www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Document on Women Deaconesses

" Dear Remie,

I am not sure to whom you refer when you claim that "the modernists continue in the power of the Latin Church."

Here's why:

The Leadership of the Latin Church is embodied in the hierarchy. It has never been known as a bastion of liberalism. Certainly the current Pope and other leaders of the Church, such as Cardinal Ratzinger, are not seen by most observers as extremely liberal.

So, to whom do you refer and on what basis do you make that judgement?

Thanks for hearing me out. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Steve

What's the deal with His Eminence Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger? I've heard some people do not like him, but there seems to be nothing wrong with him at all. Does anyone have any verified inside information on this man, or where I could find an online biography of some sort?

ChristTeen287

Christ teen:

I really admire Cardinal Ratzinger and his defense of the christian faith, the Sacraments and the way he supports a true Ecumenism.
He has a lot of respect toward the Eastern Orthodox Church, specially the liturgy.
He has been very critical against the inflitration of non-catholic/orthodox doctrines in the Catholic Church (protestantis, false ecumenism, modernism, etc), and a he is a defender of the traditional Latin Mass.

http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/index.html

He is sometimes seen as "the conservative" side of John Paul II. They both agree that many things would change, but the other Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences are very liberal, that was the problem I described before. However, what I said was an error.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Christ Teen, Cardinal Ratzinger's bio looks like this.

Name: H.E. Joseph Card. Ratzinger

Position: Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith.

Age: 75

From: Germany

Cardinal Since: Monday June 27, 1977

Title: Cardinal Bishop of Surburbicarian See of Velletri-Segni.

Dear Remie I can not believe you are the only one to overreact on this board .

Well, then let's take it from the other angle. Le tus have the proper charism for the proper ministry. By ordaining women as deacons, this will make them less prone to heterodoxy.

Axios

Hello:

My personal opinion is that this is not necessary. The formation received to become religious sisters or nuns would be enough to avert that risk in pretty much the same way than ordination as female deacons (or appointment as deaconesses) would.

But of course, that is only my opinion.

Shalom,
Memo.

I understand your point, but while legitimate, it does lean towards a Protestant viewpoint of training rather than the understanding of sacramental charism found in Orthodoxy.

Axios

regarding deaconesses:

Given the current climate of things, may I relate a comment my brother made to me once upon a time when I was goofing off in church...

"Wrong time, wrong place."

...btw, that's my "best case opinion"

Let me walk thorugh why I would not concur in what I think the previous post might be saying.

1. Society (along with the Church, according to your Pope) has mistreated women in the past.

2. In legitimate response to these wrongs, a movement for womens social equality has arisen.

3. This movement has both been a means of justice and has, or sections of it has, fallen to certain errors.

4. Some in this movement view priestly ordination as a goal towards the social equality of women.

5. In order to correct the error of #4, Catholics and Orthodox should oppose any change in the status quo as to women in church or society including unqualified opposition to feminism and particular opposition to women deacons or other functions or ministries in the Church not currently open to them.

I find the conclusion (#5) to be a mistaken viewpoint.

Axios

Axios,

I follow what you are saying and conclusion #5 is one point of view. But it is not the only reason people oppose female non-ordained deaconesses. I believe I share NDHoosier's point of view that the reason to oppose such a move is not to try and reverse runaway feminism. Rather the reason to oppose such a move is because of runaway feminism which is very active in western societies (ours especially) at this point in time. Anciently that was not the case and having deaconesses did not fuel/agitate/encourage wrong thinking about women being eligible for the priesthood. In today's society bringing back the deaconesses would have that affect. Since the Catholic hierarchy and church tradition have said women cannot be priests then this will only cause more problems for everyone in the church - lay people as well as clergy.

That's why it's the "wrong time" - because at THIS point in history having deaconesses will foster/encourage a wrong view of the priesthood and make those uneligible even more unhappy. Perhaps in the future if society changes then there would be no problem with having them again.

Anon

I would ask you to please read the post that I made two pages earlier which is a reply to another person who shares your perspective.

Women do not belong in the priesthood, but the deaconate is not the priesthood! I find that your view of the matter is limited in that it is controlling women based on the fear of further rebellion. Rebellion is often the result of oppression, and so I would encourage you to consider why women would be "rebelling" in the first place.

Abusus non tollit usus. I've heard the same argument made about many things that have happened since Vatican II, such as reception of communion in the hand in the Latin Church, or the use of the vernacular, or the restoration of the permanent diaconate. I've heard people rejecting language used by the Fathers in the great spritual works, because the terms they used have been appropriate by occultists.

I've heard the same sort of thing in our own Churches regarding the restoration of our spiritual and liturgical patrimony. The same thing was said at the Council of Trent, regarding aspects of the Reform such as liturgy and scriptures in the vernacular. It's all the same thing--taking counsel of one's fears, in direct contradiction to Christ's words oft repeated by Pope John Paul II: "Be not afraid".

The fact is, either something is right in itself, or wrong in itself, and one cannot avoid doing right simply because it will create the wrong impression, or give encouragement to those one opposes. The Church has made that mistake too many times, so it would be good if it stopped now.

This, I believe, just dodges the issue. Can someone please tell me when is this "new time' that women would be eligible to become deaconesses is supposed to happen? The Ethiopian Deaconesses don't try to become Priests and even if they did, even if the presence of Deaconesses did fuel or "foster/encourage a wrong view of the priesthood' the answer is just NO, what is so difficult about that? Women can not be Priest, not because of any social considerations but because of deep theological and spiritual considerations.

I agree with NDHoosier and Anon on this.

Here is a concern raised by a Latin Catholic friend of mine.

It is taught within the Catholic Church that a woman can not recieve the sacrament of Holy Orders.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say.

1554. "'The divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees by those who even from ancient times have been called bishops, priests, and deacons.'[LG 28.] Catholic doctrine, expressed in the liturgy, the Magisterium, and the constant practice of the Church, recognizes that there are two degrees of ministerial participation in the priesthood of Christ: the episcopacy and the presbyterate . The diaconate is intended to help and serve them. For this reason the term sacerdos in current usage denotes bishops and priests but not deacons. Yet Catholic doctrine teaches that the degrees of priestly participation (episcopate and presbyterate) and the degree of service (diaconate) are all three conferred by a sacramental act called 'ordination,' that is, by the sacrament of Holy Orders:
Let everyone revere the deacons as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image of the Father, and the presbyters as the senate of God and the assembly of the apostles. For without them one cannot speak of the Church.[St. Ignatius of Antioch, Ad Trall. 3,1: SCh 10, 96.]"

Now to use some logic here.

So, if the diaconate is part of the sacrament of Holy Orders and woman can not receive Holy Orders, how can we have a deaconess?

David

ps I am still waiting for StuartK to answer the questionsI have asked him in the past.

1)Just becuase we had deaconesses in the past, why must we revive their usage? If we should have them just because we had them in the past then why not revive other things, such as the way penance was done in the early church.

2)If the role of the deaconess, which predated nuns, has been taken over by nuns then why restore it?

Dear David,

I don't want to skirt around this issue either . . .

(I'm in euphoria over the Pope's Rosary Letter, so you are just going to have to forgive me, O.K.? )

I can't speak for Stuart (and I wouldn't want to - I might end up not understanding myself . . . ).

(Alex, calm down, stop it!)

. . . O.K., let's start over again . . .

First of all, although deaconnesses had a specific liturgical rite by which they were consecrated such, they were never considered members of the clergy - for the reasons you gave and quote - period!

I think we need to do more study of their role in the Church, why that role became defunct over time and how they fit in with other Eastern Churches today, e.g. the Coptic Church.

We need to especially look at their role in Greece where there is an academy that trains Deaconesses.

And we also need to look at what our laity think of the renewal of such a role, whether it should initially be limited to female monastics (can a Deaconess add something to what they already do?).

Frankly, the real issue is married priests and the role of the Presbytera for many of us today - especially for the Ruthenian Catholic Church.

I think we should jump one hurdle at a time in order of priority.

Alex