In another post, analysing some of the appointees to the commission to study the creation of deaconettes/deaconesses, Father Z quotes German theologian Karl-Heinz Menke, who will sit on the commission. In Die Zeit, Menke states:
The Second Vatican Council conclusively clarified the
question whether the deacon receives the Sacrament of Orders. The Sacrament of
Orders is received not only by the bishop and the priest, but also by the
deacon. If there is only one Sacrament of Orders (in three stages, that is,
deacon, priest, bishop), the admission of women would be sacramental,
transmitted through ordination, diaconate would mean their admission to
priestly and episcopal ordination.
During a recent diaconal ordination, I noted that sitting beside the bishop at his throne was not a priest, but a deacon. During the whole Mass, the bishop was assisted at the altar and at the faldstool, by a deacon. Following the ordination, the new deacon took his proper place at the altar beside the bishop. It was obvious, that the first role of the deacon, is to assist the bishop. The deacon is first and foremost, a liturgical minister. He also assists the bishop, as the prayers made clear, in other assignments, including charitable actions on the bishop's behalf.
The Second Reading for the Mass of Ordination was appropriately from the Book of Acts beginning at chapter six. Let us take a look at what Holy Scripture states. I have chosen it from the New Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition, just to point out that the newest, most scholarly translation, and the one used in the approved Canadian Lectionary, is quite clear:
6 Now
during those days, when the disciples were increasing in number, the Hellenists
complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the
daily distribution of food. 2 And the twelve called together the whole
community of the disciples and said, “It is not right that we should neglect
the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Therefore, friends, select from among
yourselves seven men of good standing, full of the Spirit and of wisdom, whom
we may appoint to this task, 4 while we, for our part, will devote ourselves to
prayer and to serving the word.” 5 What they said pleased the whole community,
and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, together with
Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte of Antioch.
6 They had these men stand before the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands
on them.
Note that, they selected "seven men." Seven men, not seven women!
Not even one, woman!
Not. One. Woman!
Not Phoebe. Not Miriam. Not Sarah. Not Elizabeth. Not Mary.
Not any woman.
They chose men.
Who are we in our modernist mindset to argue with the Apostles. Only a fool or an apostate would attempt it. Who are you, who am I to dispute Holy Scripture. Who is any priest or any so-called, "theologian." Who is any bishop or cardinal to do this? What kind of pope would think this even possible.
To put the matter to rest, Pope John Paul II had the matter studied. No women deacons. He also pronounced definitively, no women priests. The matter was studied decades ago. Instead of just admitting he misspoke, which would be a true sign of humility, Francis charges ahead. Why? Is it because he cannot admit he erred? Is it to placate women that this is something to study and then reject? Cruel, to be sure and dishonest. Is it to change the Church and blame those opposed to his Peronist schemes as not trusting the "god of surprises?"
Based upon what he did at the Synod, I suspect that if the Commission does not do as he wants, he will do what he wants; and I suspect it will be to have some kind of women deacons.
Women were never deacons.
Any women that may have been called such were the wives of deacons. They assisted women getting into baptismal pools and other functions for the sake of modesty. They were not ordained.
No woman can be ordained deacon.
No woman can take the role of the deacon described above.
If a woman wishes to "serve," she can become a religious sister or a contemplative nun. How hard is this for the Bishop of Rome and feminist, radical religious and their aiders and abettors such Phyllis Zagano to understand. The fact is, they do understand it. They want women priests even if they don't live long enough to see it! That is what this is about. This is the nose of the camel into the tent.
Those who are pushing for this are apostates.
We follow Our Lord Jesus Christ and the revealed truth of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as it has been handed down to us. Period!
Any diocesan official such as the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Toronto, who would sit on a panel discussing and promoting "women deacons" and not denounce such ideas is misleading the faithful. What position did the Reverend Brian Clough take on the matter of women deacons when he had the chance at St. Michael's College? Did the Judicial Vicar reject it? Did he correct Phyllis Zagano and denounce the idea? Did he remain silent on it?
When you're a bishop, such as Durocher of Hull, what does it say about you when you go to a Synod on the Family and raise this heretical agenda of women deacons?
Let the light shine.
We, in the West, are responsible for this outrage. Bashar Assad is a civilised man. He is the legitimate head of the Syrian Government. It is not up to us to depose him. If we depose him, why not Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe? Why not the tinpot madman in North Korea? America has destroyed this country and both parties are responsible. John McCain demanded even more invasion. Obama, instead, funded insurgents, most of whom became ISIS.
