RCs push for 'women deacons' in England and Vatican

So some of you have seen my reporting on the strange push for women deacons by Roman Catholics in Australia,
https://forums.anglican.net/threads/australian-r-catholics-open-to-women-deacons.4797/

What i have also started seeing is a new push for 'women's ministry' in England:



https://www.twitter.com/ctrlamb/status/1540785392969863169
https://www.twitter.com/ctrlamb/status/1541142298557292544


Even the French have been asking for women's ministry,
https://twitter.com/ctrlamb/status/1541142995671580673




But what came at biggest surprise to me was the call for women deacons coming out of the Vatican itself

"Cdl. Marx: ‘The time is ripe’ for women’s diaconate in the Church"
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cdl-marx-the-time-is-ripe-for-womens-diaconate-in-the-church/

"Pope Francis has named three women to serve as members of the Vatican office that evaluates bishop nominations."
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1547180267965743104

 

It sounds like the RCC is making small steps in the right direction all over the globe. It's only taken them about 50 years to catch up to Anglicanism.

 

I don't know, the ACNA has been moving in the opposite direction, recently stating that women's ordination was absent in the scriptures and the early church

 

I’m not doing this debate again.

 

I am just saying that our bishops have asserted this... which does indicate a certain direction; unless my information about the ACNA is mistaken? Forgive me, there has been so much news going back and forth lately

 

What you're seeing is a large-scale interdenominational splitting of Christendom into two factions: liberal and orthodox. Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists -- they're all in the process of separation (or have completed the process already). Roman Catholicism may not be far behind. Women's Ordination and homosexuality in the church are far more acceptable on the liberal side than the orthodox side, so I think once the Great Divorce is complete, the tempests over WO and homosexuality will die down a bit. Protestants are embarking on a large-scale experiment to see whether orthodoxy/traditionalist Christianity or progressive/liberal Christianity is the way forward. The next two decades will tell the tale, at least in Europe and North America.

ACNA will need to take a stand on WO at some point. They do not ordain women bishops, but they do permit Bishops to ordain women as priests. This strikes me as an incoherent policy, frankly -- if women may be ordained as priests, they can surely be ordained as Bishops, the Biblical requirements being the same; likewise if they are not allowed to be Bishops, neither are they allowed to be priests. I know why ACNA temporized in this way, but it's time to settle the issue and give everybody some clarity. WO is not adiaphora; it is a matter of central doctrine, and it is not good to leave the issue unresolved. More importantly, this is an issue as contentious among the African churches as it is in North America, so clarity is needed.

As to ordaining women to the Diaconate, I am of mixed feelings. The problem is that Anglicans consider the Diaconate to be an ordained office, and an on-ramp to priesthood. Thus in that sense I think women should not be ordained as Deacons. (Also because the passages in 1 Timothy and Titus refer to males regarding the requirements for presbyters and deacons.) However, the church benefits greatly by the ministry of capable women, so I am foursquare in favor of a parallel order of female "official helpers" that more closely model the ancient Biblical role women "deacons" filled in the church. And it is already the case that women predominate in significant positions within many Protestant churches already: in childrens' ministry, in worship music, women's therapy and counseling, in bible study and outreach, etc.

The key is not to broaden the scope of the ordained offices; the key is to give the laity more chances to serve the church in non-ordained roles (men and women both).

 

I don't see where in the cited articles that the Vatican is calling for women deacons.

It doesn't matter what some people think in some countries. The Roman Catholic Church is not like the Anglican or Orthodox churches. It is not a communion of separate national churches. It is one worldwide organisation. Any change in the requirements for Holy Orders in the Roman Catholic Church can come from one source only: the pope.

We used to have deaconesses in the Church of England. I don't know if we still do. I know a lady that was one for a long time.

I do think it's time for the tail to stop wagging the dog. I am all for equal rights and opportunities for women. However, in the Church it should not be about conforming with secular society. We should be following God's Divine Will.

 

I agree with all that you said… I was not saying that each of these areas will now pass women deacons all on their own; everyone knows that all the power is centralized in the Vatican; all I was saying was that these areas are incredibly more open to women deacons than anyone has realized

 

As someone who is highly sympathetic to WO, I’m curious why you see it as a matter of central doctrine. The Gospel writers didn’t seem to find it of particular note in detailing Jesus’s ministry. Paul speaks to it in several spots, but his prohibition against women speaking doesn’t seem to be absolute. Even when Paul speaks most strongly against it, there is no suggestion that a woman sins by speaking in church or that a man sins by listening. If it has to do more with the nature of the priesthood in the Anglican tradition, you’ll have to educate me on those details.
From what I’ve gathered from EO circles, the issue generally doesn’t arise. Though even some EO theologians are unsure why Protestants would limit the priesthood to men, given their jettisoning of Holy Tradition (I realize some Anglicans prefer not to associate with the Protestant moniker, and they may be the exception depending on how much of Holy Tradition they actually accept). Anyway, back to my original question: why is it not adiaphora?

 

I would suggest that the entire body of Scripture sets forth the pattern that we are to follow. God gave to men the duty of being heads of households and leaders of God's people. God always represents Himself as a "male figure" to us. He incarnated as a male, He terms Himself the "bridegroom" and His people are termed his "bride", the disobedient Israelites were likened to a female harlot while obedient followers were characterized as a female virgin, and so on. A priest stands in as a representative or ambassador for Christ and this role, throughout the Church's history, has been understood to be the role of a male in the image of our male Savior. The reasoning goes: we should follow the example set down by God and by those believers who came before us, rather than allow evolving societal norms (which shift with every passing breeze) dictate to the Church how we should practice the faith once handed down to us.

Here is a good article you may wish to peruse; it sets out the viewpoint from an Anglican's perspective but I think (although some vary in their opinion) that it applies to (at least) all of the liturgical churches which have priests because of their role in consecrating the elements as the Body and Blood of Christ and in performing the absolution. Other denominations' ministers do not do these things, so personally I feel differently about the situation for them.

 

Thank you, Rexlion. I understand that reasoning, and I certainly affirm that there is precedent for this understanding within the Church (I'm even open to the possibility that it is the more correct understanding). I think, however, there is also room for legitimate disagreement among faithful Christians about what the "entire body of Scripture sets forth" and, especially, how that informs the way the Church is organized and by whom it is governed. Scripture is not without examples of women leaders (Miriam, Deborah, Prisca, etc.). It is certainly not the norm, but it is also not without precedent.
God does not always represent himself as a "male figure." "How often I have wanted to gather your people together as a mother hen gathers her little ones under her wings" (Luke 13:34). "He shielded him and cared for him; he guarded him as the apple of his eye, like an eagle that stirs up its nest and hovers over its young, that spreads its wings to catch them and carries them aloft" (Deut 32:11).
Insofar as Jesus is the bridegroom and the Church is the bride, we all (male and female followers of Christ alike) are the bride, regardless of our biological sex. If the priest represents Christ (the bridegroom) to the Church, is it not also correct to say the priest represents the Church (the bride) to Christ?

In terms of arguments against WO, I am most compelled by appeals to Tradition, as it is clear the the Church has not historically ordained women (though the diaconate -or some form of it- does have historical and biblical precedent). It is certainly a modern controversy, and I agree with @Ananias that some meaningful resolution will be required for the Church to most effectively pursue her mission. But I also think the Anglican Tradition has sought to hold together in the face of far more central doctrinal controversies than WO (there are both Calvinists and Catholics present within the Communion!). I'm just not sure WO is so central to the Gospel that disagreement should cause such strife within Christ's body.

[Edit] I will bookmark that article to read as I am able. Thank you for sharing!

[Edit2] I should also mention I see WO as a particular (and unfortunate) stumbling block to dialogue with RCC and EO. I think many WO advocates have regrettably ignored this consideration.

 

I spent some time with this article. If anything, it has made me more sympathetic to WO...
I find appeals to the Trinity in this discussion to be problematic, often leading to some degree of subordinationism (especially of the Spirit, which is often and erroneously depicted as the "feminine" person of the Trinity).
The arguments he made with respect to physical and psychological traits are also quite unpersuasive. The author overgeneralizes these traits and connects them symbolically to the priesthood in tenuous ways. The fact that a man's hands are larger and his shoulders broader tells me nothing about the priesthood. Nor does the idea that men are, in general, more detached from their emotions. In fact, one could quite easily make the opposite argument (or at least argue that the priesthood as a whole would benefit from a diversity of strengths and personality types).

His strongest argument is this: "when it is a request from but a tiny minority of the Church universal, the burden of proof required to legitimize the change becomes even more demanding." WO has often been pursued without respect to conciliarity. This is indeed problematic.

 

Just be careful how you evaluate some of the internet pages about these women. They tend to take liberties in their desire to promote their agenda. For example, one can see claims that Deborah was a military commander, a leader of "worship services," and other extra-Biblical extrapolations. Similarly, Priscilla is barely mentioned in the Bible, but advocates of WO and/or the feminist movement will expand and expound greatly upon her as if she had been a prominent, highly influential, mega-church superstar pastor or something.

It's also important to note that none of these women were priests. The priesthood is a unique assignment from God, both in the OT temple and in the NT church. It's not the same type of role as "judge" (even though the judges were leaders, they led in civil and perhaps criminal hearings & rulings) or the same type of role as a prophet (who is specially endowed by the Spirit to make divine utterances). Nor can it be equated with the roles we might loosely call "ministry of helps," which includes deacons, Sunday school teachers, prayer ministers, altar care workers, etc, etc... all of whom might be called "leaders within the local parish," but really they are not the leader of the local parish, rather they are all under the priest's say-so and leadership. For example, the leader of the parish's ushers can't get up and consecrate the elements or give the general absolution, can he?

BTW, Deut. 32:11 hardly qualifies as 'God representing Himself (Herself?) as a female figure.' A solitary, isolated simile does not prove what the feminists want it to prove; it merely is meant to evoke a mental image of a certain feeling or desire, not to tell us how God identifies Himself. For that we have far more, far better scripture references (starting with Jesus, who always referred to "Father" in heaven and who taught us that "Our Father" is the correct way to relate to God!)

Everyone is welcome to an opinion, and opinions on this forum do vary. But, like you said, the church already possesses a long-standing precedent, and we should not lightly deviate.

 

None of the anti-WO arguments are even remotely cogent. They routinely blur the distinction between doctrine and discipline, and are often based on a highly ambiguous and problematic notion of what constitutes ‘dogma’. They curiously tend to combine a fundamentalist Protestant view of the Bible with a late medieval quasi-Roman Catholic view of the Church. They are, at this point, merely a proxy for ‘culture war’ positions, nothing more. Despite what you may read here, WO is not controversial for the vast majority of Anglicans throughout the world (including the bulk of the schismatic ACNA). Only a small, reactionary subset wants to bicker about it, and oftentimes on the basis of a very un-Anglican ecclesiology. My recommendation is to go with your convictions and ignore the naysayers. They’ve had decades to make their case and they still haven’t made a persuasive one. The Christian Ministry is not a continuation of or successor to the Aaronic priesthood, and the purpose of the apostolic succession was to ensure the continuity of teaching, not of mysterious quasi-magical rites.

 

The greatest shift in New Testament Theological concepts between Old and New Testaments seems to me to be what Jesus taught about himself and how the relationship between God and mankind has been altered by God to bring about reconciliation between mankind itself and Himself. This reconciliation should be most profoundly noticeable between male and female in their relationships with God, themselves, and their standing before Him. Paul recognised this as symbolic of the reconciliation between God and mankind itself, won by God, in Christ, for us, upon the cross. That the lead role, (i.e. the celebrant), in mankind expressing its thankfulness, (Eucharist), to God for his grace toward us, when we meet together in Christ, should symbolise division between the sexes, (when reserved for men only), rather than equality in unity and complementarity, is ironic, to say the least.

 

I don't tend to spend a lot of time with internet sources unless I have particular reason to trust the creators. The claims that Deborah was a military commander or worship leader could be considered stretches based on the text itself (depending on the claim), though they are not entirely baseless. Barak does insist that she come with him into battle against Sisera and Jabin. Judges 5 consists entirely of a song of praise to the Lord sung by Deborah and Barak. She was also a (true) prophet, faithfully mediating the words of God to the people of Israel.
Prisca doesn't show up frequently, but she makes quite an impression when she does. She, with her husband Aquila, teaches Apollos. She's even named before her husband on two occasions in Acts 18 as well as in Romans and 2Timothy. I wouldn't say she was a prominent, highly influential, mega-church superstar pastor, but Paul certainly esteemed her highly, and she was capable of teaching even a learned man (Apollos).

The Old Testament priesthood does not find meaningful continuation in the Church. Christ is our great High Priest, whose once-for-all sacrifice on Calvary made atonement for sin. The Church does not have priests in the same way that Israel had priests. Presbyteros =/= hiereus (or kohen, if you prefer the Hebrew).

I believe Deut. 32:11 is appropriate as an example of God representing himself (no, not herself...) in a feminine way. Is a mother eagle (or a hen) not a "female figure"? Though I agree that this verse likely does not do the work that certain feminist theologians want it to (though I also imagine there's a broad range of feminist interpretations of this verse, some of which are surely limited to a viable hermeneutic). I will concede that this has little to do with WO, however it is interpreted. I was merely responding to your claim that God "always represents himself as a male figure." I don't see God's self-expression as particularly relevant to the discussion. That seems to be more a function of language and simplicity than an ontological expression of who God is. Both male and female are explicitly created in the image of God. Therefore, both male and female are capable of faithfully 'imaging' God in/to/for this world.

I don't suggest we deviate from precedent lightly, but we also must evaluate the arguments seriously and charitably. My initial suggestion was that WO can (and I would say should) be considered adiaphora - an issue upon which faithful Christians can disagree without causing further division in the body of Christ.

 

Thank you, Invictus. I tend to agree with you, though I wouldn't go so far as to say that "none of the anti-WO arguments are even remotely cogent." I think there are plenty of anti-WO people who are seeking to faithfully live into the Gospel. There is surely biblical and historical warrant for their position, however much you or I may ultimately be unconvinced by their conclusions on this issue.

I do want to push back a bit on your assessment that the ACNA is schismatic (at least in toto). It's true many ACNA churches were formerly TEC, and I suppose you could use that term to describe them. However, many ACNA congregations were planted as immigrant churches by Rwandans or Nigerians. It seems inappropriate to label these congregations as schismatic, as they never broke communion with their mother churches in Africa. That said, this topic is off-thread (and I'm certainly no expert in the history), so I'll leave it there...

 

Well, you've certainly "come into the ring swinging." And you obviously have your mind made up, so further engagement from me would be pointless.

 

There are five different ways that a moral imperative may be related to a category of action. It may be:

1. Commanded
2. Prohibited
3. Recommended (but not commanded)
4. Not recommended (but not prohibited)
5. Neither recommended nor not recommended (i.e., neutral)

It seems to me that anti-WO proponents are trying to argue that WO falls under option 2, and it is the arguments for this position that I am saying are not cogent or sufficiently convincing. Nor do I think there are terribly convincing arguments to say that WO falls under option 1 either, i.e., that it should be obligatory. It is merely a practice that belongs to the Church's discipline (not its doctrine), and individual dioceses may act on recommendations for or against it, depending on the circumstances, the needs of local congregations, the availability of personnel, the vocational calling of individuals, etc. There is no justification whatsoever for its being a Church-dividing issue from either side. For anyone to claim that it is 'essential doctrine' is downright silly. The only essential doctrines in Christianity that have been inherited from the early centuries of the Church concern the Trinity and the Incarnation:

1. The oneness of God
2. The reality of the Three Persons
3. The two natures of Christ
4. The unity of his Person
5. His birth, death, resurrection, and return in judgment

Opinions vary. Technically, schism is a division within the Church, including when rival bishops lay claim to the same geographic jurisdiction. The ACNA will say that we Episcopalians are "apostates" and therefore that our bishops don't actually have jurisdiction. Unfortunately for such arguments, even if the premise were true (and it's not), jurisdiction isn't automatically terminated just because some people hold the opinion that a bishop has denied the Faith. Apostasy is a legal category that must be applied by a competent ecclesiastical authority by due process. Obviously, that never occurred, so the ACNA is put in the position of denying the Episcopal Church's right to exist on the basis of a non-episcopal ecclesiology, but then turning around and asserting rights for their own bishops in robustly episcopal terms.

 

I don't intend to swing, just to engage. I apologize if I've come across as argumentative. I've gone in circles around this question for many years and have heard many arguments. Some have been persuasive, others have not. If my questions or replies have been pointed, my intention is to press not to refute.
My mind is most certainly not made up. I'd say it's less so even that it once was. I genuinely have come in eager to understand and to learn. I am not Anglican in any official sense, but I have worshiped in Anglican churches (both ACNA... at the time) that take vastly different stances on the issue of WO. I'm grateful for both. There is much I appreciate about Anglicanism, and I'm seeking to lean further into the tradition.

I truly do apologize if my first impression in this forum has been uncharitable or overly forward.