Deacons are men and only men, just as Catholic priests are only men. This is an ontological fact. A Deacon is a liturgical minister to assist the Bishop, that is their origin. It is ontological. It is sacramental. A woman can no more be a Deacon than Bruce Jenner can be a woman.
In the early Church, any women called Deaconesses were the wives of Deacons.
Any role of "service" that they provided was to women being baptised by immersion and to assist in other situations to preserve the modesty and dignity of the woman and the priest or bishop or deacon.
They did not provide Sacraments, unless baptism as any layman can do under an emergency. They did not assist at the Holy Sacrifice any more than any other layman or woman. They did not preach. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant or a liar.
The Church studied the issue under the International Theological Commission in 2002. Women are not deacons. It was reported on then by Zenit, it was no secret. The answer was "No!"
No woman ever wore a dalmatic. If anyone tells you that the fresco of the woman at right praying in the orans position is a deacon and is wearing a dalmatic they are either ignorant or they are a liar. There is no evidence anywhere that a woman was ever "ordained" as a deacon, nor can they be, it is ontologically impossible - they don't have the parts!
Deaconesses were either wives of Deacons or they were holy woman, widows and others who gave their lives for a life of service to Christ and His suffering. They evolved with different charisms and they came to be called Nuns! Deaconesses in the early Church performed no liturgical function. They did not preach at Mass as that would have been a direct violation of St. Paul's own command.
Holy Orders is priesthood and diaconate, A woman making final vows as a Nun does just that, makes solemn vows. She receives no Sacrament.
Anyone telling you any different is a liar.
If anyone, even a Pope, should come along and attempt to change the nature of the ontological priesthood to include women deacons he will simply be unable to do it because it cannot be done.
And he will be a great deceiver.
http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2016/pope-tells-women-religious-vatican-will-study-women-deacons.cfm
35 comments:
Pope Benedict XIV had something to say about the issue of women even so much as serving at the altar:
"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."
(Pope Benedict XIV, Encyclical Allatae Sunt, n. 29)
"Male" is only an ideal. Kind of like "Marriage."
Pope Francis is determined to do what he likes to the CC. He looks upon it as his right as Pontifical Head and will use his power to the nth degree. Jesus Christ doesn't obviously exist for him - all can gain Heaven (if there is such a place) no-one goes to Hell, that isn't what the Scriptures are about, climate change & light shows are much more important than ME martyrs and of course his choice of twelve Muslims to take back to the Vatican in preference to the Christians in Lesbo fully demonstrates his scorn for those fundamentalists prepared to die for Christ. Next October he will travel to Lund and most probably lift their excommunication so that the NWO will be up and running. The abysmal aspect of all this is the silence of the Hierarchy who have not to date been prepared to stop this insanity. We have no Catholic leadership and most Catholics since Vatican II have not been properly catechised (for a reason) so cannot figure out what is happening. Our Lady of Fatima come to our aid!
Pope Francis can do all these things because there are no consequences. No one in the hierarchy has the guts to call him out on any of his aberrations. So sad but true.
Vox,
That icon is an image of Our Lady, who I guarantee you was NOT a deaconess.
Margaret
Pope Francis can only go as far as God allows him to go,at this stage it will take God's direct intervention to stop the demolition of the Catholic Church.St John Paul 11 remarked when asked about the Church,we can only await the Triump of the Immacculate Heart of Mary.
"The root problem in Western society – and the Church – comes down to this: degrees of unbelief in God and in his revelation. This unbelief ranges from atheism (theoretical and practical) to agnosticism (often the fruit of ignorance, laziness, or spiritual blindness) to pick-and-choose Catholicism. When we fail to adhere unreservedly to Christ and his teaching, we are left to our own devices – not a happy thought."
Revelation chapter 13 in action
Ready made: Liverpool Archdiocese [UK] Directory list circa fifty Permanent Deacons, at the same time naming their wives jointly with them. Ahead of the times?
Vox
There is no matter of faith, morals or discipline, that is exempt from the necrotizing creep of Bergoglio, a creep that is vectored in the same way communion for divorced and remarried was successfully achieved, albeit deceitfully, in Amoris Laetitia. A deaconess is simply a generic cover word that is a step towards a "priestess" and a lot more seismic changes contrary to historical Catholic faith and morals. Inter Insigniores (1976), Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (1994), be damned. Looking at Jorge, through authentic Catholic lenses, is simply, a very painful waste of time. Keep in mind that there are many bishops who are, more or less, in Bergoglio's camp. They are "Simple Simon Says" bishops. In this case Bergoglio is Simple Simon and his episcopal sycophants do as directed. Those bishops, who are not, remain in that post conciliar catatonic state of cowardly silence and inaction. Bishop Schneider, crying in the wilderness, appears to be the lone exception. There is a lot more coming from Bergoglio and his wraiths. This Modernist quiver is very deep.
Is there a bishop in the house?
Regardless of your understanding of what Pope Francis said David, you are wrong when you say: "There are seven sacraments for me, there are six for women."
There are seven sacraments for all of God's people. Orders serves both men and women.
Women deacons and men using the girl's bathroom, it's hard to believe that Bergoglio and Obama arrived on the scene at the same time in history (Canucks may want to include Trudeau). Followup Obama with Hillary Clinton and it may be too much to recover from, as would be a fellow traveller of Bergoglio's. There is no margin for error in the next elections.
"Revelation chapter 13 in action"
Absolutely spot on !!!! Thank you for this.
The "operation of error" in action to separate the faithful from the faithless who believe lying.
The beast with two horns is currently Bergoglio.
Dear Father/Sister you sound to me like true clergy of the true remnant.
Anonymous said...
Regardless of your understanding of what Pope Francis said David, you are wrong when you say: "There are seven sacraments for me, there are six for women."
There are seven sacraments for all of God's people. Orders serves both men and women.
Thank you, you are correct, I should have been more clear. Of course I meant the "indelible" mark of ordination.
I read yesterday the secular news media spin on Pope Francis' remarks about women deacons. One secular news report after another misrepresented Pope Francis' remarks in question. The Pope's remarks were presented as a radical shift in regard to Church teaching.
I read yesterday and today reactions from several Traditional Catholic sources. As usual, one Traditionalist after another had failed to pay attention to that which Pope Francis had said about the issue of women deacons. Had they done so, their "the sky is falling...Pope Francis is a heretic...he will give us women deacons, which is a step down the road to priestesses!"
Well, I read Pope Francis' comments from yesterday. I am amazed that many Traditionalists have responded in such fashion to the Pope's very somber, 100 percent orthodox remarks in question. I wonder how many Traditionalists actually read Pope Francis' complete remarks in question? Apparently none.
Anyway, Aleteia.org has the complete text of the Pope's comments from yesterday:
http://aleteia.org/2016/05/13/complete-transcript-of-pope-francis-remarks-on-women-deacons/
The headline and sub-head read (with their emphasis):
"Complete Transcript of Pope Francis’ Remarks on Women Deacons Challenge Initial Reports"
"The Holy Father’s full remarks actually seem to be signaling women NOT to expect a change, and to seek other possibilities"
=================================================================================
The headline is 100 percent correct.
1. Once again, something that His Holiness Pope Francis had said was misreported.
2. As the headline noted, if anything, Pope Francis signaled that women should not except a change, and that they should concentrate on additional ways to serve the Church.
There is not one word yesterday from Pope Francis that corresponds to the notion that he offered or even hinted at anything that was radical. Not one word...not one thing that he said yesterday about the issue was even remotely revolutionary.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Nevertheless, when the Son of man comes,will he find faith on earth? Luke 18:8 Does this apply to the Pope?
Who is going to pay the salaries of these Deaconesses/Priestesses? They must take us for simpletons! These fallen angels need their wings clipped.
Here is the perfect example as to how the secular news media misrepresented Pope Francis yesterday in regard to his 100 percent orthodox comments about the issue of women deacons.
National Public Radio (NPR) reported the following in regard to the Pope's comments in question:
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/12/477816171/pope-francis-says-hes-open-to-studying-whether-women-can-be-deacons
"Francis' willingness to consider the issue of female clergy sharply contrasts with the views of his recent predecessors. As the National Catholic Reporter notes, "Pope John Paul II claimed in his 1994 apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis that 'the Church has no authority whatsoever' to ordain woman as priests, citing Jesus' choosing of only men to serve as his twelve apostles."
Let us compare that claim from National Public Radio to the following from Pope Francis' Apostolic Exhortation EVANGELII GAUDIUM:
104. "The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion..." [73]
Footnote [73] cited: John Paul II, Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Christifideles Laici (30 December 1988), 51: AAS 81 (1989), 413.
NPR misrepresented Pope Francis and his comments about women deacons. That is beyond doubt as the above demonstrated. NPR's false report deserves condemnation from Catholics as well as anybody who believes in journalistic integrity.
Unfortunately, many liberal and Traditionalist Catholic sources followed NPR's lead in having misrepresented the Pope's remarks about women deacons.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I am amazed that Traditionalists failed to pounce upon the following extremely important statement that His Holiness Pope Francis declared yesterday in regard to the issue of women preaching at Mass:
Pope Francis: "Then there is the problem of preaching at the Eucharistic Celebration. There is no problem for a woman – religious or lay – to preach in the Liturgy of the Word. There is no problem.
"But at the Eucharistic Celebration there is a liturgical-dogmatic problem, because it is one celebration – the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy, there is unity between them – and He Who presides is Jesus Christ. The priest or bishop who presides does so in the person of Jesus Christ. It is a theological-liturgical reality. In that situation, since women are not ordained, they cannot preside."
Wow! I realize as to why liberals have been keen not to report the above. But I am amazed for several reasons that Traditionalists have failed to shout the above from the rooftops.
In fact, I wonder whether Traditionalists even bothered to read Pope Francis' actual words yesterday from his meeting with the Union of Superiors General. Did Traditionalists simply reply upon the false spin that the secular news media placed yesterday upon Pope Francis comments? That seems so.
Anyway, Pope Francis said that the prohibition against women preaching at Mass is a matter of dogma.
1. Therefore, good luck to the notion of women's ordination in regard to the diaconate and priesthood.
2. Pope Francis' comments prove that the claim that he had uttered revolutionary remarks about women deacons and had opened the door to priestesses just went out the window.
The next time that somebody tries to push women's ordination and/or women preaching at Mass, please refer them to Pope Francis' declaration that such is not permitted as the matter pertains to dogma.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Mark Thomas, you don't read carefully or you try to deceive people: first Bergoglio says: "There is no problem for a woman – religious or lay – to PREACH in the Liturgy of the Word." and then he denies what? Preaching? NO, "women are not ordained, they cannot PRESIDE.". He didn't deny: "women cannot preach" but "women cannot preside".
Bergoglio feasts on people like you. Even dogma is no problem for him e.g. in Pseudoamoris Pseudoletitia he contradicted Catholic dogma that adulterous person can't live in a state of grace by openly stating that adulterous person can live in the state of grace (par. 305). The guy is a heretic and an apostate, not a Holy Father (Holy because of Holy Faith which every Holy Father of necessity must possess, not because of his own personal holiness which can be lacking) and if allowed will OK women to be pseudoordained (but ordained in the eyes of people) as pseudodeaconesses and later on as pseudopriestesses (but as deaconesses and priestesses in the eyes of people). From No Holy Faith, no Holy Father of necessity follows Bergoglio aka Francis isn't Pope.
Pope must be Catholic is also Catholic dogma. How is it not contradicted by people seeing what heresies Bergoglio says and still calling him Pope?
Vox said..."If anyone, even a Pope, should come along and attempt to change the nature of the ontological priesthood to include women deacons he will simply be unable to do it because it cannot be done."
Vox, you are, of course, correct. That is why His Holiness Pope Francis will not do that.
1. He made it clear yesterday that the issue of the Church having prohibited women from presiding and preaching at Mass is related to dogma.
2. He reiterated yesterday the Church's ancient and profound teaching as to their specific roles of males and females in regard to service to Holy Mother Church. Pope Francis said...
"The consecrated woman is an icon of the Church, an icon of Mary. The priest is not an icon of the Church; he is not the icon of Mary; he is an icon of the Apostles, of the disciples who were sent to preach. But not of the Church or of Mary.
"When I say this I want to make you reflect on the fact that “she” the Church is feminine; the Church is woman: it is not “he” the Church, it is “she” the Church. But she is a woman married to Jesus Christ, she has her Bridegroom, who is Jesus Christ.
"When a bishop is chosen for a diocese, the bishop — on behalf of Christ — marries that particular Church. The Church is woman!
"And a woman’s consecration makes her the very icon of the Church and icon of Our Lady. We men cannot do this. This will help you to deepen, from this theological root, a great role in the Church. I hope this does not elude you."
Pope Francis, as he had done additional times, made it clear yesterday that those ordained to holy orders (males) are married...they are married to a woman, Holy Mother Church.
A consecrated woman is married, married to Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom. As the Church and Pope Francis have taught, a male may only marry a female, and vice versa.
Therefore, it is impossible for a woman to receive holy orders which, in turn, would mean that she is married to a female (Holy Mother Church). Pope Francis made that clear yesterday.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
What a classic example of Modernist Gobbledegook from Jorge! Let's analyse his "extremely important statement":
"Then there is the problem of [women] preaching at the Eucharistic Celebration [meaning mass]. There is no problem for a WOMAN – religious or lay – to PREACH in the Liturgy of the Word. There is no problem."
So there we have it from the horses mouth - LADIES ARE IN PREACHING at mass.
Trouble is that the US Conference of NWO Bishops says:
"A deacon (or, if no DEACON is present, a PRIEST) reads the Gospel...
After the Scripture readings, the CELEBRANT [priest presider] PREACHES THE HOMILY." What else is there for women to preach in the Liturgy of the Word, except the homily? The Bishops make no mention of ladies anywhere. Well, I suppose no matter - after all Jorge is the boss and he is busy fixing that. The fact that Pope Benedict XIV and St. Paul happen to disagree with him doesn't phase Jorge!
But he has more:
"But at the Eucharistic Celebration ... it is one celebration – the Liturgy of the Word and the Eucharistic Liturgy ... The PRIEST or bishop who PRESIDES does so in the person of Jesus Christ... In that situation, since women are not ordained, they cannot PRESIDE."
So there you have it clear as mud. A woman can PREACH in the Liturgy of the Word,(somebody please inform the Conference of NWO Bishops), which is one with the Liturgy of the Eucharist, but, she can't PRESIDE at mass - LADIES ARE STILL OUT OF PRESIDING.
In grand modernist style, Jorge has covered all the bases. Feel free to interpret him as you like - ladies are IN, or ladies are OUT.
I am not in the least amazed that Traditionalists failed to pounce upon Jorge's extremely confused and contradictory statement.
http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/order-of-mass/liturgy-of-the-word/
"Pope Francis, as he had done additional times, made it CLEAR yesterday..." Are we talking about the same Pope Francis? Could "Mark Thomas" be the pseudonym for Pope Francis? I mean, they've never been seen in the same room together. Interesting, isn't it?
Actually, Woody, The thought crossed my mind that Mark Thomas is actually Fr Thomas Rosica (in an aka sort of way)! No one else could be so stubbornly and long windedly blind to the absolute obvious. (As well as boringly - my main gripe). Vox please, I beg you, RESTRICT this poster to max. 3 paragraphs on each subject. He is the Great Misleader and thus should be given a limit. Anything beyond that is Torture. Lord have Mercy on us all !
After God, Our Lady is our only hope.
Most Holy Mother of God, save us!
"Pope Francis can do all these things because there are no consequences." In this life, maybe - but there are eternal consequences.
We haven't gone through chapters 11 & 12 yet. The Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is in chapter 12, and that hasn't happened yet.
I agree. Once the Third Secret of Fatima, I.e., the exact words of Our Lady which follow: "In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved..." is revealed, then the Holy Father will receive the graces he needs to order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Then begins the restoration.
Lord, save us!
Private revelations are not de fide and this is merely my personal opinion, but I think the time has passed. Our lady set a time limit for the Consecration of Russia - 1960. It is now 2016 and her warning and request have been ignored. We are already suffering the consequences.
Of course, I do not believe Bergoglio to be a valid Pope, so for me there is no Pope to do the job now anyway. I think we had our chance and we blew it.
Peter Lamb, "In the end my Immaculate Heart will triumph, the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and it will be converted [to Catholicism] and a period of peace will be granted to the world." (Our Lady to the three seers, Fatima, July 13, 1917). It seems it will require this: http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B665_Prophecies.html beforehand.
As to the so called private revelations, if you think well you know that Fatima isn't truly a private revelation since it has imposed certain obligations on all the faithful ("God wants devotion to The Immaculate Heart of The Mother of God; pray one THIRD of The Rosary [of The Mary's Psalter] EVERY day in order to be peace in the world") and was manifested to the public, even to the whole world by that miraculous apparition on October 13, 1917. True private revelations aren't public as Fatima and don't impose obligations on the faithful under pain of dire consequences if disobeyed. I know that the so called public revelation ended by the death of St. John the Apostle but the expression private revelation for Fatima is unfortunate, misleading, derogatory to Fatima revelations and in the end highly dangerous. The faithful gonna be asked why they didn't obey the Queen of Heaven and Earth after The Church had investigated Fatima and had found it as truly from The Mother of God and will be punished as directly responsible for this mess in the world that could have been avoided had they obeyed Her.
Dear Anonymous, I most certainly do believe in Fatima and what Our Lady said. I also do not doubt the coming Chastisement, or that the Immaculate Heart will eventually prevail.
However, Our Lady told the children that the Consecration should be done by 1960 at the latest. So why did she set a time limit? I think to prevent what we are going through now - the Great Apostasy and its consequent Chastisement. Both have long been prophesied, as recorded in the excellent link you provided - thanks very much. She knew beforehand that we would not listen, but as our mother she tried one last time to save us, her children, from her Son's wrath. Her prophesy will be fulfilled. Somehow we will eventually have a true Pope again and he will consecrate Russia and the Immaculate Heart will rule and the Church will be restored in all her glory and peace will reign, but now, because of our disobedience, these things will, I think, happen AFTER the Chastisement which we could have avoided had we listened.
Technically, Fatima is indeed a private revelation, as are Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Lourdes etc. and yes, miracles are commonly visible in public - in fact most of Our Lord's were. "Private revelation" implies no disrespect for, disbelief in, or anything derogatory towards these apparitions whatever. The term simply serves to distinguish them from Public (Divine) revelation.
Divine, or public revelation is the deposit of faith. Saint Thomas Aquinas taught (as you said) that all public revelation ended with the death of Saint John the Apostle, but since it is contained in Christ and the Word of God, public revelation includes the Church, the Magisterium, the Sacraments and Catholic Dogma.
I agree with you entirely - I think that we are going to suffer for our disobedience.
who says the woman in the fresco is doing anything other than praying. In the early catacombs the laity prayed as the Apostles saw Jesus pray with His Hands stretched out in the form of a TAU. When the catacombs were too crowded, they folded their arms across their chest and or clasped their hands before them.
Mike, those who keep pushing the idea that women had a liturgical role as Deaconesses use this fresco in a vain attempt to prove it.
You seem not to understand the way of the modernists.
They will, of course, affirm Church teaching that "women cannot receive Holy Orders".
And then, they will state that "pastoral considerations" demand that women get more "active participation" in liturgy. So-called "pastoral assistants" will become the norm. They will informally start calling them "deaconesses" or "deaconettes", assign them more and more tasks of a deacon, and never, ever say they are anything different than deacons.
In the next step they will start calling misogynists those who dare to say female "deacons" are not equal to male deacons.
Oh, I understand their way completely.
Your summation is 100% correct.
Post a Comment