Francis has appointed a committee to study the “question” of female deacons; a matter already truly and properly settled.
Sound familiar? It should.
Speaking of his generation of priests who came of age following the Council; the same who were duly formed in its revolutionary ways, Francis said:
“For us, Paul VI was the great light.”
Readers may recall Pope Montini’s own use of commissions…
In 1963, Pope John XXIII created a Commission on Birth Control that was comprised of just six non-theologians in preparation for an upcoming U.N. conference on overpopulation.
Following his death, Paul VI greatly expanded the Commission to include theologians, physicians, women without medical credentials, and an executive committee that included both bishops and cardinals.
He also expanded its mandate to include examining a “question” that wasn’t really a question at all.
According to esteemed moral theologian and Committee member Dr. Germain Grisez:
[Paul VI] was interested in finding evidence and reasons that would justify any sort of legitimate development of the traditional teaching. The Commission failed to provide any justification for change. . . . They presented the best case that could be made for change, but, after carefully studying that case, Paul VI found it wanting.
The “best case” for change to which Dr. Grisez referred represented the position of the majority of Committee’s members. It, along with the “minority” view in defense of tradition, was presented to Paul VI in a report that was supposed to have been kept private.
The report was leaked to the press, however, and the bedlam that ensued is presumably well known to all.
In May of this year, when asked about female deacons during a meeting with female religious, Francis recalled a conversation he had years ago with a professor who studied the historical role of “deaconesses” in the Church:
What were these female deacons? Did they have ordination or no? It was a bit obscure. What was the role of the deaconess in that time? Constituting an official commission that might study the question? I believe yes. It would do good for the church to clarify this point.
It may have been a “bit obscure” to the professor then and to Francis now; the reality of the matter at hand, however, is anything but.
An in-depth 2002 report produced by the International Theological Commission (which, according to its official profile, is charged with “helping the Holy See and primarily the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in examining doctrinal questions of major importance”) offered no evidence whatsoever that these “female deacons … had ordination.”
Long story short, here’s what I expect to happen in the present case:
The thirteen member commission charged with studying the ordination of female deacons will most certainly, given that it includes at least one individual clearly in favor (Phyllis Zagano), produce a report that includes an argument in support of that position.
Never mind whether or not this is the minority view; the important thing to expect is that it will make its way into the press and into the hearts and minds of progressives everywhere; fueling their already raging fires.
The million dollar question, however, is WWJD – what will Jorge do?
I do not expect a decree from him proposing the ordination of females, but not necessarily because the Holy Ghost won’t allow it as so many others are arguing.
As I wrote back in May:
I cannot help but conclude [for numerous reasons given elsewhere on the blog] that the alleged resignation of Benedict XVI is invalid until proven otherwise; which even though I will, in humility, allow as a possibility, I do so convinced that the burden of proof is all but insurmountable.
Since then, my opinion is unchanged.
Look, we all know that the Holy Ghost prevents popes from binding the faithful to error in matters of faith and morals. The question one might ask, however, is whether or not He prevents the products of invalid conclaves, otherwise known as anti-popes, from giving the appearance of so binding?
I think not. This being the case, His Humbleness just might end up pushing forth the ordination of female deacons.
Even so, I don’t believe that he will; for the simple reason that he’s smart enough to know that doing so would lead to a loss of credibility among those who as yet remain open to following him.
Francis doesn’t want to destroy the Church; he doesn’t want to empty the Church – he wants to fundamentally change it.
For example, he doesn’t want to run priests and faithful off the reservation, which he risks doing by ordaining women, he wants to change what they do and how they think of themselves. Capsice?
Getting back to the “great light,” Paul VI…
Arguably, Pope Montini didn’t envision the disaster he ended up creating in the Church. Francis, by contrast, makes no bones about his desire to “make a mess.”
For this reason (and based on the bitter experience of the last three years), I can well imagine that he will create a semi-official “ministry of deaconesses” that may include things like their own institution ceremony, deaconess costumes and special titles, perhaps “Reverend Miss.”
They may even be given their own little office in the Curia, perhaps even under the auspices of the Congregation for Clergy just to make certain that confusion reigns supreme.
Who knows? One thing is certain; a mess will be made.
All of this having been said, I would like nothing more than to see a motu proprio from Francis instituting Holy Orders for female deacons; assigning to them all of the roles, liturgical and otherwise, that male deacons perform.
Why?
Because it would serve to open the eyes of the blind; though certainly not all as some cardinals would probably argue that it’s not “magisterial,” while other prelates would likely respond by issuing calls for faithful interpretations and deeper reflection…
Agreed! Something has smelled rotten since he walked out on to the logia. I have said it to priest friends from day one, and still believe it today. In time, all will see the light of Truth.
He may open the door for laity to preach, women acolytes & lector so, but they will not be welcome in my church and I would dare to say many others. This is the path the Anglicans took.
1 Timothy 2 9-15
In like manner women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty and sobriety, not with plaited hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly attire, But as it becometh women professing godliness, with good works. Let the woman learn in silence, with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed; then Eve. And Adam was not seduced; but the woman being seduced, was in the transgression. Yet she shall be saved through childbearing; if she continue in faith, and love, and sanctification, with sobriety.
Heresy-of-he week-Bergoglio is pretty damned haughty and arrogant thinking he can change the Bible.
I don’t know Louie, I’m not holding my breath on deaconesses opening the eyes of the novus-ordoites. If all the insanities thus far under Francis hasn’t done it yet, I don’t think anything short of fire falling from the sky will. With 2017 dead ahead, we might just be getting that before the committee finishes their “investigation.”
Wow! You are hysterically funny and perhaps wishfully thinking. I think the Phyllises will become deacons. Why? Well, why not? The time is ripe. We, as well as the Muslims, worship the same God, Contraception is a-ok, we have 2 popes, adultery is no longer a sin, we must apologize and bow down to the sodomites, now what have I forgotten. Just consider whatever happens to be mentioned “off the cuff” in an airplane, DONE! Anything goes. This is the real deal. He’s going to blow the roof off this joint. And why not? Times a ticking. It’s got to all end at some point. God won’t let this go on forever. No one cares and ANYTHING goes. ( machine guns shooting in the air)
What kind of woman would even want to do this? It’s super, bad, hair day scary.
Aren’t The Blessed Mother, St. Ann, St. Elizabeth, and Mary Magdalene good enough examples for women? I guess today’s woman knows more than the Mother of God. Makes you wonder what kind of relationship a woman like that could even HAVE with The Blessed Mother. Oh well, Little Miss Deconess, here she comes!
Could you even imagine the nightmare bad hair days? I, myself, am having one today, and it ain’t pretty.
“Something has smelled rotten since he walked out on to the logia.”
Do you mean John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis?
Surely they’ll insist on “Ms Reverend” or “Ms Deaconess”. “Miss” is so pre-feminism, and this war has already been won.
For Papam Bergoglio to commit to this, means that he is one step closer to FORMAL HERESY.
Jesus Ordained The Apostles for a Supernatural, DIVINE Mission, as Priests & Bishops, with Simon Peter as 1st Pope.
Papam Bergoglio is a Secularist HUMANIST. He DENIES The CATHOLIC FAITH.
It is almost inconceivable, at least to me, that this pope will not allow women to be ordained as deacons. To not do so would be a complete reversal of the current spiritual direction in which he is leading the faithful. Moreover, I would be surprised if his commission is not stacked to ensure that this result is supported by the majority of the members, and not simply a minority viewpoint.
But if he does make this move, one of the earliest actions to be taken by the Church, thereafter, will be to formalize the so-called “Communion Service” so that it will be virtually indistinguishable ( as far as modern Catholics are concerned) from the Novus Ordo Mass.
Properly Consecrated Hosts will be used, of course, and during the Consecration (as it is practiced in the N.O. Mass) the “presider” (man or woman) will be provided a substitute prayer for the Words of Consecration. With that change, Rome would feel much more comfortable in modifying Canon Law so as to allow this new Communion Service to fulfill the Sunday obligation. In the view of the Modernist, the “Eucharistic Banquet” or “Lord’s Supper” can be celebrated perfectly well with previously Consecrated Hosts.
The importance of this action is very much related to this pope’s unrelenting push to fully implement the false ecumenism of Vatican II. I say this because when the congregation becomes comfortable with the Communion Service as a substitute for the N.O. Mass, approval for “joint” Communion Services with neighboring Protestant religious organizations could easily be implemented and openly accepted by most modern Catholic congregants.
Francis could do all of this now, but the ordination of women as deacons will dramatically raise the level of importance of the deacon––at least as far as the whole of society is concerned––and would certainly ensure that the secular press is excited and fully on board. It will also provide the modern bishops with the necessary cover they might need as they move further away from the actual celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. It will only be a matter of time, thereafter, when the pope determines that the ordination of women as priests would be an obviously “organic” change within the Church. Hopefully, I am dead wrong about all of this, but we shall see.
Like Louie, I welcome this craziness….but not because it will wake up the novus-ordoites (they are already, for the most part, beyond hope….a few female deacons wont wake them up). I welcome it because it will continue to raise the veil, which is still covering the eyes of many of those of good Catholic will, who still see the vatican 2 church and the Catholic Church as being one in the same.
Louie:
I am a fairly recent convert, and led my entire adult family to the Catholic Church. I have a Masters in Theology/Philosophy from a Protestant seminary and after a lifetime of reading the Bible and studying the doctrines of the various Protestant “denominations” {while absolutely ignoring the Catholic faith} I was teaching a class at a Lutheran ecclesial group and decided to obtain a copy of the CCC in order to “use the words of the Catholics to prove they are wrong”. Well, so much for that. I and my wife converted. Then, my adult kids.
Once “in”, however, I saw the same pattern of deception evident to me when I was growing up in the Methodist “church” {my father, a wonderful man, was a “conservative” Methodist minister, as were others in my family}. For deception is unconnected to the truth, it is a human frailty, and exists wherever weak humans are willing to fall before it.
In the Catholic faith we see a war between the life-giving and fruitful Truths of our Blessed Lord given us in the Bible and the Tradition and the godless, leftist, modernist perversions so well explained in QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS and of course the salient PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS.
We need MEN to stand up and declare the truths of the Gospel, the wholeness of Catholic Truth.
Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.
Even when the leaders of the Church don’t “deserve” it.
” The Church must not bow to such an ideology, no matter how much pressure is put on her, because feminism is not a source of Catholic teaching. If she were to so bow, then the obvious question would be: what’s next on the long list of demands? If people insist next that the Church must accept abortion, euthanasia, same-sex “marriage,” polygamy, incest, prostitution, and so on, then must she change regarding these as well? If she did so change, then she could no longer be identified as Christ’s Church, because she would have abandoned the Great Commission Christ gave her. And besides, does anybody really need such a Church, such a compromised teacher? Why would anyone respect a religious institution that took its orders directly from the world? Who needs another cowardly religion that will say only what others have said? ”
Quoted from:
https://thefullnessoftruthapostolate.wordpress.com/category/ordination-of-women/
“… I cannot help but conclude [for numerous reasons given elsewhere on the blog] that the alleged resignation of Benedict XVI is invalid until proven otherwise; which even though I will, in humility, allow as a possibility, I do so convinced that the burden of proof is all but insurmountable.
Since then, my opinion is unchanged. …”
Hi Louie,
The doctrine involving dogmatic facts provides us with the confidence that we are burdened with an exceptionally bad Pope.
The attached link outlines what I’ve collected on this topic; http://tradicat.blogspot.ca/2014/08/dogmatic-fact-or-fancy.html
In short, if the bishops of the Church unanimously accept a newly elected Pope as the Pope, then the faithful have an infallible proof that there were no barriers to his election.
So we just need to suck it up and admit that we have a very-very-very-very- … bad Pope who makes Pope John Paul II look like a Saint!
Sucks to be us, but God has placed us in this time as it is the best time for us to save our souls!
P^3
Are you sure you want to lump JPI in with that group? 33 days as Pope doesn’t provide a lot of data to make a judgement one way or the other. I would say the opposite. From what little we do know of John Paul I’s Papacy, cleaning up the corruption at the Vatican Bank was his top priority.
As you may or may not know, Pius XI introduced massive financial corruption into the Church in 1929, with the cash he received as a result of the Lateran Treaty. Isn’t it interesting that Pius XI was mentioned by name at Fatima? Isn’t even more interesting that Our Lady formally requested the Consecration of Russia six days after the Lateran Treaty was ratified?
You might want to Google, “Bernardino Nogara”.
All I can say is: This committee better posthumously ordain the late Deacon Jones of the Los Angeles Rams.
Fair enough. JPI was a slip, although his choice of name indicated his intentions.
That, and he wouldnt have been elected to begin with if he were any good. Bad people kill other bad people every day (if you happen to be somebody who believes he was assassinated).
If jp1’s top priority was actually worrying about a bank, then you already know he was a waste.
We already have many priests/deacons who may be referred to as “Reverend Miss”. However, their gender at birth was “male”.
Also consider that being elected Pope carries with it a special grace. It looks like Albino Luciani’s heart was receptive to this grace and he put on the armor of God and fought the good fight. If only his successor had the same courage.
That’s why Canon 188 can give so much comfort. If the resignation was invalid, it’s immaterial how many bishops accept a newly elected pope, it just can’t be done. So, until the appropriate authority makes a ruling, we can hope. 😉 Since that’s WAY above my pay grade, I accept V II allowing me to follow my conscience and hold to beliefs and teachings congruent to pre-1960.
One step closer? Do you mean to say that he has not crossed that line long ago?
If Francis has lost his Faith, as you say, then apart from himself or God, that denial of the Catholic Faith can only be recognised by means his public profession of heresy, right?
We can’t read his soul or internal forum. We can only see what is manifest in the external forum.
Now, the Church is a visible institution, contrary to what Protestantism says, and has two visible and external bonds which constitute membership in the visible Church: These visible bonds are Faith, and Social Charity.
To break the visible bond of Faith is heresy; to break the visible bond of Social Charity is schism.
Since public heretics automatically put themselves outside the Church then, without the need for any declaratory sentence by the Church, what do we make of Francis?
Is he in the Church or outside of Her?
Can a non Catholic have jurisdiction over the Church?
The Church teaches general infallible truths, and God expects us to use our reason to correctly apply them to whatever situation we find ourselves in.
We need to ask and answer these questions according to the teaching of the Catholic Church.
The answer became clear to me when Amoris Laetitia was published.
Hello Rushintuit.
What do you make of this?
http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_174_Carducci.html
–
And what is the significance of the fact that “Our
Lady formally requested the Consecration of Russia six days after the Lateran Treaty was ratified?”
Could you explain the significance of the Lateran Treaty, please? Thank you.
–
I did Google “Bernardino Nogara.”
So much deception.
“Only those who are baptised and profess the Faith can be considered members of the Catholic Church.” Pope Pius XII.
If someone publicly professes something other than the Catholic Faith, they break one of the two visible bonds of unity with the Church, i.e. the visible bond of Faith.
Since the Church is a visible institution, (not an invisible one) the only way we can know if someone is a member of the Church is if they make thi publicly manifest through the public profession of Faith, and then naturally follow that with the other visible bond of Social Charity (aka “being in communion”) with the rest of the Church, and be subject to the _legitimate_ pastors.
Being in the state of grace is not a requirement for membership. Those who are in mortal sin, but still externally profess the Faith, are members of the Church, but they are “dead members”.
However, once the visible bond of Faith is broken through public heresy, then the person is no longer a member of the Church.
If one breaks either of these two bonds, he automatically places himself outside the Church. Prelates don’t get a free pass. They must first be members of the Church in order to rule over the Church.
Amen!
Possibly the one good thing about this horrific pontificate is that through the presentation of chaos and, well, irresponsibility of this Pope {he has, let us not forget, described himself as “irresponsible” and encourages priests to “make a mess”} we have been given unlimited opportunity to profess that faith in stark contrast and if confused, to research it and come to the Truth AND THEN PROFESS THAT!
I actually believe this is happening all over like salt working its way thru the dough of the bread.
So rather than everyone forming up in a circle to sing Kum Ba Ya with the gibberish-spewers, many are going to the Sacred Scriptures and the documents of the faith, in short, the perennial Magesterium of the Church and finding, indeed, that what has been the pop-theology of the effeminate Bishops for the last half century us NOT the teaching of the Church. And more and more are stating the Truth in no uncertain terms, even if many/most of effeminates in vestments are loath to do it.
Dear Servant of Our Lady,
On the one hand, you have groups like TIA and Novus Ordo Watch, who have all of the post VII Popes painted with a progressive brush. On the other hand, you have Our Lady of the Rosary at Fatima, naming Pius XI in connection with a “worse war” taking place during his reign.
Previous Popes had always defended the Papal States from every adversary. All of a sudden in 1929, Pius XI surrendered the Papal States and accepted a mountain of money as compensation. Why would Pope Pius XI surrender the Papal States when he could have easily reached out to Countries like the United States for support?
Then to compound the problem, he took the money and gave it to an amoral relative to invest. Pius XII kept Nogara in power knowing full well what was going on. The significance in my opinion is powerfully stated in Scripture, “You cannot serve God and money”!
How could the Holy Spirit remain in the Vatican with this kind of outrage going on? We know that Satan is always there looking for a weakness, especially a weakness in the one person Our Lord commissioned to be, “The Rock”, who alone has the authority to, “Confirm the Brethren” in the Faith.
If, “He who restrains” was removed because of the Lateran Treaty and the ensuing financial corruption, Satan was ready with his Modernist minions to wreak havoc with a bad Council. This is all speculation on my part. Sister Lucia was reported to have asked to speak to Albino Luciani before he became Pope. His relatives reportedly said that he was in shock by what Lucia told him.
crc-internet.org/our-doctrine/catholic-counter-reformation/murder-john-paul-i/1-murder-vatican/
This is right out of the PF the Papal Terrorist playbook. You can bet a “study” has already been completed supporting “deaconesses”. Start the Official Charade aka the PF pontificate. Float the trail balloons, press releases, anonymous leaks etc to create “anticipation”. Then PF orders another “study” which that ends with the customary off the self study by one of PF’s favorite ghost- writer. Rinse & Repeat, Then put out the 80,000 word heretical “approval” document I/n/o “Mercy” while the ladies have already ordered their vestments and scheduled hairdos.
It’s “Preordained” don’t ya know.
More gobble gobble from the Holy See! It’s a good thing I’ve smartened up and began to study and pay attention to my faith.
From John Vanneri ‘s article on the matter :
Father Aimé George Martimont, author of the scholarly and definitive work on the subject titled Deaconesses, An Historical Study, observes “The Christians of antiquity did not have a single, fixed idea of what deaconesses were supposed to be.”
A concise summary of the deaconess’ limited function is contained in the Canonical Resolutions of James of Edessa (Eastern Rite) written somewhere between 683 and 708 A.D.
“She has no power over the altar, because when she was instituted, it was not in the name of the altar, but only to fulfill certain functions in the Church. These are her sole powers: to sweep the sanctuary and to light the lamps, and she is only permitted to perform these two functions if no priest or deacon is available. If she is in a convent of women, she can remove the sacred Hosts from the tabernacle [= cabinet], only because there is no priest or deacon present, and give them out to the other sisters only or to small children who may also be present. But it is not permitted to her to take the Hosts off the altar, nor carry them to the altar nor indeed in any way to touch the table of life [the altar]. She anoints adult women when they are baptized; she visits women who are ill and cares for them. These are the only powers possessed by deaconesses with regard to the work of the priests.”
4th century, there is the fiery directive from the bishops of the Council of Nimes in 396 A.D.:
“Equally, it has been reported by some that, contrary to the apostolic discipline – indeed a thing unheard of until now – it has been observed, though it is not known exactly where, that women have been raised to the ministry of deacons. Ecclesiastical discipline does not permit this, for it is unseemly; such an ordination should be annulled, since it is irregular; and vigilance is required lest in the future anyone should have the boldness to act in this fashion again.”
The Council of Orange in 441 A.D. spoke likewise,
“In no way whatsoever should deaconesses ever be ordained. If there already are deaconesses, they should bow their heads beneath the blessing which is given to all the people.”
jV:
Then there is the forceful decree Necessaria rerum of Pope Galasius, addressed to the bishops of southern Italy, dated March 11, 494. While not dealing directly with deaconesses, it manifests how alien was the idea of women in the sanctuary performing any form of priestly function:
“It is with impatience that we learned this: divine things have suffered such a degradation that female ministers serving at the sacred altars have been approved. The exercise of roles reserved to men has been given to the sex which they do not belong.”
St. Thomas Aquinas. We read, “The Angelic Doctor commenting on the New Testament … saw Phoebe in the Epistle to the Romans only as one of those women who ‘served’ Christ and the Apostles, or who carried out works of charity in the manner of widows of 1 Timothy 5:10.”
Regardless , so many Catholics who don’t know any better today, especially in the NO! Are so use to the novelty of laity women serving on the alter, this will better justify their so called ministry, guess it’s safe to say that this so called ministry is a prefigurment for the next phase in the sinking titanic, the people are gathered on the deck , and the life boats are getting scarce. Oh well,,,,,the pope says we are all going to heaven anyhow so stay calm little sheep.
Blessesd Mother Mary , help us stay strong for the faith.
Isn’t it interesting that the timing of all this is so right? There was a time when ALL could see that to be human was also to have gender. At one time this was a basic, obvious to all, truth.
We can see how the devil so quickly and easily twisted that basic foundation to be different in so many people’s minds. This basic truth of the beginning of all God’s creation is now the center of much discussion, speculation, and dare I say, confusion. Now is the time for the devil to mock the church. First, the effeminate priests. Second, the woman dressing and acting like a man. So many “good people” will accept this just as so many “good people” have rolled so easily in the palm of the devil, as he calls man woman and woman man. To think we even have to discuss such perversion!
Well stated.
That made me laugh.
If Bruce Jenner were a ‘Catholic’ would he/she/it be welcomed on board as a new ‘deaconess’? In Frank’s world, you betcha baby.
By the way, does anyone know if the Vatican has ‘gender neutral’ toilets? Most likely, since, well you know, some of the boys in the Vatican wear bras and knickers under their robes.
Really? Yeah, really!
I need a drink.
Cheers mates!
Hahahhaa! Those “Reverend Miss” who were born male prance and suck teeth like no tomorrow. And they are vicious queens too!
True…and he also stated that atheists and animals go to Heaven including my delicious prime rib. What an conniving idiot.
Who is he to judge? 🙂 Bring on the drag queens and surgically and hormonally altered. He may have “Year of Acceptance” to usher it in.
You have forgotten veganism. 🙂 I laughed when Pope Bozo visited Mexico and drove in his Popemobile to the border and did moose ears to Trump.. Trump turned around and tore Bozo a new one.