(1) PF's Post Synodal Exhortation early last year was completely explicit on the question of the 'Ordination' of women to the priesthood.
Para 101: "Jesus Christ appears as the Spouse of the community that celebrates the Eucharist through the figure of a man who presides as a sign of the one Priest.".
In the Italian, uomo. German eines Mannes. French homme. Spanish varon. Portuguese varao. All these terms refer unmistakably to maleness. Kind readers have assured me that the same id true of Arabic, Polish, Chinese terms used in the various versions of the Exhortation.
(2) Now the Pope has decided that women may be admitted to the Ministries of Lector and Acolyte. But in doing so, he has clearly distinguished between Holy Orders and those other 'Ministries' which may be open to all those who are baptised. About such Ministries, he writes: "essi sono essenzialmente distinti dal ministero ordinato che si riceve con il Sacramento dell'Ordine".
This document was issued motu proprio. It has a distinct magisterial status. I wouldn't have thought there was much doubt that Cardinal Ladaria had a hand in it, since PF refers to "having heard the opinion of the competent dicasteries". (This, in itself, is reassuring, since it upholds the dogmatic truth that the Petrine Office is not to be understood individualistically, in terms of one man playing his private games, but in terms of the collegiality of the Roman Church.)
So, in two distinct but complementary steps, PF has added to and strengthened the position established by his predecessors, particularly, of course, S John Paul in his Ordinatio Sacerdotalis.
Moreover, while the Exhortation concentrated on the Priesthood, this Motu proprio clearly indicates an "essential" barrier between the 'Ministeries' concerned, and the Diaconate. Thus the Paradosis has been strengthened. It is not surprising that Liberal Elements are very unhappy about this.
I can see why some traditionalists are troubled by thought of women robed and in sanctuaries. For a generation, heterodox Anglicans demanded priestesses in the Church of England, and started off with Women Readers, Deaconesses, and Women Deacons. Just so, our Catholic trouble-makers will be concentrating on the first 'stage' of their plot. Once you get women lectors/acolytes wearing clerical garb and posturing around altars, you are gradually habituating a congregation to a feminised ministry which makes 'the next and logical stage', women deacons, followed soon by women priests, more culturally acceptable. The heretics would, of course, very soon forget the force of PF''s Essenzialmente distinti.
This makes it all the more remarkable that PF is actually jumping one step ahead of the heretics. Like those orthodox Catholics who point out that the Sacrament of Order is essentially indivisible, PF treats Holy Order as one. In his Post Synodal Exhortation, he took the claim that "women would be granted a greater status and participation in the Church only if they were admitted to Holy Orders", and then remarked "But that approach would in fact narrow our vision; it would lead us to clericalise women, diminish the great value of what they have already accomplished, and subtly make their indispensable contribution less effective".
On the whole, I think Traddies should be rather pleased with both the Exhortation and the Motu proprio, and with the evolution of the Magisterium in this area..
13 comments:
Father,
“Varón” in Spanish and “Varao” in Portuguese are certainly stronger definitions of a male human being than just saying “hombre”. This is because the word “hombre” can be used, in some instances, as a generic term for any human being irrespective of sex. So, if they use “varón” they unequivocally mean a person of the masculine sex.
However, you can have such thing as a “varón gay”, yes.
I am a native Spanish speaker (which means I can read Portuguese almost completely fluently, can’t understand spoken Portuguese, though- pronunciation is a nightmare for us).
I can only imagine, Father, that this entire post is intended ironically and that you do actually understand that there is great importance in maintaining the Tradition that ministry at the altar is reserved only to men.
This motu proprio poses another problem, though: no parish priest can be forced to introduce female altar servers, but on what grounds could he resist an instituted acolytess?
In Benedict's Motu Proprio "Omnium in mentem", he changed Canon Law to make a distinction between ordained persons who are Bishops or priests and ordained persons who are deacons
The.new can. 1009 § 3 reads
"Those who are constituted in the order of the episcopate or the presbyterate receive the mission and capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head, whereas deacons are empowered to serve the People of God in the ministries of the liturgy, the word and charity".
Canon 1008 was revised to agree,
The clarification that deacons do not "act in the person of Christ the Head" undercut the argument that only males could be ordained as deacons because only males could "act in the person of Christ the Head"
Aren't these Ministries of Lector and Porter, though, the Minor Orders of the Church(the mortu proporo of 1976 MINISTERIA QUAEDAM merely renamed the existing minor orders)?
Does that not undermine many of the traditional arguments concerning women's ineligibility for orders - both major and minor - apart from the Persona Christi argument. Aquinas, for example, in addition to citing the Scriptural injunctions against women doing so, makes the argument that women cannot signify any preeminence in spiritual matters (even if they might in temporal matters) and so cannot be in orders. Similarly, there were arguments made between the Old Covenant cultic worship and that of the New.
Indeed, this seems to strain the connection between the minor and major orders because either one is women's participation in an order of cultic worship oriented towards the priesthood (which they can't enter) or it's not. If the former, the argument against women deacons disappears even if the one for priests remains. If the latter, then the minor orders and major orders are severed and are fundamentally engaged in different things. In which case, why would a candidate for the priesthood enter them en route to ordination?
I was unaware until a year or two ago that women could not already be "instituted" as lectrices. Given that women have generally read at Mass since c.1964 and continue to do so even in the most "conservative" new rite churches, like Saint Peter's in Rome or the English Oratories, this is certainly less offensive and novel than, for instance, John Paul II's legalization of female altar boys or his push for Communion in the hand in Italy.
We adherents of the old liturgy ought to be wiser in picking our fights and protesting a legal nod to something that has happened for nearly sixty years is not one worth taking on.
Indeed Protasius' question worries me: as instituted lectors or acolytes are to exercise their office in preference to laymen, what happens when a female instituted lector or acolyte turns up in a traditionally minded parish? Does the PP/priest in charge still have the authority to say no?
In answer to JamesF-J and Protasius, the answer is that the Parish Priest would indeed have the authority to say no. This was determined in a case where a former seminarian in an Australian diocese because, even though he had been instituted as a Lector during his time in the seminary, the rostered lay readers were still given preference at the local cathedral. The canonical point is the difference between an instituted ministry and an appointed ministry. Without an appointment to that parish, an instituted lector or acolyte is like a priest without faculties in a diocese. They cannot function.
In answer to JamesF-J and Protasius, the answer is that the Parish Priest would indeed have the authority to say no. This was determined in a case where a former seminarian in an Australian diocese because, even though he had been instituted as a Lector during his time in the seminary, the rostered lay readers were still given preference at the local cathedral. The canonical point is the difference between an instituted ministry and an appointed ministry. Without an appointment to that parish, an instituted lector or acolyte is like a priest without faculties in a diocese. They cannot function.
I fully understand, good Father, your well-intentioned interest in putting the best coloring on something coming out of Francis's crafty mind and pen if reason can possibly accommodate it. It is almost a psychological survival mechanism in our besieged church (and in besieged Christianity) with which I sympathize. But, Father, are you not underestimating the well-established pattern of gradualism that the Modernists invariably use (because it has worked so well for them before in most cases) as the psychological ploy of softening the laity for "more to come"? I know your post touches on these issues, but I don't see how we can interpret in a positive light this latest "surprise" (from "the Pope of surprises"---about once every two weeks, it seems) with the tragic results, for all to see, resulting from the incremental strategy so consistently at work over the past half century. To this day I remember our pastor at Corpus Christi church in Miami, Florida, Monsignor Fitzpatrick, assuring the congregation from the pulpit on Sunday at the early introduction of the Novus Ordo Mass "that the Canon of Mass will remain intact and never be in the vernacular!" (later he was to become a fierce foe of the Mass of his ordination). Constant change is a well-documented liberal ploy, in church and politics, to keep people disoriented and easy prey for nefarious impositions. I would love to be wrong in this assessment.
An Liaig thank you - I do now vaguely remember seeing the details of that case somewhere online. I still think this has the potential to cause difficulties however.
For any reader: I would be interested to know if there are currently any dioceses worldwide which institute men to the stable ministeries of lector or acolyte?
The GIRM indicates that the duties of acolytes or readers are to be performed. In order of priority, by instituted persons, deputed (for a term) persons, or deputed (for the occasion) persons
100. In the absence of an instituted acolyte, there may be deputed lay ministers to serve at the altar and assist the Priest and the Deacon; these carry the cross, the candles, the thurible, the bread, the wine, and the water, or who are even deputed to distribute Holy Communion as extraordinary ministers.[84]
101. In the absence of an instituted lector, other lay people may be deputed to proclaim the readings from Sacred Scripture, people who are truly suited to carrying out this function and carefully prepared, so that by their hearing the readings from the sacred texts the faithful may conceive in their hearts a sweet and living affection for Sacred Scripture.[85]
107. Liturgical functions that are not proper to the Priest or the Deacon and are mentioned above (nos. 100-106) may even be entrusted by means of a liturgical blessing or a temporary deputation to suitable lay persons chosen by the pastor or the rector of the church.[88] As to the function of serving the Priest at the altar, the norms established by the Bishop for his diocese should be observed.
Regarding whether there are any dioceses worldwide which institute acolytes or lectors, a Google search turned up this
https://www.lincolndiocese.org/news/diocesan-news/758-men-prepare-for-installation-as-acolytes-lectors
Since you mentioned "women priests" aka "priestesses in the Church" (essay by CSL), reminds me of where you came from ... has CoE officially yet added a pronunciation against the Perpetual Virginity to its errors?
Post a Comment