I believe the collective noun for a group of priests is 'nuisance'. What is the collective noun for a group of women deacons? Suggestions in the combox.
To point a mocking finger at women who want to serve their Lord is bad enough; but to do so just hours after we have been remembering those who went early to the tomb on the first Easter Day seems particularly unkind...
I suppose this is all supposed to be about poking fun of Anglican "womynpriests"? That seems unseemly to me. Which means I agree with Flying Vic about something for once in my life. This can't end well.... ;-)
Of course, women cannot be priests, as we must hold with the full assent of faith as a teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium. We learn this from the Apostolic Letter "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" of Pope John Paul the Great.
But deaconesses are more perplexing, as the interminable debates about Phoebe from Romans 16 demonstrate. I am woefully ignorant here, but the present state of play seems to me to be that the ban on ordination of deaconesses is at least more of a theoretically alterable rule of discipline, like clerical celibacy.
Indeed, I've read that the Orthodox Church in Greece reintroduced deaconesses (ordained ones, not just deacons' wives) in 2004. And while their Orders are illicit, they are not invalid.
But then, I also seem to recall some impressive arguments from Catholic traditionalists that the Sacrament of Ordination is indivisible among the orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate. But of course, since there can be no female priests or bishops per the infallible teaching of the ordinary and univeral Magisterium encapsulated in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", then logically, if ordination is indivisible there can be no deaconesses either.
Oh, I almost forgot my original reason for writing in: there's a kind of bird called a "phoebe." So for the term of venery, maybe "a flock of Phoebes"?
yes flying vic, we should be 'nice' BUT the ancient idea about a woman deacon was to help with areas of life where it would be unseemly for a man to work (like helping during adult full-immersion baptism)
Women deacons will never sing the litanies in a true Eastern church- this is one important liturgical function of a deacon when there is one
Comparing these chicks to the holy women at the tomb that morning seems a bit old and tired....women can and do and have served our Lord without this kind of revolting nonsense.
"We mean by ‘deaconesses’ those who have assumed the habit, but who, since they have not had hands laid upon them, are to be numbered only among the laity."
Color me simple minded, but that's pretty black and white. :)
And Canon 20 says that we are to pray standing and not kneeling on Sundays. Ecumenical Councils sometimes define discipline in addition to defining dogma.
Also note that Canon 19 is referring to those being reconciled from the Paulist heresy. It determines how to validate their invalid orders. The fact that the canon specifies what exactly it means by Paulist deaconesses implies that there is another meaning.
I am not saying that ordained deaconesses can or should exist in the Church, but only that the question is not black and white. When you look at the whole of Tradition and tradition, you find that we can say with certainty that deaconesses existed, that they were distinct from deacons (ie, not just a female version of the male diaconate) and that they certainly did not receive Holy Orders in some places. What is not clear is whether they received Holy Orders in other places. To be honest, Tradition and tradition seem to indicate that they did, but it is not certain, not black and white.
A soon to be, forgotten by man group, apart from that part of them, which is found to be, in Christ Jesus. Therefore readers and commenters, a group of you and me. Let's see ourselves as we diminish their seeming non-worth. Each one was known, by Christ, before Christ formed them, in their mother's wombs. Mindyou, to see them in that way would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? No-one can love like that. Or demand others to.
jesus never used guile. I do. Why do I do what I hate?
O.K. people - stuff it! Some of you are confused about this issue. You are confusing two different concepts. Historically the Church both East and West had "deaconesses". These females are not that. They are not even the 'deaconesses' that have existed and still exist in some continuing Anglican groups as well as Lutheran groups. The Anglican/ Lutheran deaconesses held and 'The Office of a Deaconess'. The females in this photo claim to be 'deacons' which they are not, except in their own minds. Even in the East, at Constantinople in the Hagia Sophia Saint John Chrysostom had at least one deaconess present at the altar while celebrating the Divine liturgy. She had no liturgical function but as head of the deaconesses she was there as a representative.
I have no problem with the 'Office of a Deaconess' as practiced prior to women's ordination and still practiced today. Having met Deaconesses of both Lutheran and Anglican variety none spoke of wanting to be 'priests'. The Office of a Deaconess is more like a Religious Order than Holy Order.
So people, educate yourselves and stop going around dazed and confused stirring up controversies. Oh yes, you are not amusing anyone but yourselves.
Matthew curmudgeon, you ask, nay demand almost, that 'people' see your viewpoint, yet you separate yourself from 'us'. Christ didn't. Satan does. Just be aware of that one, yeh? How do the people you encounter daily rate your listening skills? They know you, you should listen to them.
Fr. L, I claimed on a previous occasion that you seem to take great joy in ridiculing women who have professional lives, including those who are ministers. You told me, as I recall, that I was being too serious and self-conscious.
Therefore, I will try to be more light-hearted here and throw a question out there, all in good fun: What do you call a former Bob-Jones dude (was deep thinking really going on there? or just lessons in how to categorize, separate, and mock?) who seems to love the spotlight and thinks women are best left at home but sure, he respects them as professionals just the same; he's always just kidding about these things?
a) immature b) insecure c) immature and insecure d) in need of prayer and conversion (like the rest of us)
You're a smart guy, Father. Time to let yourself graduate from fifth-grade humor.
If this was Fr X,Y or Z's blog, he might demand you only respond if you adhere to his viewpoint. Doesn't anyone see the gift we have here? Father allows us to disagree, in order to agree. Golly! He's almost like Jesus, he gives us free will. But!!! Don't take the biscuit!! (that's a brit term).Recognise, the gift of this blog people.
Vic--you wrote, "Accept that no-one this side of God is right about everything=you're on the path to true holiness."
This is a bland truism that no one would disagree with.
I suspect what you really mean is, "There is no such thing as objective theology, and everyone's dogmatic assertions are merely metaphorical attempts at stating the truth and are therefore provisional, and not binding because they are--in the end--no more than a matter of opinion."
If I am correct in my re-statement of your expression, then you have simply affirmed the single remaining dogmatic statement of the Anglican Church.
It would be fairer, Father, to read my comment in context, as a rapid reply to what I felt was the smugness of the immediately previous comment, rather than to read in to what I wrote some kind of universally significant truth.
It is an interesting question, though (and I ask it in general terms rather than with respect to this one particular subject): which is to be preferred, a professed uncertainty that ought, perhaps, to be more forceful in truth? Or a professed certainty that might, perhaps, be a little misplaced?
I'm sorry Vic. I don't know what you're talking about. 'Professed certainty' or 'professed uncertainty' both mean the same thing to me and that is a certain certainty about being uncertain.
A tale of two caricatures: 'professed uncertainty' chimes with your description of Anglicanism; 'professed certainty' chimes with my opinion of Roman Catholicism. I'm an Anglican (at least partly) because I recognise that here on earth I have no continuing city; you're a Catholic (at least partly) because you find in Rome a city that is eternal.
It is right that all Protestants should be uncertain, and Anglicans are the most honest in admitting this uncertainty. This is because the Protestant has no authority structure larger than his own opinion.
The Catholic's certainty, however, is built on a very different foundation. The certainty I cherish as a Catholic has nothing at all to do with my own opinion. I simply rest in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the rich treasure house of her traditions and devotions.
I do not profess to have any certainty in matters of opinion, and am quite open minded and even agnostic when it comes to such matters. Any certainty I have rests in the teaching of the Church, and in this I can be both confident and carefree.
A group of women deacons, hmmm since there is no such thing as a woman deacon, I should say a group of them would be a deceit of the disordered imagination.
As for deaconesses, that is a different creature entirely, and one that is not so insecure about her identity as a woman as to need to dress up like a man.
As for humor, "The Devil, proud spirit cannot endure to be mocked."
My wife is fond of saying that since humor is a function of the intellect, God, being the ultimate intellect, must have the ultimate sense of humor. As for those who apparently have no sense of humor, perhaps, it is because (to misquote Dr. Mascall), as you might expect, they have very little intellect.
Michael, perhaps the subtlety of the argument about humour has passed you by? Objections to this particular thread have been based not on "Is there, or is there not, humour in this photograph?" but "Is it right for a Christian to laugh unkindly at others?"
The Christian sense of humour, then, depends not only upon intellect but also upon sensitivity; sadly, it appears that these two qualities do not always co-exist.
I'm sure you're familiar with Chesterton: "There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth."
Perhaps there are occasions when we too should hide our mirth, do you think, out of consideration for others?
as Evelyn Waugh pointed out the end of 'merrie old England' started with the Enclosure Acts- which still keep Anglocons in beer ans skittles to this day.
Someone- not even a RC- was remarking that when a church is completely identified with the country it represents, it follows that Fascism may well follow.
An impossibility. A facsimile. A tryiton. A sadness.
ReplyDeleteHeresy?
ReplyDeleteScary beyond all reason?
ReplyDeleteA damnatio?
ReplyDeleteSorry. I meant a damnation!
ReplyDeleteA raft of deaconesses!
ReplyDeleteThe collective noun for loons is 'raft,' e.g., Dear, did you see that raft of loons floating in the pond?
A Squawk Box? Ok...I'll duck now.
ReplyDeleteAn epic fail.
ReplyDeleteTo point a mocking finger at women who want to serve their Lord is bad enough; but to do so just hours after we have been remembering those who went early to the tomb on the first Easter Day seems particularly unkind...
ReplyDeletebattery
ReplyDeleteNot a gaggle, but a giggle.
ReplyDeleteA crowk as in dead crows .
ReplyDeleteA murder of deaconesses.
ReplyDeleteOr... A flotilla of deaconesses.
ReplyDeletelunatics?
ReplyDeleteMaybe a"gossip". Or better yet, a "butch" of deaconesses, they always seem to have the same haircut.
ReplyDeleteI suppose this is all supposed to be about poking fun of Anglican "womynpriests"? That seems unseemly to me. Which means I agree with Flying Vic about something for once in my life. This can't end well.... ;-)
ReplyDeleteOf course, women cannot be priests, as we must hold with the full assent of faith as a teaching of the ordinary universal Magisterium. We learn this from the Apostolic Letter "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis" of Pope John Paul the Great.
But deaconesses are more perplexing, as the interminable debates about Phoebe from Romans 16 demonstrate. I am woefully ignorant here, but the present state of play seems to me to be that the ban on ordination of deaconesses is at least more of a theoretically alterable rule of discipline, like clerical celibacy.
Indeed, I've read that the Orthodox Church in Greece reintroduced deaconesses (ordained ones, not just deacons' wives) in 2004. And while their Orders are illicit, they are not invalid.
But then, I also seem to recall some impressive arguments from Catholic traditionalists that the Sacrament of Ordination is indivisible among the orders of the diaconate, priesthood, and episcopate. But of course, since there can be no female priests or bishops per the infallible teaching of the ordinary and univeral Magisterium encapsulated in "Ordinatio Sacerdotalis", then logically, if ordination is indivisible there can be no deaconesses either.
Padre, can you enlighten me? Thanks!
Oh, I almost forgot my original reason for writing in: there's a kind of bird called a "phoebe." So for the term of venery, maybe "a flock of Phoebes"?
ReplyDeleteyes flying vic, we should be 'nice' BUT the ancient idea about a woman deacon was to help with areas of life where it would be unseemly for a man to work (like helping during adult full-immersion baptism)
ReplyDeleteWomen deacons will never sing the litanies in a true Eastern church- this is one important liturgical function of a deacon when there is one
I think this is the best name:
ReplyDeleteHippies
Is it accidental that each of them is looking in a different direction?
ReplyDeleteBiddies?
ReplyDeleteComparing these chicks to the holy women at the tomb that morning seems a bit old and tired....women can and do and have served our Lord without this kind of revolting nonsense.
A pretend
ReplyDeleteTom,
ReplyDeleteNicaea I's Canon 19 states,
"We mean by ‘deaconesses’ those who have assumed the habit, but who, since they have not had hands laid upon them, are to be numbered only among the laity."
Color me simple minded, but that's pretty black and white. :)
Pick a little, talk a little, pick a little, talk a little,
ReplyDeletecheep cheep cheep, talk a lot, pick a little more
A rack:
ReplyDeletehttp://tinyurl.com/66v8ccv
teletubbies
ReplyDeletea "confusion of deaconesses" ought to cover all points of view
ReplyDeleteShaughn,
ReplyDeleteAnd Canon 20 says that we are to pray standing and not kneeling on Sundays. Ecumenical Councils sometimes define discipline in addition to defining dogma.
Also note that Canon 19 is referring to those being reconciled from the Paulist heresy. It determines how to validate their invalid orders. The fact that the canon specifies what exactly it means by Paulist deaconesses implies that there is another meaning.
I am not saying that ordained deaconesses can or should exist in the Church, but only that the question is not black and white. When you look at the whole of Tradition and tradition, you find that we can say with certainty that deaconesses existed, that they were distinct from deacons (ie, not just a female version of the male diaconate) and that they certainly did not receive Holy Orders in some places. What is not clear is whether they received Holy Orders in other places. To be honest, Tradition and tradition seem to indicate that they did, but it is not certain, not black and white.
A soon to be, forgotten by man group, apart from that part of them, which is found to be, in Christ Jesus. Therefore readers and commenters, a group of you and me. Let's see ourselves as we diminish their seeming non-worth. Each one was known, by Christ, before Christ formed them, in their mother's wombs. Mindyou, to see them in that way would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? No-one can love like that. Or demand others to.
ReplyDeletejesus never used guile. I do. Why do I do what I hate?
Jesus. Capital 'J'
ReplyDeleteFather,
ReplyDeleteI still prefer a 'MYTH' of Deaconesses.
FXR2
Cackle (hyenas)
ReplyDeletePride (not as in a group of lions... 'nuf said)
Stubbornness (as in Rhinoceros)
O.K. people - stuff it!
ReplyDeleteSome of you are confused about this issue. You are confusing two different concepts. Historically the Church both East and West had "deaconesses". These females are not that. They are not even the 'deaconesses' that have existed and still exist in some continuing Anglican groups as well as Lutheran groups. The Anglican/ Lutheran deaconesses held and 'The Office of a Deaconess'.
The females in this photo claim to be 'deacons' which they are not, except in their own minds. Even in the East, at Constantinople in the Hagia Sophia Saint John Chrysostom had at least one deaconess present at the altar while celebrating the Divine liturgy. She had no liturgical function but as head of the deaconesses she was there as a representative.
I have no problem with the 'Office of a Deaconess' as practiced prior to women's ordination and still practiced today. Having met Deaconesses of both Lutheran and Anglican variety none spoke of wanting to be 'priests'. The Office of a Deaconess is more like a Religious Order than Holy Order.
So people, educate yourselves and stop going around dazed and confused stirring up controversies. Oh yes, you are not amusing anyone but yourselves.
Matthew curmudgeon, you ask, nay demand almost, that 'people' see your viewpoint, yet you separate yourself from 'us'. Christ didn't. Satan does. Just be aware of that one, yeh? How do the people you encounter daily rate your listening skills? They know you, you should listen to them.
ReplyDeleteAffrim that the Church has no authority to ordain women and wag your finger at this entry = fair enough.
ReplyDeleteDeny that the Church has no authority to ordain women and wag your finger at this entry = big fat phony.
Make fun of those you disagree with=wrong, wrong, wrong.
ReplyDeletePray for those you disagree with=right, right, right.
Accept that no-one this side of God is right about everything=you're on the path to true holiness.
Fr. L, I claimed on a previous occasion that you seem to take great joy in ridiculing women who have professional lives, including those who are ministers. You told me, as I recall, that I was being too serious and self-conscious.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I will try to be more light-hearted here and throw a question out there, all in good fun: What do you call a former Bob-Jones dude (was deep thinking really going on there? or just lessons in how to categorize, separate, and mock?) who seems to love the spotlight and thinks women are best left at home but sure, he respects them as professionals just the same; he's always just kidding about these things?
a) immature
b) insecure
c) immature and insecure
d) in need of prayer and conversion (like the rest of us)
You're a smart guy, Father. Time to let yourself graduate from fifth-grade humor.
If this was Fr X,Y or Z's blog, he might demand you only respond if you adhere to his viewpoint. Doesn't anyone see the gift we have here? Father allows us to disagree, in order to agree. Golly! He's almost like Jesus, he gives us free will. But!!! Don't take the biscuit!! (that's a brit term).Recognise, the gift of this blog people.
ReplyDelete@Matthew the Curmudgeon: Thanks for the info about the historic role of "deaconesses". It sounds interesting. By this you mean similar to an abbess?
ReplyDeleteflyingvic
ReplyDeletehoodwink the CofE into
wimmin 'priests'
Fraud, deceit, lies, sacriledge
[maybe they are 'fraudliens'... Editordersprechen]
...but 'battery' is the one that's made me laugh most, so far...
ReplyDeleteVic--you wrote, "Accept that no-one this side of God is right about everything=you're on the path to true holiness."
ReplyDeleteThis is a bland truism that no one would disagree with.
I suspect what you really mean is, "There is no such thing as objective theology, and everyone's dogmatic assertions are merely metaphorical attempts at stating the truth and are therefore provisional, and not binding because they are--in the end--no more than a matter of opinion."
If I am correct in my re-statement of your expression, then you have simply affirmed the single remaining dogmatic statement of the Anglican Church.
'Nuisancesses'!!
ReplyDeleteA "silly", perhaps?
ReplyDeleteIt would be fairer, Father, to read my comment in context, as a rapid reply to what I felt was the smugness of the immediately previous comment, rather than to read in to what I wrote some kind of universally significant truth.
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting question, though (and I ask it in general terms rather than with respect to this one particular subject): which is to be preferred, a professed uncertainty that ought, perhaps, to be more forceful in truth? Or a professed certainty that might, perhaps, be a little misplaced?
I'm sorry Vic. I don't know what you're talking about. 'Professed certainty' or 'professed uncertainty' both mean the same thing to me and that is a certain certainty about being uncertain.
ReplyDeleteA tale of two caricatures: 'professed uncertainty' chimes with your description of Anglicanism; 'professed certainty' chimes with my opinion of Roman Catholicism. I'm an Anglican (at least partly) because I recognise that here on earth I have no continuing city; you're a Catholic (at least partly) because you find in Rome a city that is eternal.
ReplyDeleteIt is right that all Protestants should be uncertain, and Anglicans are the most honest in admitting this uncertainty. This is because the Protestant has no authority structure larger than his own opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic's certainty, however, is built on a very different foundation. The certainty I cherish as a Catholic has nothing at all to do with my own opinion. I simply rest in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the rich treasure house of her traditions and devotions.
I do not profess to have any certainty in matters of opinion, and am quite open minded and even agnostic when it comes to such matters. Any certainty I have rests in the teaching of the Church, and in this I can be both confident and carefree.
@Fr Padre
ReplyDeleteyo, indeed, good to see a RC priest differentiate between 'private opinion', heresy, doctrines and Dogmatic Truth.
like the Prince said re the attendance of former bloshie bolshies at his PRIVATE WEDDING
'we had to draw the line somewhere'
Indeed, we do.
A group of women deacons, hmmm since there is no such thing as a woman deacon, I should say a group of them would be a deceit of the disordered imagination.
ReplyDeleteAs for deaconesses, that is a different creature entirely, and one that is not so insecure about her identity as a woman as to need to dress up like a man.
As for humor, "The Devil, proud spirit cannot endure to be mocked."
My wife is fond of saying that since humor is a function of the intellect, God, being the ultimate intellect, must have the ultimate sense of humor. As for those who apparently have no sense of humor, perhaps, it is because (to misquote Dr. Mascall), as you might expect, they have very little intellect.
Michael, perhaps the subtlety of the argument about humour has passed you by? Objections to this particular thread have been based not on "Is there, or is there not, humour in this photograph?" but "Is it right for a Christian to laugh unkindly at others?"
ReplyDeleteThe Christian sense of humour, then, depends not only upon intellect but also upon sensitivity; sadly, it appears that these two qualities do not always co-exist.
I'm sure you're familiar with Chesterton: "There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth."
Perhaps there are occasions when we too should hide our mirth, do you think, out of consideration for others?
gosh, but God gave us the CofE
ReplyDeletea joke if not mirthful
as Evelyn Waugh pointed out the end of 'merrie old England' started with the Enclosure Acts- which still keep Anglocons in beer ans skittles to this day.
Someone- not even a RC- was remarking that when a church is completely identified with the country it represents, it follows that Fascism may well follow.
Gotta keep those Vicars' tea caddies well stocked
@Patricius
ReplyDeletecan we say 'anathema' just for auld lang syne?
just wondering...
yo, Pisces, what tripe
ReplyDeleteFeast of the Annunciation is five days younger than my own commemoration of St Joseph
methinks
historical spooks don't miss a trick