What’s the problem with women deacons?
Card. Des. laments that so many bishops and theologians are once again sowing confusion in this area. But let's face it Pope Francis has destabilized the Church after so many years of clarification by John Paul and Benedict. Pope Francis has returned us to the squalor of the 1970's pre-John Paul II confusion. Just read liberal Praytell and you see what Ladaria is talking about!
But what about female deacons. There has never be a definitive statement about male deacons being a part of the Ordinary Magisterium. And what about minor orders like sub deacon, lector, acolyte, tonsure (candidacy) porter and exorcist?
Ladaria is the head of the commission looking in to female deacons. Should they look into transsexual ordinations too?
Do deacons act in Persona Christi when reading the Gospel especially when they read the Words of Christ which the Gospel records in the First Person? Can a women be a sacramental "sign or icon" of Jesus Christ the Bridegroom made visible in the Mass?
35 comments:
"Can a women be a sacramental "sign or icon" of Jesus Christ the Bridegroom made visible in the Mass?"
Yes, there is nothing in the nature of a woman that prevents her from being a true icon of Jesus Christ.
Yep, it's coming...... all must be sacrificed on the altar of engagement and relevance....
So a woman can stand in for the Son of Man because she can be a man? Interesting. You've drunk the koolaide I see.
"Son of Man" - Does it refer to males?
Or does it refer to Jesus' sovereignty over all thing? (In Mark 13:26 Jesus is clearly associating himself with the imagery of Daniel 7 - "In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all nations and peoples of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed."
Methinks the latter is the best understanding. Is there something in the nature of a woman that prevents her from being a true icon of Christ who is sovereign over all things?
Well I know that FRMJK will want to chime in on your blasphemy for I am using Icon of Christ in the traditional understanding of the term as is the spirituality of the Church of the East, both those in union with the Bishop of Rome and the Orthodox.
For you to say that an Icon can be made of Christ (an Image of Christ) by using a woman as a model is blasphemy and quite unecumenical. I think you better study what iconography is in the Eastern Church to understand the Sacrament of Holy Orders as an Icon of Christ during the celebration of Mass, especially at the Consecration and reading in the setting of the Mass the Words of Christ.
Are you Catholic? I fear you don't understand the sacramental principle.
Interestingly, PF with his Latin American background and 'machismo' culture is not overly interested in giving women a more prominent liturgical role. It would require only a minor change to Paul VI's 'Ministeria Quaedam' of 1972 to admit women to the ministries of lector and acolyte, yet he has not made even this concession.
John Nolan,
YIKES, MT might report your comment to his Golden Calf!
"Icon" and "Iconography" are not the same thing.
London icons include Tower Bridge, Westminster Abbey, Buckingham Palace, etc. Paris icons include the Eiffel tower, Notre Dame, and Sacre Coeur. Washington DC icons include the Washington Monument, the Capitol Building, and the Lincoln Memorial.
None of these is a two-dimensional image "written" by an iconographer - they are icons without being iconographic.
People who are not Christ or his gender often read His words aloud in worship. People who are not Ezekiel, Isaiah, or Habakkuk do the same. Is the nature of the prophets offended? Are the people scandalized? I think not.
Holy Scripture, and Christianity in general, are patriachal. Live with it.
Sorry you are so ignorant about the Sacramental principle of Holy Orders as it concerns the Mass. Go and study the catechism and stop relying on your Gnosticism, neo or otherwise.
Among the meanings of the word icon, and as rightly noted by our PRIEST moderator, is that it is a person or thing regarded as a representative symbol of something. The priest acts in the person of Christ and is therefore an icon spiritually and physically. A deacon is called to be a servant (diakonia means service). Priest is a higher order than deacon. Deacons proclaim the gospel, assist their bishop and priests in the service of the liturgy and assist with the good works of the diocese. As Gene points out, given the patriarchal nature of holy scripture and Christianity in general, neither of these roles can be fulfilled by women.
I suppose most here have read Fr. Z's post on Card.-elect Ladaria's statement that the infallibility of the non-possibility of ordination of women is based on the substance of the sacrament of Holy Orders. He says:
"The Second Vatican Council also taught that the sacrament of order is in three degrees.
"What applies to one degree, concerning the substance of the sacrament, applies to all three.
"Moreover, if the matter and form of the sacrament for ordaining bishops and priests requires a male recipient, then so does the matter and form for ordaining deacons. And again, if the Church doesn’t have the authority to ordain women to one degree, she doesn’t have the authority to ordain women to any of the three degrees.
"Orders can only be received by males."
Sounds like it all hangs together.
Yes, the Eiffel Tower is an ICON of Paris, Tower Bridge is an ICON of London, and the Capitol Building is an ICON of Washington.
Doesn't take a PRIEST to know that and icon is a representation of something or someone else. But it also doesn't take a PRIEST to know that the function of icons isn't limited to or restricted by gender.
Scripture isn't patriarchal. The culture in which it was written was, as the culture was controlled by men, but the Scriptures are egalitarian. "Go into ALL the world and preach the good news."
Anon @ 5:03 (Kavanaugh), Holy Scripture is not egalitarian. That is an 18th century concept that cannot be read back into Biblical times. You cannot separate Scripture from the culture in which it arose. The message of Scripture is, in many ways, patriarchal. There is nothing wrong with that. It was males who led and fought with Israel to keep the faith alive. God chose to become incarnate in a male. God is identified as Father by the prophets. Adam was created prior to the female. All the disciples were male.
It was the absence of the male initiative in the birth of Christ that is determinative in our understanding of God's will and initiative in human history. Please, read some theology, or even Scripture now and again.
'Egalitarianism is a protean doctrine, because there are different types of equality, or ways in which people might be treated the same, or might relate as equals, that might be thought desirable.' (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). So it's not sufficient to say that 'the Scriptures are egalitarian.'
Furthermore, the Church has always opposed radical egalitarianism as being destructive to the social order. She also teaches (and all recent popes have endorsed this) that man and woman are not equal in every respect, but complementary.
The use of 'iconic' to mean 'widely recognized, known or acknowledged' is somewhat overused. As far as gender is concerned, the Eiffel Tower is feminine since all nouns in French are either masculine or feminine, and Tower Bridge is neuter, since this is the grammatical rule in English. So what?
If Anonymous is obliquely arguing for women's ordination, contrary to Church teaching, then it would be better if he came out and said so, rather than indulging in pointless word-games. After all, he can't be identified, can he?
"You cannot separate Scripture from the culture in which it arose."
Oh, but we can....
CCC 109 "In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to us by their words."
Did the authors want to affirm the superiority of males? No.
Did God want to dismiss the contributions of females in His plan of salvation? No.
Ever hear of SARAH who responded with Abraham to leave their land and put their trust in a covenant with God?
Ever read about fourth judge and prophet DEBORAH?
Or about ESTHER who saved her people through a personal act of courage?
To name a few....
The Eiffel tower is not feminine. It has no gender.
The French NOUN has been assigned a gender for grammatical purposes.
Sheesh.
Kavanaugh,
What are you imbibing tonight? No one is stating what you are suggesting they are. Man up and quit the Anonymous crap, your bishop isn’t fooled
As for Adam being created prior to Eve, well...
Humans arose from the primordial ooze according to what Darwin described as "descent with modification." There was not a time when the male existed and the female did not.
Even for those who reject evolution, the Scriptures are not definitive on the chronology of the appearance of males and females.
As you are entirely aware, Genesis 1 recounts the creation of man and woman simultaneously.
"Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth. God created mankind in his image; in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them."
Genesis II recounts the creation of the man and, sometime later, the woman. "So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. The LORD God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman."
Neither Genesis I nor Genesis II is attempting to recount precise historical data. Even St Augustine knew this, and he knew nothing of Darwin.
Kavanaugh, I am well aware of all you are rattling on about. Scripture is not talking about the mechanics of creation, rather certain spiritual truths and priorities. Your stuff about Ruth and Deborah, etc, is merely anecdotal and not in keeping with the overall context of Scripture. Baalam's Ass spoke, as well, but talking asses are not regularly encountered as a theme in Scripture. They are certainly, as in your case, still to be found in places.
Gene,
Comedy Gold!!!!
Gene, You stated "Adam was created prior to the female."
That is your comment on the "mechanics of creation," and you used it to defend what you call the "patriarchy" of Scripture.
Even if male was created "prior" to the female - and he was not - that would not support some cockamamie notion that males are superior to females.
It is bunk.
Scripture is clear that woman is made from man. Woman is dependent on man, and woman is subordinate to man. That is the order established by God.
Man is also dependent on woman and has a grave responsibility to see to her well-being.
Patriarchy isn’t inherently negative, as everyone understood until the 1960’s.
The order established by God is that men and women are of equal dignity, and neither is "subordinate" to the other.
CCC 369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. "Being man" or "being woman" is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator. Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity "in the image of God". In their "being-man" and "being-woman", they reflect the Creator's wisdom and goodness.
CCC 1645 The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection.
CCC 2334 "In creating men 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity."119 "Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."
CCC 2335 Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." All human generations proceed from this union.
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church
144. “God shows no partiality” (Acts 10:34; cf. Rom 2:11; Gal 2:6; Eph 6:9), since all people have the same dignity as creatures made in his image and likeness[281]. The Incarnation of the Son of God shows the equality of all people with regard to dignity: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28; cf. Rom 10:12; 1 Cor 12:13, Col 3:11).
Slavery wasn't inherently negative, as everyone understood until the . . . Wait, yes it was.
Whatever is conveyed to us in Scripture has a significance which transcends what one would read in any literature or textbook written by man alone. Though written by men, it is the inspired Word of God which conveys to us something about the Divine Being and also His plan for mankind.
Yes, the order of creation in Genesis II is the way it is for a reason, as is the Incarnation of the Son of God into the human nature of a male.
One of the biggest mistakes made by human beings is to de-construct the Holy Word of God by using historical-scientific measures, and man-inspired exegetical techniques.
Genesis 3:16: "To the woman also he said, I will multiply thy sorrows and thy conceptions. In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee."
Colossians 3: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as it behooveth in the Lord."
Ephesians 5: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore, as the church is subject to Christ, so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things."
Poor old Anonymous. Can't distinguish between gender (a construct identified as masculine, feminine and neuter) and sex (biologically determined and identified as male and female). Won't actually define what sort of egalitarianism he means. Won't come clean as to his views on women's ordination. Appears to equate patriarchy with slavery (which would suggest a rabid feminist).
I refer to Anonymous as 'he' for purely grammatical reasons (the predominance of the masculine). But for all I know he might be female. He (or she) might have had his (or her) gender 'reassigned', to use the currently fashionable term.
Gender: The state of being male or female. Synonym "sex"
I use it properly.
Anonymous
You use it loosely. So do many others. The implication is that since gender is an artificial construct it can be acquired or changed at will, whereas a person's sex is determined by biological factors. A castrated male pumped full of female hormones might be made to resemble a woman, and indeed may identify as a woman, but his sex has not changed. The two terms are not exactly equivalent.
But I suspect you knew this all along. Now would you like to say something useful regarding the other two points I raised? No? I thought not. Because you are a fraud and a humbug who hides behind a curtain of anonymity.
No, not "loosely."
John, language is not static. Just because YOU always understood a word to have a particular meaning, and just because YOU always used and use it that way, doesn't mean that the meaning of the word has not developed over time.
"John Nolan" is as anonymous as "Anonymous," so welcome to membership the Fraud and Humbug Club. I nominate you for the office of Highly Self-Exalted Curmudgeon. You will carry out the duties of your office with gender non-specific aplomb, I am sure.
Cheers, mate!
In our Looking Glass world of today, where 2 + 2 can equal 5 (or so I'm told), words such as "gay" and "gender" can take on any number of meanings. The possibilities are endless.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master, that's all.”
Anonymous
That which heads this comment is my name. How is that anonymous? No-one is suggesting that language is static, but those who turn meaning on its head for their own reasons are hardly doing language a favour. I suggest you read Orwell's '1984'.
You fail time and time again to engage in rational argument. You show yourself to be a semi-educated individual who thinks he is scoring points but is actually making a fool of himself. Please carry on doing so, and stick to anonymity, since I and others who are gifted with some intelligence take great pleasure in exposing you for the idiot you are.
Some on this blog think you are a Catholic priest. If so, God help us.
John Nolan - Is it you name? How do we know? Is the blogger profile real, or just something you made up on the spot?
You and I can post under any name we please. The name doesn't matter.
Anonymous
Honesty does matter. You seem to be entirely lacking in it. And your feeble attempts at wit show your deficiency in this department too.
'Satire or sense, alas! can Sporus feel?
Who breaks a butterfly upon a wheel?'
'Yet let me flap this bug with gilded wings,
This painted child of dirt that stinks and stings;
Whose buzz the witty and the fair annoys,
Yet wit ne'er tastes, and beauty ne'er enjoys ...'
The original target was the courtier Lord Hervey. Were Pope around today he would have included internet trolls in his satire. 'Sporus' was the Emperor Nero's catamite. You might consider adopting it as a nom de plume - after all, you once posted as 'Caliban' which is hardly more flattering.
Post a Comment