• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

RCC Pope confers lay ministries on women

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
24,300
Reaction score
662
Points
113
Age
49
Website
archiveofourown.org
Faith
Episcopal
Jurisdiction
Diocese of Florida

Please note that the article says laypeople, meaning no one was ordained.
 

RaphaCam

Patriarch of Trashposting
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
9,884
Reaction score
1,104
Points
113
Age
25
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Website
em-espirito-e-em-verdade.blogspot.com
Faith
Big-O Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Exarchate of Gotham City
Honestly I'm a bit surprised, at least in Brazil I'm yet to see a non-fundamentalist Catholic community without at least a few female lay ministers. Most extraordinary ministers of communion are definitely women.
 

Alpo2

High Elder
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
606
Reaction score
260
Points
43
Faith
Fenno-Ugric Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Finnish Orthodox Inside of Finland
So why lectors and acolytes and not deaconesses? 🤔 Seems kind of unintuitive approach. AFAIK it used to be exactly other way around.
 

J Michael

Cave Dweller
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
13,257
Reaction score
775
Points
113
Location
People's Republic of Maryland
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Here and now (well...sometimes...)
So why lectors and acolytes and not deaconesses? 🤔 Seems kind of unintuitive approach. AFAIK it used to be exactly other way around.
Stay tuned.....

Deaconesses are not unheard of in the Church. Well, the early Church.
 

MalpanaGiwargis

High Elder
Joined
Aug 7, 2014
Messages
701
Reaction score
53
Points
28
Location
Atlanta, GA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ACROD
In my experience, plenty of laypeople, men and women, carry out these roles de facto, but are not formally instituted. In the US women are certainly formally installed as catechists; whether they are formally installed as lectors, I don't know, but I would bet they are close to the majority of people actually doing the readings at US Catholic parishes.
 

Eamonomae

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
55
Points
48
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
Constantine's Lost Rome
Nothing changes the fact that Pope Francis is making slow but permanent Liberal changes in the Roman Catholic Church.

As it’s always been said - “conservatives” only conserve what was Liberal two generations ago. The same can be said with the Vatican.

Conservatives always whimper in impotent verbal protest and always concede ground, meanwhile Liberals have no issue mauling whoever tries to reverse their changes.

I say this as a dude born and raised Catholic. You have to be really naive to analyze each tree and miss the forest.

Unless we get a Jude Law Pope Pius XIII that does something drastic like doctrinally declare the Catholic Church cannot modify its lex orandi and can’t change its doctrine, the official mojo of Rome has been - for the past 70 years - that the Holy Spirit works through the hierarchy to make doctrinal, hierarchical, and liturgical changes as needed for each era. There may be a few Cardinals, Bishops, and even a Pope here or there who disagrees, but that doesn’t change the tragic reality of the situation.

Rome has subordinated itself to the secular world instead of challenging it. And the secular world will make sure Rome complies.
 
Last edited:

Eamonomae

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
55
Points
48
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
Constantine's Lost Rome
I will also say that my father follows a certain Trad Cat Blog’s Twitter (Rorate Caeli) - and this blog has reputable insider Vatican sources. They predicted both TC and the resulting Dubia several weeks before they both happened. According to some insider information, Pope Francis has been hiding cancer - it may explain why he’s accelerating his Liberal impositions as long as he’s alive. But this is just “idle talk” and is unsourced, so it may be wishful thinking on their part.


Don’t want to spread rumors, because it may be bs / wishful thinking. But they made two successful predictions already.
 
Last edited:

Eamonomae

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
55
Points
48
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
Constantine's Lost Rome
I say all of this out of love for the Roman Church and the Traditional Latin Rite, it’s members, and most of the Saints that lived that liturgical life (esp. Saint Bernard and Saint John of the Cross). Also admittedly egoistic distress of our current political climate and how increasingly toxic things have become.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
315
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
I will also say that my father follows a certain Trad Cat Blog’s Twitter (Rorate Caeli) - and this blog has reputable insider Vatican sources. They predicted both TC and the resulting Dubia several weeks before they both happened. According to some insider information, Pope Francis has been hiding cancer - it may explain why he’s accelerating his Liberal impositions as long as he’s alive. But this is just “idle talk” and is unsourced, so it may be wishful thinking on their part.


Don’t want to spread rumors, because it may be bs / wishful thinking. But they made two successful predictions already.
Self fulfilling prophecy. They (Rorate and other TLM sites) have bashed Pope Francis since the second he stepped out on the balcony. Little surprise then that Pope Francis takes back the wide permission to use the 62 missal, which was/is being used by some to divide the Church exactly as stated. And that’s been seen long before Pope Francis. I feel bad for people in the pew that simply like the old Roman Rite but not for the leaders of the TLM movement who have done nothing but criticize and backbite Pope Francis.
 

Eamonomae

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
55
Points
48
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
Constantine's Lost Rome
Self fulfilling prophecy. They (Rorate and other TLM sites) have bashed Pope Francis since the second he stepped out on the balcony. Little surprise then that Pope Francis takes back the wide permission to use the 62 missal, which was/is being used by some to divide the Church exactly as stated. And that’s been seen long before Pope Francis. I feel bad for people in the pew that simply like the old Roman Rite but not for the leaders of the TLM movement who have done nothing but criticize and backbite Pope Francis.
I agree that it's not very Catholic to be this hyper-critical of the Pope, even if you believed in sedevacantism or whatever. At the same time, it's not like the opposite political side hasn't been as toxic if not worse. I also think the Roman Catholic Church has some more serious fish to fry if Pew Research Surveys are anything to go by. Like nobody goes to Confession, nobody believes in Transubstantiation, the vast majority of Catholics don't attend Mass weekly let alone pray daily - yet public dissatisfaction at Pope Francis's Liberal direction is apparently the main issue? As Phil Lawler rightfully pointed out, the Trads don't believe the New Mass is invalid to any level of degree Ordinary Catholics believe the New Mass is invalid. Rejecting transubstantiation is occurring = believing it to be invalid.

I think the criticism is well taken - why is Pope Francis so favorable to "dialogue, accompaniment, and mercy" even to people who outright hate the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, yet he acts like Pope Innocent III towards everyone who attends the Latin Mass because of some mean twitter and blogposts on the internet?

The German Bishops are on the brink of schism with how flagrantly disobedient they've been to Pope Francis, yet apparently the traditionalists are the schismatics here?
 
Last edited:

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
315
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
If only 25% of Catholics attend Mass on regular basis it should come as no shock that 70% don’t believe in the Real Presence. The numbers are similar or worse for most Catholic and Orthodox countries. The sky isn’t falling.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
315
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Yes the pseudo-Trads are all for a Pope ruling like an Emperor when he is of their mind. Once the Pope is of a different mindset they are all “We resist you to your face.” They have painted themselves into corner.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
315
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
So why lectors and acolytes and not deaconesses? 🤔 Seems kind of unintuitive approach. AFAIK it used to be exactly other way around.
They haven’t had deaconesses in over a thousand years. Women have been serving as lectors and acolytes for the past 50 some years with permission but without a formal blessing or instillation. If they are doing the job why can’t they be recognized?
 

Katechon

High Elder
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
592
Reaction score
300
Points
63
Location
Germany
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROC-MP
Stay tuned.....

Deaconesses are not unheard of in the Church. Well, the early Church.
The deaconesses of the early church had no liturgical role or function. They were similair to the consecrated virgins we have today.
 

Bizzlebin

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
419
Points
83
Location
New Kidron
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Geek
So why lectors and acolytes and not deaconesses? 🤔 Seems kind of unintuitive approach. AFAIK it used to be exactly other way around.
The issue is, I think, the loss of the relational understanding of gender. If gender—and gender-based liturgical service—is viewed as a series of objective rights, then a woman either can read or cannot read, for example. Since women obviously read in monasteries, the internally-consistent objective view is that women can also read elsewhere. Thus, it makes a certain amount of sense for them to attack the liturgical tradition on this front, as it "feels" less controversial to a modern that women can read anywhere liturgically. In other words, this is currently the easiest way to begin changing—and blessing the changing of—Holy Tradition.

We know that deaconesses were indeed historical, served in the altar, and even distributed the Eucharist. The next logical step for the innovators is to use that to introduce even more changes, up to and including female priesthood. But what they have forgotten—and what most people in the modern day seem to have forgotten—is that gender roles are relational. That is, a woman reading in a woman's monastery is normal not because women have the objective and inalienable right to read "generally", but because they can read liturgically *to other women*—it's a matter of hierarchy; this is why women choir directors, catechists, and similar roles that involve (even implied) headship are not permitted "generally", either, in canonical Orthodoxy (outside of women's monasteries, etc). Likewise, deaconesses were non-controversial in the Early Church because their distribution of the Gifts was restricted to *other women*—thus, their liturgical service is never "generally" permitted, but only *relationally* permitted.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
589
Reaction score
314
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
Allatae Sunt, encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV


"Women Assisting at Mass

Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: “Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.” We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21."
 

Eamonomae

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
55
Points
48
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
Constantine's Lost Rome
Allatae Sunt, encyclical of Pope Benedict XIV


"Women Assisting at Mass

Pope Gelasius in his ninth letter (chap. 26) to the bishops of Lucania condemned the evil practice which had been introduced of women serving the priest at the celebration of Mass. Since this abuse had spread to the Greeks, Innocent IV strictly forbade it in his letter to the bishop of Tusculum: “Women should not dare to serve at the altar; they should be altogether refused this ministry.” We too have forbidden this practice in the same words in Our oft-repeated constitution Etsi Pastoralis, sect. 6, no. 21."
Encyclicals from Pope Pius XI backwards are generally irrelevant practically speaking. Unitatis Reintegratio repudiates Mortalium Animos. Even if we want to be casuistic and ignore Pope Paul VI's clear intent, and say the "letters of the law" technically haven't been contradicted (even though UR says that Christ is moving within the hearts of Christians to Ecumenism and that Ecumenical actions proceed "from the marvelous ways of God" whereas quite the opposite is said in MA) , the implementation of Unitatis Reintegratio pragmatically repudiated Mortalium Animos.

Good luck quoting St. John Bosco on Islam. Apparently a Saint's own writings on Islam is morally repulsive and worthy of a reprimand by a Bishop.

 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
589
Reaction score
314
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
@Eamonomae
I know the Vatican makes no effort to be consistent to its previous revelation and faith, but just posting it to show the contradiction.

Question for any Catholics:
He says women ministers are an evil practice (not simply an incorrect one). Isn't that a matter of faith and morals, defined by the Supreme pontiff in reference to both the Latin and Eastern/Oriental rites?
 

Eamonomae

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jan 8, 2019
Messages
1,391
Reaction score
55
Points
48
Faith
Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction
Constantine's Lost Rome
If only 25% of Catholics attend Mass on regular basis it should come as no shock that 70% don’t believe in the Real Presence. The numbers are similar or worse for most Catholic and Orthodox countries. The sky isn’t falling.
But is Pope Francis catering to the Catholics who hold fidelity to doctrine and attend Mass on a regular basis, or those who don't?

Who are the ones that care about communion with the Pope? The "rigid neo-pelagian" trads or the German Church? I'll answer it for you - if they didn't care they wouldn't be upset by TC, and TC doesn't affect the SSPX.

Yes the pseudo-Trads are all for a Pope ruling like an Emperor when he is of their mind. Once the Pope is of a different mindset they are all “We resist you to your face.” They have painted themselves into corner.
Strawman
 
Last edited:

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
315
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
@Eamonomae
I know the Vatican makes no effort to be consistent to its previous revelation and faith, but just posting it to show the contradiction.

Question for any Catholics:
He says women ministers are an evil practice (not simply an incorrect one). Isn't that a matter of faith and morals, defined by the Supreme pontiff in reference to both the Latin and Eastern/Oriental rites?
No. It is a matter of discipline.
 

MarkosC

Elder
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
292
Reaction score
55
Points
28
Location
North America
Faith
Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction
Eparchy of Newton
After the 2nd Vatican Council the Latin Church abolished the minor orders and subdiaconate. The function still considered valid were replaced with "ministries" for laypeople.

These include lector, acolyte, and now catechist. (of note, I could be wrong but I don't believe Extraordinary MInister of Communion" is such) These people are blessed (apparently by the Bishop) but not tonsured; one assumes that this is also considered to have some degree of binding permanence. (i.e. you don't do this if you teach a class or two, and you don't just willy-nilly receive this and then quit after a few years)

The motivations were to expand these tasks away from only young men studying for the priesthood; considering minor orders clergy was considered restrictive. Now only deacons, priests, and bishops are considered clergy.

Paul VI's encyclical

Generally, though not every where, these minor orders were reserved to those who received them as steps toward the priesthood.

Nevertheless, since the minor orders have not always been the same and many functions connected with them, as at present, have also been exercised by the laity, it seems fitting to reexamine this practice and to adapt it to contemporary needs.....

This arrangement will bring out more clearly the distinction between clergy and laity, between what is proper and reserved to the clergy and what can be entrusted to the laity. This will also bring out more clearly that mutuality by which "the universal priesthood of believers and the ministerial or hierarchic priesthood, though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, are nonetheless interrelated: each of these in its own special way is a sharing in the one priesthood of Christ.".
IMO, reading Pope Paul's encyclical there's not too much functional difference between an institued reader and a tonsured reader beyond the tonsure, the clerical garb (even though many lay people at the altar or the schola pre-Vatican II dressed in liturgical garb), the fact that the lay ministry is implictly open to either sex (though Pope Paul stressed it was for men only), AND (here's IMO the crux) the tonsured reader is expected to be on his way to the priesthood.

This last point is the same (what some people say clericist) paradigm that the presbyterate is the real clergy, which can't really figure out what to do with minor orders and the diaconate outside of that paradigm. And arguably in that course Pope Francis opened the instituted ministries to women last year, while at least implicitly reaffirming that the clergy is all male. (not going to go through this with a fine toothed comb to see if this is impicitly or explicitly repeated)

https://www.vatican.va/content/fran...co-motu-proprio-20210110_spiritus-domini.html

Other tasks, throughout history, were instituted in the Church and entrusted through a non-sacramental liturgical rite to individual members of the faithful, by virtue of a particular form of exercise of the baptismal priesthood, and in aid of the specific ministry of bishops, priests and deacons.

... certain ministries instituted by the Church are based on the common condition of being baptized and the royal priesthood received in the Sacrament of Baptism; they are essentially distinct from the ordained ministry received in the Sacrament of Orders. A consolidated practice in the Latin Church has also confirmed, in fact, that these lay ministries, since they are based on the Sacrament of Baptism, may be entrusted to all suitable faithful, whether male or female, in accordance with what is already implicitly provided for by Canon.


To hit the side issues:

Growing up with both the "old" Mass and the "new" Mass, there is definitely a conservative and defiant subtrend among those who prefer the old Mass, IMO because people in that subtrend are the Latin Catholic manifestation of a tendency across religions for some segments to reject "modernity", however you want to define it, and find their spiritual homes in the "old" Mass. At the same time, there are plenty of good pious communities of folks (often with large families) who prefer the "old" Mass. (and as an aside, if anyone rails on about the old or the new I have an instinctive negative impression)

And as for:

If it is, then why does he say it is evil?
First, as Father Deacon Lance said, an encylclical is not a solemn attempt at extraordinary infallible definition. Episcopal encyclicals (to include the Pope) are "ordinary" attempts to give the authentic interpretation of revelation. Thus over 2000 years there are undoubtedly 1000s of documents in the "ordinary" magisterium; not every word is necessarily meant to be pregnant with revelatory interpretation, and given the diverse people and times not only is context necessary but there's also contradictions within this body.

He can say it's "evil" if he (or more likely the functionary from the Congregation for the Propogation of the Faith who drafted it for him) desires. Again, context is important to figure out what he's trying to say, and even then this specific judgment is not necessarily universally binding for all time. Very clearly, rightly or wrongly, girls and even woman serve as acolytes at the altar in many Latin Catholic parishes today and many bishops today implicitly believe he was wrong.

Note that he is condemning an alleged Greek practice, in a long encyclical about the Eastern Churches (note that it talks extensively about Eastern vs. Latin practices. Also note it has discussion forbidding Rite-switching which is effectively void today).

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/observance-of-oriental-rites-3328

I apologize this is verging outside of the realm of "Church News".
 

Katechon

High Elder
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Nov 16, 2018
Messages
592
Reaction score
300
Points
63
Location
Germany
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
ROC-MP
We know that deaconesses were indeed historical, served in the altar, and even distributed the Eucharist.
That is patently untrue.
 

RaphaCam

Patriarch of Trashposting
Joined
Oct 22, 2015
Messages
9,884
Reaction score
1,104
Points
113
Age
25
Location
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Website
em-espirito-e-em-verdade.blogspot.com
Faith
Big-O Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Exarchate of Gotham City
Yes the pseudo-Trads are all for a Pope ruling like an Emperor when he is of their mind. Once the Pope is of a different mindset they are all “We resist you to your face.” They have painted themselves into corner.
That's exactly why I always said Sedevacantism is far more consistent than other brands of Traditionalism. Their devotion to the Papacy is at least... Interesting.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
589
Reaction score
314
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
After the 2nd Vatican Council the Latin Church abolished the minor orders and subdiaconate. The function still considered valid were replaced with "ministries" for laypeople.

These include lector, acolyte, and now catechist. (of note, I could be wrong but I don't believe Extraordinary MInister of Communion" is such) These people are blessed (apparently by the Bishop) but not tonsured; one assumes that this is also considered to have some degree of binding permanence. (i.e. you don't do this if you teach a class or two, and you don't just willy-nilly receive this and then quit after a few years)

The motivations were to expand these tasks away from only young men studying for the priesthood; considering minor orders clergy was considered restrictive. Now only deacons, priests, and bishops are considered clergy.

Paul VI's encyclical



IMO, reading Pope Paul's encyclical there's not too much functional difference between an institued reader and a tonsured reader beyond the tonsure, the clerical garb (even though many lay people at the altar or the schola pre-Vatican II dressed in liturgical garb), the fact that the lay ministry is implictly open to either sex (though Pope Paul stressed it was for men only), AND (here's IMO the crux) the tonsured reader is expected to be on his way to the priesthood.

This last point is the same (what some people say clericist) paradigm that the presbyterate is the real clergy, which can't really figure out what to do with minor orders and the diaconate outside of that paradigm. And arguably in that course Pope Francis opened the instituted ministries to women last year, while at least implicitly reaffirming that the clergy is all male. (not going to go through this with a fine toothed comb to see if this is impicitly or explicitly repeated)

https://www.vatican.va/content/fran...co-motu-proprio-20210110_spiritus-domini.html





To hit the side issues:

Growing up with both the "old" Mass and the "new" Mass, there is definitely a conservative and defiant subtrend among those who prefer the old Mass, IMO because people in that subtrend are the Latin Catholic manifestation of a tendency across religions for some segments to reject "modernity", however you want to define it, and find their spiritual homes in the "old" Mass. At the same time, there are plenty of good pious communities of folks (often with large families) who prefer the "old" Mass. (and as an aside, if anyone rails on about the old or the new I have an instinctive negative impression)

And as for:



First, as Father Deacon Lance said, an encylclical is not a solemn attempt at extraordinary infallible definition. Episcopal encyclicals (to include the Pope) are "ordinary" attempts to give the authentic interpretation of revelation. Thus over 2000 years there are undoubtedly 1000s of documents in the "ordinary" magisterium; not every word is necessarily meant to be pregnant with revelatory interpretation, and given the diverse people and times not only is context necessary but there's also contradictions within this body.

He can say it's "evil" if he (or more likely the functionary from the Congregation for the Propogation of the Faith who drafted it for him) desires. Again, context is important to figure out what he's trying to say, and even then this specific judgment is not necessarily universally binding for all time. Very clearly, rightly or wrongly, girls and even woman serve as acolytes at the altar in many Latin Catholic parishes today and many bishops today implicitly believe he was wrong.

Note that he is condemning an alleged Greek practice, in a long encyclical about the Eastern Churches (note that it talks extensively about Eastern vs. Latin practices. Also note it has discussion forbidding Rite-switching which is effectively void today).

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/observance-of-oriental-rites-3328

I apologize this is verging outside of the realm of "Church News".
I know this was not of an "attempt of extraordinary infallible definition". Do you know why? Because papal infallibility ex cathedra wasn't a doctrine of the Vatican at this time. The Vatican now doesn't even know which statements are ex cathedra, since it was out of arrogance and an antichristic exaltation of the papal office that infallibility came to be taught by the Vatican, not true faith rooted from the Latin fathers or any necessary economia.

Most Catholics say there are two or three (maybe 4) infallible statements, Ludwig Ott says over 50+, and some others say 10 or 16. Likely, Pope Benedict XIV didn't know he even had the ability to infallibly pontificate dogma. Just like Pope Adrian in the 1500s thought:" If by the Roman church you mean it's head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last one was XXII."

It really begs the question if papal infallibility was true why the Popes didn't know it.

But anyway, I think we can both agree Pope Benedict XIV was condemning something he thought was contrary to morals.
1. Why can't this be considered ex cathedra? Does it need to be more specifically "we solemnly declare" and all the other papal jargon? Seems superfluous. The pope is the sole infallible arbiter of truth but we can't even know infallibly when he is acting in his petrine office. For the matter of argument, I will posit that Pope Benedict is acting in his capacity of the successor of St. Peter, since Peter is the pastor of all the rites of the Church, to define that women ministering at the altar is morally evil.
2. You say this simply represents the "ordinary magisterium". Sure, if it's only his opinion. But do you honestly think any bishops of Rome the last 1000 years before 1900 or any doctor of the Church would possibly agree with Vatican IIs innovation of female ministry in the altar?
 

Alpo2

High Elder
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
606
Reaction score
260
Points
43
Faith
Fenno-Ugric Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Finnish Orthodox Inside of Finland
Women have been serving as lectors and acolytes for the past 50 some years with permission but without a formal blessing or instillation. If they are doing the job why can’t they be recognized?
Fair enough. I guess it's practical.
 

MarkosC

Elder
Joined
Dec 20, 2005
Messages
292
Reaction score
55
Points
28
Location
North America
Faith
Greek Catholic
Jurisdiction
Eparchy of Newton
The Latin church's terms "teaching authority" (magisterium in Latin) and "infallibiity" to my understanding, like many things theological, was formulated in its current form to express divine revelation in response to particular sets of challenges and questions. In this case, questions and doubts on what is really the core of Catholicism and who can say it since the 1800s.

The Vatican now doesn't even know which statements are ex cathedra,
IMO the Latin code of canon law is pretty clear on this. When reading these various papal encyclicals and Vatican opinions, I sometimes get the distinct impression that the authors feel tired of reiterating stuff they or their predecessors already said before or which are listed in a Theology or Ecclesiology 101 class in a licentiate program.

It really begs the question if papal infallibility was true why the Popes didn't know it.
I believe most bishops (or even better assemblies of bishops and councils), of whatever level, in whatever church, believe that when they are condemning something or making authoritative moral pronoucements, that they are expressing divine revelation in the manner given to them directly by their ultimate apostolic predecessors. (as a sidebar, th is true for Catholic bishops and I believe Orthodox bishops. I'd assume similar goes for Anglican and maybe even like Methodist bishops, but I'm not aware of episcopal authority nor conciliar process in those churches and won't speak for them)

But anyway, I think we can both agree Pope Benedict XIV was condemning something he thought was contrary to morals.
No. Someone in the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith wrote up an opinion on an ostensible "Greek" practice that I'm unaware of, and he included this in this encylical. If one wants to play "gotcha" games going through 2000 years of Latin episcopal documents and finding contrdictions between them, as well as with current practice, it's inherently a very easy game to play simply due to the size of any such body of works and the different personalities, opinions, and times of the authors.


You say this simply represents the "ordinary magisterium". Sure, if it's only his opinion. But do you honestly think any bishops of Rome the last 1000 years before 1900 or any doctor of the Church would possibly agree with Vatican IIs innovation of female ministry in the altar?
To get to the core of the discussion.

Umm, first, for another gotcha on my part, Vatican II said nothing on this topic.

Further, Pope Paul VI (I assume in consultation with other bishops and with the assistance of Vatican functionaries) dropped minor orders for instituted minstries (reader, acolyte, catechist) to implement an understanding of things like Sacrosanctum Concilium and Lumen Gentium.

  • On the latter front, LG and Father Nicholas Afanasiev's "Church of the Holy Spirit" share the same basic framing; it's not surprising Father Nicholas was an observer during the proceedings for LG and ostensibly very influential in its formulation. (that said, I am not saying Father Nicholas would have agreed with instituted ministries or their opening to women).

From there Pope Francis last year explicitly opened up these ministries to women, doubtlessly under the idea that, as framed by Paul VI's decision, there's no reason to exclude women. (I can honestly see the logic there, again not saying I agree with it)

And to reiterate, my problem with this is not woman, nor maintenance of a boy's club. My problem is the understanding of the nature of both minor orders and the diaconate and their tasks; again the impression one gets is that those are transitional steps between the laity and to the fullness of the presbyterate, an understanding very common in the Latin church. IMO that understanding at least implicitly treats the deacon as a limited, assistant, priest.

  • I would counter that the diaconate, minor orders, and of course even the laity are states and responsibilities in and of themselves. (again per Afanasiev) Presbyters and bishops have gone through those and still "possess" these ministries (to include the ministry of God's people given in baptism, the laity), but at the same time each has their own distinct function in the Church - for minor orders, in the worship of the church; for the diaconate in the administration, leadership, and activity of the Church outside of worship.

Anyway, this is going outside of "Church News" (mods my apologies). If folks want to continue on this it might be better in another forum. That said, I apologize I'm not sure I really have much more to say on this. (and apologies for the typos and dropped thoughts in here - i have to go now)
 

biro

Protostrator
Site Supporter
Warned
Post Moderated
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
24,300
Reaction score
662
Points
113
Age
49
Website
archiveofourown.org
Faith
Episcopal
Jurisdiction
Diocese of Florida
Yes, it absolutely is. Your problem is with women.

Because if I said a bunch of men had just filled these offices, 0 people would have complained.

I really should quit. Women are reading! How dare they?
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
315
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
The deaconesses of the early church had no liturgical role or function. They were similair to the consecrated virgins we have today.
They assisted at the baptism of women and took Communion to infirm women. Those are liturgical functions.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2018
Messages
589
Reaction score
314
Points
63
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
They assisted at the baptism of women and took Communion to infirm women. Those are liturgical functions.
They did not serve directly during a liturgy. They baptized the women since people were baptized naked at the time and it would be a scandal for the priest to do it. Any laymen in an emergency can still baptize. Does this mean that they have a liturgical function?

They took communion to the sick, yes, but people at that time could take communion home with them anyway. Does that mean they have a liturgical function too?

Any function of the deaconness was economia for ministering to other women to prevent the priest from any appearance of scandal, but was not clerical.
 

Stinky

Mess
Joined
Jul 24, 2020
Messages
2,681
Reaction score
1,421
Points
113
Location
US
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
I have questions now...
Ok, why did they baptize naked people during time early in the Church closest to the time of Christ's baptism? Was Christ baptized in the nude? Was the Baptism of John to only naked men? Were women there at the Jordan? Were women invited to repent or only glean repentance from the man who came home from the Jordan?

It seems to me that the role of women in the early church wasn't just for modesty and prevent scandal as if they treated the woman as vile. I think the prescence of Theotokos, the Mother of us all changed how the role of woman was perceived. But I'm not a scholar so I ask for clarification.
Why did they stop baptizing in nude?

Basicly, what im reading here is that because of culture they allowed woman to serve sacraments. So, can we say that because of culture today it's making a full circle again? In days of old they feared for the reputation and feelings of those who would be involved, and onlookers, neighbors who may suspect scandal. They feared in times of old the scandals and reputations. But now today do we make changes AGAIN, remembering Our Most Holy Theotokos as the New Eve.
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,509
Reaction score
315
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
They did not serve directly during a liturgy. They baptized the women since people were baptized naked at the time and it would be a scandal for the priest to do it. Any laymen in an emergency can still baptize. Does this mean that they have a liturgical function?

They took communion to the sick, yes, but people at that time could take communion home with them anyway. Does that mean they have a liturgical function too?

Any function of the deaconness was economia for ministering to other women to prevent the priest from any appearance of scandal, but was not clerical.
Yes.
 

Bizzlebin

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
419
Points
83
Location
New Kidron
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Geek
I have questions now...
Ok, why did they baptize naked people during time early in the Church closest to the time of Christ's baptism? Was Christ baptized in the nude? Was the Baptism of John to only naked men? Were women there at the Jordan? Were women invited to repent or only glean repentance from the man who came home from the Jordan?

It seems to me that the role of women in the early church wasn't just for modesty and prevent scandal as if they treated the woman as vile. I think the prescence of Theotokos, the Mother of us all changed how the role of woman was perceived. But I'm not a scholar so I ask for clarification.
Why did they stop baptizing in nude?

Basicly, what im reading here is that because of culture they allowed woman to serve sacraments. So, can we say that because of culture today it's making a full circle again? In days of old they feared for the reputation and feelings of those who would be involved, and onlookers, neighbors who may suspect scandal. They feared in times of old the scandals and reputations. But now today do we make changes AGAIN, remembering Our Most Holy Theotokos as the New Eve.
Nudity is normal, in certain settings like baptism. Otherwise, when not at the beach, a person should not dress immodestly, with exposed arms, legs, etc—and that applies to *men* just the same. I think you're right that much of the scandal is cultural, not Christian.

Since we live in a depraved culture, however, the bishops had to work with what they'd been given and occasionally made some pretty extreme concessions, such as baptism in clothing. Not sure that has worked out so well as regards to nudity (and the blaming of women in general), but you can get an idea of how little these sorts of accommodations are preferred by reading the Fathers's reactions to them. For a somewhat tangential situation where clergy thought having a wife was somehow inherently sinful, the Fathers (in canon 30 of the Quinisext Council) went so far as to call those nutters out in a canon itself, writing "We make this concession to them, not for any other reason, but because of the pusillanimity of their thought, and the bizarre character of their ideas of morality, and the unsettled state of their mind.". That should make clear that the weird ideas about women, even when they come from clergy or other "Church" sources, may be quite heterodox overall. Canonically speaking—and theologically, too—it would be better to return to the traditional form of baptism.
 

Stinky

Mess
Joined
Jul 24, 2020
Messages
2,681
Reaction score
1,421
Points
113
Location
US
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
So, the Baptism of John, and subsequently, the Baptism of Jesus ( though He baptised none but rather His disciples baptised) only was for men?
The church later at Pentecost split into divisions of male and female baptisms? That's when it started?
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2021
Messages
680
Reaction score
486
Points
63
Location
USA
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Antioch but secret ROCOR
So, the Baptism of John, and subsequently, the Baptism of Jesus ( though He baptised none but rather His disciples baptised) only was for men?
The church later at Pentecost split into divisions of male and female baptisms? That's when it started?
Where are you getting that from?
 

Stinky

Mess
Joined
Jul 24, 2020
Messages
2,681
Reaction score
1,421
Points
113
Location
US
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
Where are you getting that from?
From the nude baptisms. If the Baptism of Jesus was in the nude then were there women present? Did John baptize nude women? Did the disciples? When was the first record of a nude women's baptism? Was it public? Who baptized her?

Acts 2: 41
And they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

3 thousand men?
 

Bizzlebin

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
1,380
Reaction score
419
Points
83
Location
New Kidron
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
Geek
From the nude baptisms. If the Baptism of Jesus was in the nude then were there women present? Did John baptize nude women? Did the disciples? When was the first record of a nude women's baptism? Was it public? Who baptized her?
Not sure if the question is rhetorical, but there are many lines of circumstantial evidence that St John baptized women no differently than men. For instance, Jesus's dialog with the Pharisees in Matthew: 21.32 is "For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him; but tax collectors and harlots believed him; and when you saw it, you did not afterward relent and believe him.", so that is pretty strong indirect evidence that St John not only baptized women generally, but harlots specifically—since it was public, it was not an issue. Women baptizing women is even trickier to source, but that was clearly something done in the Early Church, as has been noted above, and that became more important as baptism ceased to be celebrated in its fullness as a public Holy Mystery of the entire community and got more private.
 
Top