/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/75Z2OTSH5RO45H6MDWNQ2SHAO4.jpg)
Stay tuned.....So why lectors and acolytes and not deaconesses?Seems kind of unintuitive approach. AFAIK it used to be exactly other way around.
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.
www.catholicculture.org
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?So why lectors and acolytes and not deaconesses?
The deaconesses of the early church had no liturgical role or function. They were similair to the consecrated virgins we have today.
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.So why lectors and acolytes and not deaconesses?
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.
www.lifesitenews.com
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?
Strawman
No. It is a matter of discipline.
If it is, then why does he say it is evil?
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.
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.
That is patently untrue.
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.
Serving Christ isn't enough.
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.
Fair enough. I guess it's practical.
Hyperbole
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.
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)
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.
To get to the core of the discussion.
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?
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.
Yes.
So, the Baptism of John, and subsequently, the Baptism of Jesus ( though He baptised none but rather His disciples baptised) only was for men?
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?
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.