flesh and of the spirit, that she may worthily accomplish the work committed unto her, to thy glory and the praise of thy Christ.

Comparing this form with that given in the same work with that for the ordination of deacons we may notice that the reference to the outpouring of Holy Ghost in the latter case is much more strongly worded: "fill him with the spirit and with power as thou didst fill Stephen the martyr and follower of the sufferings of thy Christ". Moreover, in the case of the deacon, prayer is made that he "may be counted worthy of a higher standing", a clause which not improbably has reference to the possibility of advance to a higher ecclesiastical dignity as priest or bishop, no such praise being used in the case of the deaconess.

The subject of the precise status of the deaconess is confessedly obscure and confused . . .

Presumptious abuse of power in the East was repressed. The West was reluctant to accept deaconesses as an institution. [url="http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd02589.htm"]http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd02589.htm[/url]

Some historical references (hearsay - from a site not likely to be deemed impartial - but are specific enough that they could be checked by those with more knowledge of Greek, Latin, Italian and the Vatican libraries than I have)

Canon 15, Fourth Council of Chalcedon, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV
Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, Pars II., Causa XXVII, Quaest. I., Canon xxiij.

The Apostolic Constitutions, Book VIII Section III.-Ordination and Duties of the Clergy
Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VII.

Manuscript Barberini gr. 336also known as the Nicolai Manuscript,
or as the Euchologion of St. Mark
Publication of the Greek text with an Italian translation by Stefano Parenti & Elena Velkovska, L’Eucologio Barberini Gr. 336, Bibliotheca «Ephemerides Liturgicae Subsidia» no 80, Edizioni Liturgiche, Roma 2000. pp. 170-174 & 336-339.
Published and translated into Latin by John Morinus, in Commentarius de Sacris Ecclesiae Ordinationibus, publ. Kalverstraat, Antwerp 1695

The Canons of the Council of Trullo #14, #48
also called the Quinisext Council, 692 AD
Attended by 211 Greek-speaking Bishops. Main purpose was to complete the Council of Constantinople by issuing "canons". The reigning Pope Sergius (687 - 701 AD) refused to sign the decrees, rejecting them as “lacking authority” and containing “novel errors”. But a century later Pope Hadrian I (772 - 795 AD) recognised the Trullan decrees.
Translation from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV

The Didascalia Apostolorum, Chapter 16
Collection of pseudo-apostolic church laws, North Syria; 3rd cent. AD
G. Homer, The Didascalia Apostolorum. The Syriac Version Translated, Oxford 1929.

Book III, Section. II.-On Deacons and Deaconesses, the Rest of the Clergy, and on Baptism.
The Apostolic Constitutions
Translation from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VII

The Coislin gr. 213 Manuscript, also known as the Strategios Euchologion
The Ordination of Women Deacons in the Byzantine/Greek Tradition
This manuscript is found in the Coislin collection of the National Library in Paris. It dates from the 11th century. The rites contained in the text are very old, certainly not later than the 7th and 8th centuries AD.
An edition of the Greek text has been published by J. Duncan, PIO 1983

The Bessarion Manuscript, also known as Grotta Ferrata, gr. Gb1, the Patriarchal Euchologion or as the George Varus manuscript
The Ordination of Women Deacons in the Byzantine/Greek Tradition
found in the Greek monastery of Crypta Ferrata
Edition of the Greek text done by Miguel Arranz, L’Eucologio Constantinopolitano agli Inizi del Secolo XI, Editrice Pontifica Università Gregoriana, Rome 1996, pages 153-160.
Published and translated into Latin by John Morinus, in Commentarius de Sacris Ecclesiae Ordinationibus, publ. Kalverstraat, Antwerp 1695; pp. 63 - 65.

(Codex Syriacus Vaticanus, no 19)
Ritus Orientalium, ed. H.Denzinger, Würzburg 1864; deacon's ordination on pp. 229 - 233; deaconess's ordination on pp. 261 - 262.

Jacob Goar, Euchologion sive Rituale Graecorum, Paris 1647; pp. 262-264; with notes on pp. 264-267.

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.

all material excerpted from Google search: deaconess ordination

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='journeyman' date='May 27 2005, 10:27 PM'] 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.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia (which states there may be some exaggeration in the older documents): [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04651a.htm[/url]

[. . .] [/quote]
These articles represent the views of their authors, just as the books by M. Hauke, A. G. Martimort, and others, represent an opposing viewpoint. The historical sources are open to interpretation, because a proper intention, which is required for a true sacrament, is not always easy to determine in a text, but what is not open to interpretation is the Magisterium's rejection of the ordination of women. Once again, if women can be ordained to the diaconate, it follows of necessity that they can be ordained to the presbyterate and the episcopate, because the Sacrament of Orders is one sacrament. The Church has definitively spoken on this matter, both through her liturgical law, and through her authoritative doctrinal pronouncements.

[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.