Ordinatio Sacerdotalis documented the fact that the Church may only ordain males to the priesthood. The Church lacks the authority to ordain females to the priesthood and that this is part of the Sacred Deposit of Faith – it’s not subject to change.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis made no such claims concerning the permanent diaconate. While we are all free to voice our opinions about what the Church would say, we don’t know definitively. We don’t know that “the door has been shut on the ordination of women to Holy Orders.”
I should correct myself. I did not mean the ordained diaconate, which is permanently closed to women, but rather to the role of deaconess, a different category, and one I still find unnecessary relative to the other needs of the Church today.
I agree, lay Catholics in general need to stop throwing around this idea that women can have a role as some sort of “deacon” based on some poor eisegesis of women helping the ordained men with female catechumens in baptism, who were naked in the earliest centuries.
That has nothing to do with anything remotely close to what we have today as the Deacons we see. They just aided in the way baptisms were done at that time. It was a word in the bible, NOT an OFFICE or ordination, otherwise Tradition would have made it known.
It is increasingly troubling that Catholics think things like these are * “up for discussion”* as if we are in some sort of democratic convention, about these things.
There will never be anything like this, the holy father’s mention of ‘greater roles’ , seems more administrative if anything. That said, I don’t agree with the Holy Father’s answer in that interview because of the implications that lead to very discussions like this, but whatever he does in papal governance will be authoritative.
As for the topic of “deacons” and “cardinals” , there is some serious heterodoxy/liberalism permeating even those who *should *recognize when something is SO nonsensical, and is just so absurd.
Stop opening your minds too much!
As Chesterton said,* I am incurably convinced that the object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.
All these suggestions to find wiggle room of technical terms to give the appearance that women can be given some sort of ‘title’ is another ACT of saying that the Church in the past deemed women inferior, by preventing them of some sort of ‘title’ on the level of a priest or deacon; that they are never going to find that equality until given such a place at the mass. It is an attack on Christ in the end, because it keeps saying he made a mistake, he didn’t quite get it on women.
This mentality is wicked and of Satan.
“My devotion to your house oh Lord, burns in me like a fire” Psalm 69:9
During the years of the early Christian church women served as deacons, priests, bishops, apostles, teachers and prophets. It wasn’t until the fourth century that dominant Christian leaders, all men, twisted and distorted Holy Scriptures to perpetuate their ascendant positions within the religious hierarchy.
Just personal opinion, but even as a man I would love to see women in the college of cardinals only because I don’t think our current system to elect the pope is representative of the diversity in our faith. We have 1.2 billion members in our church, but only about 100 men choose the public face of our organization.
That being said, I don’t see a reason other than the always infallible (please note sarcasm) public opinion to have ordained women. However, that does not diminish their role and it is great the Pope Francis is talking about that.
Some of the most important people in Church history are women. The Blessed Virgin Mary, St. Joan of Arc, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Therese of Lisieux, Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta, and my favorite: St. Catherine of Siena.
One is the mother of God, three hold the title of Doctor of the Church, and all are examples of what women can do when they stand for God and go against the way the world sees them or wants to see them.
Pope Francis said in regards to women’s ordination
And, with reference to the ordination of women, the Church has spoken and she said : “No.” John Paul II said it, but with a definitive formulation. That is closed, that door is closed, but I’d like to say something about this. I’ve said it, but I repeat it. Our Lady, Mary, was more important than the Apostles, than bishops, deacons and priests. In the Church, woman is more important than bishops and priests; how, it’s what we must seek to make more explicit, because theological explicitness about this is lacking
Female “deacons” would not be ordained to the sacrament of Holy Orders, and calling them deacons would be “ambiguous,” Fr. Hauke said. Women could “receive a benediction for services of charity” but not ordination, he clarified.
Bishop Voderholzer was also quoted in the article
“The sacramental diaconate – like the priesthood and episcopacy – is inextricably a sacrament, which according to the bible-based Tradition of the Church – even the Eastern Churches – is reserved to men,” he stated April 28
I dislike the notion that the Papacy must reflect diversity. The Pope is properly the Bishop of Rome. He is elected by the Roman clergy (the Cardinals all possess Roman churches). When was the last time you heard of a Brazillian being appointed Archbishop or Warsaw? Or a Croat being appointed to Vietnam?
The particular Church of Rome is a real thing and its integrity should be respected. It’s a true local and individual Church. Yes it occupies an integral part of the Church, its bishop exercises supreme judicial and doctrinal authority. I have no problem with not having a Pope from my own community or background. I don’t need it to feel like I belong any more than I already do. I don’t need an Irishman’s face on Saint Peter’s Chair to make sure “everyone gets a shot”. I also find it highly amusing that in such an age where pastoral care is of such concern to the men and women of the Church, that they’d elect a bishop to a See where he’s barely spent any time and has a bare minimal competence with the native language. Lovely.
The Bishopric of Rome should only be available to Italians. Preference for one of the clergy of Rome itself. And the Cardinals likewise limited to Romans and Italians for the most part.
I wonder if what the Pope is actually trying to get at is not something “defined” (like priest or deacon or cardinal etc.) but rather a greater recognition for women for what hey already do and are already capable of…
What “roles” are women actually excluded from? She may not confect the Eucharist or give absolution etc. - that is, the certain specific sacramental duties peculiar to the ordained priesthood.
But she can counsel, she can distribute the Eucharist to those in need, she can learn and teach theology, she can write, she can advise, she can do all of these things and more.
So - I think that perhaps the pope, in calling for a greater role for women in the Church is actually calling for a greater respect, and a greater emphasis on what women have done in the past and are doing even now.
Pope John Paul didn’t “shut the door” on women’s ordination. Our Lord did that at the Last Supper. John Paul just confirmed it infallibly because of all the liberal women yelling for it. Now lets just move on and wait for the Holy Father to let us know just what he meant the role of Women to be in the future.God Bless Memaw
WRONG!!! The Eastern Rite Cardinals-Patriarch hold their patriarchal see as their cardinalate see, see CIC Canon 350 §3…
Cardinal-Patriarch Emmanuel III Delly holds Babylon as his Cardinalate See
Cardinal-Patriarch Antonios Naguib holds Alexandria
Cardinal-Patriarch Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir holds Antioch jointly with Cardinal-Patriarch Béchara Pierre Raï, both for the Maronites.
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.