FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Theologian dismisses call for women 'deacons'
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Theologian dismisses call for women 'deacons'

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/t...n-deacons/

Interesting stuff.  Glad to see someone step up and address this.  I wish this was coming from high up in the Vatican so that it might carry more weight, but it is a good start. 
Disappointing  :'((

Every day I look forward to reading the headlines in the Tablet because it gives me hope that the new springtime isn't over. The spirit of Vatican II has barely been released and it looks like we're already going back to the dark ages. I've been telling my sister (who thinks she has a vocation to the priesthood) that one day I would love to attend her saying a TLM (she wants to be FSSP) but now this will probably never happen in my life time. Vatican II called for women's ordination everybody knows that. The real documents were hidden because Pope Paul VI got switched for a fake so he couldn't release it.
The Vatican has always thrown things down to the "lower courts" until it couldn't be avoided. It's subsidiarity. I think they'll have to weigh in on this one within the next twenty years or so.

Strangely enough, it is like gay marriage. It's like they just want to use the word. The thing is, we don't speak Greek, so calling them deacon(esse)s would not be equivalent to what was going on in ancient times, because the term was understood as "minister" in addition to true deacons. Now it is just the ordained who bear that title.
I certainly don't have any issue women taking on the role they had in the early church as deaconesses (helping women with baptism, handling catechisis with women), but to use the actual term "deaconesses" these days would be misinterpreted and likely be way to easy to be subverted.  it's just be better to call women involved in those ministries "catechists" and close the door accordingly.

Of course, the problem now is can you ever close the door fully?  Takes two minutes of Google to see "there used to be female deacons!"  Good thing Jp2 issued a no-nonsense ex cathdra statement on the ordination of women (as in, it's impossible to happen).

(05-06-2013, 12:27 PM)Melchior Wrote: [ -> ]I certainly don't have any issue women taking on the role they had in the early church as deaconesses (helping women with baptism, handling catechisis with women), but to use the actual term "deaconesses" these days would be misinterpreted and likely be way to easy to be subverted.  it's just be better to call women involved in those ministries "catechists" and close the door accordingly.

Of course, the problem now is can you ever close the door fully?  Takes two minutes of Google to see "there used to be female deacons!"  Good thing Jp2 issued a no-nonsense ex cathdra statement on the ordination of women (as in, it's impossible to happen).

I agree. Myself I see nothing wrong with it. I remember seeing once a picture of a Carthusian Abbess (IIRC) who had a mitre on and perhaps holding a crosier - well in any case she looked like a bishop, yet it was perfectly legitimate. I think in many instances it is okay with certain conditions. For instance, women in cloistered communities through the centuries who took certain liturgical roles or did things that today traddies would find offensive (only because of the rampant liberalism) were consecrated women who took their roles very seriously and were always on the same page as the Church. It's funny that all these dissidents are not consecrated women, are sexual liberals, hate many doctrines and are not stern-but-holy women who see it that their duty is to do as much penance as possible and pray hard for the world. It's rather the opposite. I have zero problem with the historical reality of saintly consecrated women reading the Epistle at Mass (which used to happen, but can't remember where I read it) or controlling men as a superior (St Bridgit of Sweden) and other such examples. But today the situation is a whole lot different and it would probably confuse and scandalize people. If we get back on track before the Second Coming then I think once again we'll see women taking up these roles in the appropriate ways.
(05-06-2013, 12:57 PM)Felix E Wrote: [ -> ]
(05-06-2013, 12:27 PM)Melchior Wrote: [ -> ]I certainly don't have any issue women taking on the role they had in the early church as deaconesses (helping women with baptism, handling catechisis with women), but to use the actual term "deaconesses" these days would be misinterpreted and likely be way to easy to be subverted.  it's just be better to call women involved in those ministries "catechists" and close the door accordingly.

Of course, the problem now is can you ever close the door fully?  Takes two minutes of Google to see "there used to be female deacons!"  Good thing Jp2 issued a no-nonsense ex cathdra statement on the ordination of women (as in, it's impossible to happen).

I agree. Myself I see nothing wrong with it. I remember seeing once a picture of a Carthusian Abbess (IIRC) who had a mitre on and perhaps holding a crosier - well in any case she looked like a bishop, yet it was perfectly legitimate. I think in many instances it is okay with certain conditions. For instance, women in cloistered communities through the centuries who took certain liturgical roles or did things that today traddies would find offensive (only because of the rampant liberalism) were consecrated women who took their roles very seriously and were always on the same page as the Church. It's funny that all these dissidents are not consecrated women, are sexual liberals, hate many doctrines and are not stern-but-holy women who see it that their duty is to do as much penance as possible and pray hard for the world. It's rather the opposite. I have zero problem with the historical reality of saintly consecrated women reading the Epistle at Mass (which used to happen, but can't remember where I read it) or controlling men as a superior (St Bridgit of Sweden) and other such examples. But today the situation is a whole lot different and it would probably confuse and scandalize people. If we get back on track before the Second Coming then I think once again we'll see women taking up these roles in the appropriate ways.

You've hit the nail on the head perfectly right there.  I'd like to add that it's often those who say "I don't want this position of leadership!" often find themselves placed there through the Will of God, and they often do the best job (that isn't limited to woman either, that goes for men too).

If anything, I'm shocked the uber libs haven't grabbed a photo of an Abbess and cry out "WHERP HERP WOMYN BISHOPZ" with zero context.

It'd be nice if we could bring back the title of deaconesses, but it's probably more trouble than it's worth right now.  But the actual role they had then can certainly be done by any orthodox woman in good standing.  I'm 100% in favor of any orthodox anyone doing the Will of God and building up His Church through a valid ministry and/or aposolate.
Quote:Bishop Voderholzer pointed out that abbesses, general superiors, and school principals all generally have more influence than deacons.

I still can't figure out why these do not satisfy demands for greater roles for women.
(05-06-2013, 04:24 PM)dark lancer Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Bishop Voderholzer pointed out that abbesses, general superiors, and school principals all generally have more influence than deacons.

I still can't figure out why these do not satisfy demands for greater roles for women.

That's because you're a sexist pig brought up in a patriarchal society that hates women!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(05-06-2013, 04:24 PM)dark lancer Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Bishop Voderholzer pointed out that abbesses, general superiors, and school principals all generally have more influence than deacons.

I still can't figure out why these do not satisfy demands for greater roles for women.

Because they don't want to control or have authority and power over women, but men.

The first step in this is the blurring of gender lines and roles. Having a woman head women in an insular feminine community is not the role they seek.
They won't be satisfied until a girl Pappess steps out onto the loggia to great huzzahs.  At least she could take the name Francis II.  That name kinda swings both ways.
Pages: 1 2