Would have been cool had he chosen Pope Urban IX. Liberal minds would have exploded.

Champion of Fireball said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The reason only men can serve as Deacons, Priests, and Bishops is because that is how God ordained it. The Church is the bride of Christ and Christ is the Bridegroom. The Priest acts in the person of Jesus Christ, who was male.

This does not mean that women do not have an important role to play in the Church, it just means women cannot be preists/pastors.

---

Were there not deaconess in the early church.

It was something I heard a long time ago.

---

Jumping into a catholic thread here but you brought up the early church.

Deacons are helpers. They are not performing the sacraments like a priest is. During times in history when it was fitting to receive a blessing from the bishop to allow pious women to help it was granted. Once men were able to return to fulfill the role, the deaconness faded away.

Deacons are historically also the training grounds for becoming a priest. Filling your ranks with women, no matter how pious, is a bit self defeating to the priest production pipeline. This also goes for forcing a young son to be an alter boy when they show no inclination for that path.

Also, as mentioned in a previous reply. Priests re-present Christ to the laity. Christ was a man. Priests are to be man. Also, priesthood is man to the highest and most virtuous means. It it is specifically an expression of the piety of man.

Women have their own most virtuous expression to look up to and emulate, Mary.

Both men and women can (and should) draw inspiration from the piety of the priest class and Mary, but we each have our own gendered prototype to draw us towards the most virtuous expressions of man and woman.

Thank you.

I am not a fan of female alter servers wearing the cassock and surplice. I'm not opposed to them in that role. It's what they wear that bothers me. I've never had the nerve to ask a priest about it. But why would you even play around with something that gives the appearance of what they are not. I know alter boy is no longer a step to ordination but still there is an optics issue in my mind.

Champion of Fireball said:

---

Thank you.

I am not a fan of female alter servers wearing the cassock and surplice. I'm not opposed to them in that role. It's what they wear that bothers me. I've never had the nerve to ask a priest about it. But why would you even play around with something that gives the appearance of what they are not. I know alter boy is no longer a step to ordination but still there is an optics issue in my mind.

---

you should ask about it. Why would you have the nerve to say something here but not ask a priest?

I just don't want the appearance of being disrespectful to any member of the clergy.

But I do need to set up an appointment with one about another matter. Will ask then.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Champion of Fireball said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The reason only men can serve as Deacons, Priests, and Bishops is because that is how God ordained it. The Church is the bride of Christ and Christ is the Bridegroom. The Priest acts in the person of Jesus Christ, who was male.

This does not mean that women do not have an important role to play in the Church, it just means women cannot be preists/pastors.

---

Were there not deaconess in the early church.

It was something I heard a long time ago.

---

Jumping into a catholic thread here but you brought up the early church.

Deacons are helpers. They are not performing the sacraments like a priest is. During times in history when it was fitting to receive a blessing from the bishop to allow pious women to help it was granted. Once men were able to return to fulfill the role, the deaconness faded away.

Deacons are historically also the training grounds for becoming a priest. Filling your ranks with women, no matter how pious, is a bit self defeating to the priest production pipeline. This also goes for forcing a young son to be an alter boy when they show no inclination for that path.

Also, as mentioned in a previous reply. Priests re-present Christ to the laity. Christ was a man. Priests are to be man. Also, priesthood is man to the highest and most virtuous means. It it is specifically an expression of the piety of man.

Women have their own most virtuous expression to look up to and emulate, Mary.

Both men and women can (and should) draw inspiration from the piety of the priest class and Mary, but we each have our own gendered prototype to draw us towards the most virtuous expressions of man and woman.

---

Deacons(at least the permanent ones) can and do perform the sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony. St Francis of Assisi was a deacon, but never became a Priest.

Furlock Bones said:

---

Sounds like Cardinal Dolan led the charge to get Prevost in instead of Parolin.

---

I heard somewhere, and I cannot confirm this, that Dolan and Burke were the ones that got him in by rallying the African and Asian bishops to elect him. The Africans and Asian wanted no part of Parolin because of the China deal and the super liberal bishops were split into factions.

Reading a little more about the permanent diaconate and the history of women as deacons, I came across this summary:

"In 1995 the Canon Law Society of America study reported that it is within the authority of the Church to ordain women to the permanent diaconate, and only a few adjustments to canon law would be needed. In 1974, a member of the Vatican's International Theological Commission (ITC), Cipriano Vagaggini OSB (1909-99), published detailed research that women deacons in Church history were ordained within the sanctuary by the bishop, in the presence of the presbyterate, and by the imposition of hands (traditional historical requirements for ordination). In 2001, over 30 years after Paul VI had asked the commission to explore the question of a female diaconate; the Theological Commission said only that the teaching office of the Church had yet to decide on women deacons."

+++

I think it will be important to understand from scripture what women said and what they did. In the first two verses of Romans 16, Paul writes: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon (diakonos) of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor (prostatis) of many people, including me." It would seem that St. Phoebe was an envoy of the Apostle Paul and not insignificant.

The fact that the Church has brought back the permanent diaconate seems to me a clue to the role that women can assume again without confusing the ascension to the priesthood. That would permit women to read the Gospel (they already are permitted as Lectors) and give the Homily. But this will take time.

PabloSerna said:

---

Reading a little more about the permanent diaconate and the history of women as deacons, I came across this summary:

"In 1995 the Canon Law Society of America study reported that it is within the authority of the Church to ordain women to the permanent diaconate, and only a few adjustments to canon law would be needed. In 1974, a member of the Vatican's International Theological Commission (ITC), Cipriano Vagaggini OSB (1909-99), published detailed research that women deacons in Church history were ordained within the sanctuary by the bishop, in the presence of the presbyterate, and by the imposition of hands (traditional historical requirements for ordination). In 2001, over 30 years after Paul VI had asked the commission to explore the question of a female diaconate; the Theological Commission said only that the teaching office of the Church had yet to decide on women deacons."

+++

I think it will be important to understand from scripture what women said and what they did. In the first two verses of Romans 16, Paul writes: "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon (diakonos) of the church in Cenchreae. I ask you to receive her in the Lord in a way worthy of his people and to give her any help she may need from you, for she has been the benefactor (prostatis) of many people, including me." It would seem that St. Phoebe was an envoy of the Apostle Paul and not insignificant.

The fact that the Church has brought back the permanent diaconate seems to me a clue to the role that women can assume again without confusing the ascension to the priesthood. That would permit women to read the Gospel (they already are permitted as Lectors) and give the Homily. But this will take time.

---

This is one of those things that I will need to be convinced of by a detailed explanation from the chair of St. Peter if it were to be seriously considered. I doubt it will. Having said that, if it hasn't been foreclosed by prior magisterial teaching or by scripture, then I am very cautiously willing to listen to why it would be licit and prudent to introduce it at this time.

And for clarity, women lecotrs do not read the Gospel reading at Mass. They do read the first two readings for the Liturgy of the Word and they do often cantor the Psalms.

I was an Alter Boy in the early 70's. Before they added the laity to read, we read all of those, and if there wasn't music at the mass we also read the opening, communion and recessional prayer at the end of mass also. If there was only one Alter Boy there he'd read them all. Most of us were grades 5 through 8.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Champion of Fireball said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The reason only men can serve as Deacons, Priests, and Bishops is because that is how God ordained it. The Church is the bride of Christ and Christ is the Bridegroom. The Priest acts in the person of Jesus Christ, who was male.

This does not mean that women do not have an important role to play in the Church, it just means women cannot be preists/pastors.

---

Were there not deaconess in the early church.

It was something I heard a long time ago.

---

Jumping into a catholic thread here but you brought up the early church.

Deacons are helpers. They are not performing the sacraments like a priest is. During times in history when it was fitting to receive a blessing from the bishop to allow pious women to help it was granted. Once men were able to return to fulfill the role, the deaconness faded away.

Deacons are historically also the training grounds for becoming a priest. Filling your ranks with women, no matter how pious, is a bit self defeating to the priest production pipeline. This also goes for forcing a young son to be an alter boy when they show no inclination for that path.

Also, as mentioned in a previous reply. Priests re-present Christ to the laity. Christ was a man. Priests are to be man. Also, priesthood is man to the highest and most virtuous means. It it is specifically an expression of the piety of man.

Women have their own most virtuous expression to look up to and emulate, Mary.

Both men and women can (and should) draw inspiration from the piety of the priest class and Mary, but we each have our own gendered prototype to draw us towards the most virtuous expressions of man and woman.

---

Maybe all Christians should look up to our Great High Priest:

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

--Hebrews 10:11-14

Little Rock Ag said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Champion of Fireball said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The reason only men can serve as Deacons, Priests, and Bishops is because that is how God ordained it. The Church is the bride of Christ and Christ is the Bridegroom. The Priest acts in the person of Jesus Christ, who was male.

This does not mean that women do not have an important role to play in the Church, it just means women cannot be preists/pastors.

---

Were there not deaconess in the early church.

It was something I heard a long time ago.

---

Jumping into a catholic thread here but you brought up the early church.

Deacons are helpers. They are not performing the sacraments like a priest is. During times in history when it was fitting to receive a blessing from the bishop to allow pious women to help it was granted. Once men were able to return to fulfill the role, the deaconness faded away.

Deacons are historically also the training grounds for becoming a priest. Filling your ranks with women, no matter how pious, is a bit self defeating to the priest production pipeline. This also goes for forcing a young son to be an alter boy when they show no inclination for that path.

Also, as mentioned in a previous reply. Priests re-present Christ to the laity. Christ was a man. Priests are to be man. Also, priesthood is man to the highest and most virtuous means. It it is specifically an expression of the piety of man.

Women have their own most virtuous expression to look up to and emulate, Mary.

Both men and women can (and should) draw inspiration from the piety of the priest class and Mary, but we each have our own gendered prototype to draw us towards the most virtuous expressions of man and woman.

---

Maybe all Christians should look up to our Great High Priest:

Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But when this priest [Jesus] had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

--Hebrews 10:11-14

---

I assume you're nondenominational protestant and that you're posting this as rebuttal against having a priest class and authority structure?

Ferg said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Champion of Fireball said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The reason only men can serve as Deacons, Priests, and Bishops is because that is how God ordained it. The Church is the bride of Christ and Christ is the Bridegroom. The Priest acts in the person of Jesus Christ, who was male.

This does not mean that women do not have an important role to play in the Church, it just means women cannot be preists/pastors.

---

Were there not deaconess in the early church.

It was something I heard a long time ago.

---

Jumping into a catholic thread here but you brought up the early church.

Deacons are helpers. They are not performing the sacraments like a priest is. During times in history when it was fitting to receive a blessing from the bishop to allow pious women to help it was granted. Once men were able to return to fulfill the role, the deaconness faded away.

Deacons are historically also the training grounds for becoming a priest. Filling your ranks with women, no matter how pious, is a bit self defeating to the priest production pipeline. This also goes for forcing a young son to be an alter boy when they show no inclination for that path.

Also, as mentioned in a previous reply. Priests re-present Christ to the laity. Christ was a man. Priests are to be man. Also, priesthood is man to the highest and most virtuous means. It it is specifically an expression of the piety of man.

Women have their own most virtuous expression to look up to and emulate, Mary.

Both men and women can (and should) draw inspiration from the piety of the priest class and Mary, but we each have our own gendered prototype to draw us towards the most virtuous expressions of man and woman.

---

Deacons(at least the permanent ones) can and do perform the sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony. St Francis of Assisi was a deacon, but never became a Priest.

---

I don't know the current state of the modern catholic church on sacraments. In orthodoxy, the deacon, with a blessing of the bishop as a matter of last resort, can perform a baptism. Searching the histories of the church for the edges of deacon's responsibilities is to miss what is plainly in front of you. Deacons, as men performing a service to assist the priests.

Deaconesses, St. Francis of Assisi's life, baptisms in absentia of priest aren't things that permanently expand the duties of the deacons. Also St. Francis is very much a catholic saint so his life, Lord have mercy on him and his soul, wouldn't really move the needle for examining how orthodox view sacraments.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Ferg said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Champion of Fireball said:

---

Faithful Ag said:

---

The reason only men can serve as Deacons, Priests, and Bishops is because that is how God ordained it. The Church is the bride of Christ and Christ is the Bridegroom. The Priest acts in the person of Jesus Christ, who was male.

This does not mean that women do not have an important role to play in the Church, it just means women cannot be preists/pastors.

---

Were there not deaconess in the early church.

It was something I heard a long time ago.

---

Jumping into a catholic thread here but you brought up the early church.

Deacons are helpers. They are not performing the sacraments like a priest is. During times in history when it was fitting to receive a blessing from the bishop to allow pious women to help it was granted. Once men were able to return to fulfill the role, the deaconness faded away.

Deacons are historically also the training grounds for becoming a priest. Filling your ranks with women, no matter how pious, is a bit self defeating to the priest production pipeline. This also goes for forcing a young son to be an alter boy when they show no inclination for that path.

Also, as mentioned in a previous reply. Priests re-present Christ to the laity. Christ was a man. Priests are to be man. Also, priesthood is man to the highest and most virtuous means. It it is specifically an expression of the piety of man.

Women have their own most virtuous expression to look up to and emulate, Mary.

Both men and women can (and should) draw inspiration from the piety of the priest class and Mary, but we each have our own gendered prototype to draw us towards the most virtuous expressions of man and woman.

---

Deacons(at least the permanent ones) can and do perform the sacraments of Baptism and Matrimony. St Francis of Assisi was a deacon, but never became a Priest.

---

I don't know the current state of the modern catholic church on sacraments. In orthodoxy, the deacon, with a blessing of the bishop as a matter of last resort, can perform a baptism. Searching the histories of the church for the edges of deacon's responsibilities is to miss what is plainly in front of you. Deacons, as men performing a service to assist the priests.

Deaconesses, St. Francis of Assisi's life, baptisms in absentia of priest aren't things that permanently expand the duties of the deacons. Also St. Francis is very much a catholic saint so his life, Lord have mercy on him and his soul, wouldn't really move the needle for examining how orthodox view sacraments.

---

Typically a deacon performs a wedding if the couple specifically asks for it. My wife and I did that, as our local deacon held the marriage prep classes and was very close to us. But the priest is still present to celebrate the mass. The deacon only did the vows part of it. Essentially your crowning portion. Unless there is that direct request, then the priest handles the entire wedding.

For baptism, it all depends on how busy the priest is. When we were at St Thomas in CS, father Albert was always swamped. One priest in a large parish is difficult, so he generally delegated baptisms to the deacons because he couldn't be everywhere at once and he didn't want to make families wait on his next availability. Once we moved to a parish with multiple priests, we didn't have any deacons doing baptisms.

Ferg said:

---

I was an Alter Boy in the early 70's. Before they added the laity to read, we read all of those, and if there wasn't music at the mass we also read the opening, communion and recessional prayer at the end of mass also. If there was only one Alter Boy there he'd read them all. Most of us were grades 5 through 8.

---

My understanding from my uncles and older men in our parish was that in the 60s and 70s it was common for kids to continue serving through HS. Was that not your experience?

The Banned said:

---

Ferg said:

---

I was an Alter Boy in the early 70's. Before they added the laity to read, we read all of those, and if there wasn't music at the mass we also read the opening, communion and recessional prayer at the end of mass also. If there was only one Alter Boy there he'd read them all. Most of us were grades 5 through 8.

---

My understanding from my uncles and older men in our parish was that in the 60s and 70s it was common for kids to continue serving through HS. Was that not your experience?

---

Most of us started to drop off by HS, but i think a few stayed longer. We had a few older kids who i think did weddings (big tips).
When I hit 8th grade, they changed which priest was in charge. We had at least 4 in our parish,
The one we had when I was younger was a former Army officer, so he set up a ranking system based on how many masses you served etc, so that kept us pretty engaged. After the changing of the guard, there were fewer of us left. The priest who took over said we have a new Alter Boy, (a year older than me, who did stay through HS), and he would be in charge. He went on to be a priest and in fact is the guy in the background of the picture with the two Popes.

An incredible moment caught on camera.

The new Pope Leo XIV meeting Pope John Paul II. pic.twitter.com/ReRFnNhLf1

— CatholicVote (@CatholicVote) May 9, 2025

The Banned said:

---

Ferg said:

---

I was an Alter Boy in the early 70's. Before they added the laity to read, we read all of those, and if there wasn't music at the mass we also read the opening, communion and recessional prayer at the end of mass also. If there was only one Alter Boy there he'd read them all. Most of us were grades 5 through 8.

---

My understanding from my uncles and older men in our parish was that in the 60s and 70s it was common for kids to continue serving through HS. Was that not your experience?

---

I am a female from a small mission church. I was an altar server through my senior year in high school. My brother, now in his 40s, serves sometimes to help out.

St Thomas More in Hilltop Lakes doesn't really have any children in their parish. The men are the altar servers (most are in their 60s-80s).

Do y'all celebrate either St. Phoebe or St. Sophia, both of whom are known women deacons in the early part of church history?

Oops- meant that for One Meen Ag

There were women deacons in the Catholic Church up to about 12/13th centuries

I read one article recently that said they were done away with due to "the monthly flow"

No idea if that's true

Captain Pablo said:

---

There were women deacons in the Catholic Church up to about 12/13th centuries

I read one article recently that said they were done away with due to "the monthly flow"

No idea if that's true

---

They essentially served the same role as nuns today: to serve and minister to women in ways that would be imprudent or scandalous for a man to do. They didn't have the role that male deacons had/have.

The Banned said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

There were women deacons in the Catholic Church up to about 12/13th centuries

I read one article recently that said they were done away with due to "the monthly flow"

No idea if that's true

---

They essentially served the same role as nuns today: to serve and minister to women in ways that would be imprudent or scandalous for a man to do. They didn't have the role that male deacons had/have.

---

Yes, I figured it was a different role, different job duties but why were they done away with? At least in the official capacity of a deacon?

Captain Pablo said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

There were women deacons in the Catholic Church up to about 12/13th centuries

I read one article recently that said they were done away with due to "the monthly flow"

No idea if that's true

---

They essentially served the same role as nuns today: to serve and minister to women in ways that would be imprudent or scandalous for a man to do. They didn't have the role that male deacons had/have.

---

Yes, I figured it was a different role, different job duties but why were they done away with? At least in the official capacity of a deacon?

---

First, because deaconesses in the West never really took off. There were several local councils that denounced them. It wasn't really a major role. However the life of religious women was always there. deaconesses were often referred to as younger widows that were supposed to not remarry after becoming a deaconess. Or they were unmarried women to begin with. Essentially, the deaconesses were just nuns. As there became more structure to female religious orders, the role of deaconess fell by the wayside.

In effect, a woman can still become a "deaconess" like the first Christian women: join a convent. But that's not really what modern proponents are angling for.

PabloSerna said:

---

Do y'all celebrate either St. Phoebe or St. Sophia, both of whom are known women deacons in the early part of church history?

Oops- meant that for One Meen Ag

---

I am familiar with them. St. Phoebe is a saint and was called servant by Paul in Romans. She was called the same word that became the office of servant (deacon) within the church. You're an architect, if Paul was called 'the architect of the early church' would that be the same as serving under the title architect in the modern world? Of course not.

Taking a look at the political movement for deaconesses, its pretty easy to see there is some muddying of the waters to push an agenda. Currently, there are deaconesses in africa under the antiochian church to perform church services that would be scandalous for men to perform. Like the banned has mentioned. Its just an extension of the very strict man/woman separate cultures. Like the banned has also mentioned, they are realistically performing the duties of being a nun under the title of deaconess. There is a foundational need there. Personally I don't think they should have used the root word of deacon to describe this role but they didn't ask me.

But take a look at who is pushing for the expansion of this role at the top. Its not african locals, its a bunch of western white women. From cultures who have no justification of needing this role to serve women. And the vision from the top is eventual full access to the deaconate role for women. So a lot of people just see this as just another post-modernist/post-structuralist, egalitarian-first wolf in sheep's clothing that is trying to play the long game and degrade the church for their own gain.

These are not people who want to be helpers. They can absolutely go help the church all day every day and work out their salvation. They can easily go and be like Phoebe and be diakonos to the church. What they really want authority to call their own. And because of that, I'm out.

I didn't leave protestantism after watching egalitarianism play a part in destroying those churches just to see western people pop up with 'innocent' egalitarianism in the orthodox church. Part of joining the orthodox church is uprooting westernism in your mind, root and stem. Something I have to do myself as well. But this is easy to see coming from a mile away.

The Banned said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

There were women deacons in the Catholic Church up to about 12/13th centuries

I read one article recently that said they were done away with due to "the monthly flow"

No idea if that's true

---

They essentially served the same role as nuns today: to serve and minister to women in ways that would be imprudent or scandalous for a man to do. They didn't have the role that male deacons had/have.

---

Yes, I figured it was a different role, different job duties but why were they done away with? At least in the official capacity of a deacon?

---

First, because deaconesses in the West never really took off. There were several local councils that denounced them. It wasn't really a major role. However the life of religious women was always there. deaconesses were often referred to as younger widows that were supposed to not remarry after becoming a deaconess. Or they were unmarried women to begin with. Essentially, the deaconesses were just nuns. As there became more structure to female religious orders, the role of deaconess fell by the wayside.

In effect, a woman can still become a "deaconess" like the first Christian women: join a convent. But that's not really what modern proponents are angling for.

---

That's fine. And if that's the case, they never really did away with female deacons, since they didn't truly exist, they simply changed the job title to "nun"

For those who want to follow... assuming it is the real one.

Peace be with you all! This is the first greeting spoken by the Risen Christ, the Good Shepherd. I would like this greeting of peace to resound in your hearts, in your families, and among all people, wherever they may be, in every nation and throughout the world.

— Pope Leo XIV (@Pontifex) May 14, 2025

one MEEN Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Do y'all celebrate either St. Phoebe or St. Sophia, both of whom are known women deacons in the early part of church history?

Oops- meant that for One Meen Ag

---

I am familiar with them. St. Phoebe is a saint and was called servant by Paul in Romans. She was called the same word that became the office of servant (deacon) within the church. You're an architect, if Paul was called 'the architect of the early church' would that be the same as serving under the title architect in the modern world? Of course not.

Taking a look at the political movement for deaconesses, its pretty easy to see there is some muddying of the waters to push an agenda. Currently, there are deaconesses in africa under the antiochian church to perform church services that would be scandalous for men to perform. Like the banned has mentioned. Its just an extension of the very strict man/woman separate cultures. Like the banned has also mentioned, they are realistically performing the duties of being a nun under the title of deaconess. There is a foundational need there. Personally I don't think they should have used the root word of deacon to describe this role but they didn't ask me.

But take a look at who is pushing for the expansion of this role at the top. Its not african locals, its a bunch of western white women. From cultures who have no justification of needing this role to serve women. And the vision from the top is eventual full access to the deaconate role for women. So a lot of people just see this as just another post-modernist/post-structuralist, egalitarian-first wolf in sheep's clothing that is trying to play the long game and degrade the church for their own gain.

These are not people who want to be helpers. They can absolutely go help the church all day every day and work out their salvation. They can easily go and be like Phoebe and be diakonos to the church. What they really want authority to call their own. And because of that, I'm out.

I didn't leave protestantism after watching egalitarianism play a part in destroying those churches just to see western people pop up with 'innocent' egalitarianism in the orthodox church. Part of joining the orthodox church is uprooting westernism in your mind, root and stem. Something I have to do myself as well. But this is easy to see coming from a mile away.

---

Not sure that's 100% true anymore. The new deaconess ordained last year was reported to have read the gospel at mass and generally performed the same role as her male deacon counterparts in the liturgy...

The Banned said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Do y'all celebrate either St. Phoebe or St. Sophia, both of whom are known women deacons in the early part of church history?

Oops- meant that for One Meen Ag

---

I am familiar with them. St. Phoebe is a saint and was called servant by Paul in Romans. She was called the same word that became the office of servant (deacon) within the church. You're an architect, if Paul was called 'the architect of the early church' would that be the same as serving under the title architect in the modern world? Of course not.

Taking a look at the political movement for deaconesses, its pretty easy to see there is some muddying of the waters to push an agenda. Currently, there are deaconesses in africa under the antiochian church to perform church services that would be scandalous for men to perform. Like the banned has mentioned. Its just an extension of the very strict man/woman separate cultures. Like the banned has also mentioned, they are realistically performing the duties of being a nun under the title of deaconess. There is a foundational need there. Personally I don't think they should have used the root word of deacon to describe this role but they didn't ask me.

But take a look at who is pushing for the expansion of this role at the top. Its not african locals, its a bunch of western white women. From cultures who have no justification of needing this role to serve women. And the vision from the top is eventual full access to the deaconate role for women. So a lot of people just see this as just another post-modernist/post-structuralist, egalitarian-first wolf in sheep's clothing that is trying to play the long game and degrade the church for their own gain.

These are not people who want to be helpers. They can absolutely go help the church all day every day and work out their salvation. They can easily go and be like Phoebe and be diakonos to the church. What they really want authority to call their own. And because of that, I'm out.

I didn't leave protestantism after watching egalitarianism play a part in destroying those churches just to see western people pop up with 'innocent' egalitarianism in the orthodox church. Part of joining the orthodox church is uprooting westernism in your mind, root and stem. Something I have to do myself as well. But this is easy to see coming from a mile away.

---

Not sure that's 100% true anymore. The new deaconess ordained last year was reported to have read the gospel at mass and generally performed the same role as her male deacon counterparts in the liturgy...

---

Well then we've already moved into territory I wish we not go.

I don't know how to verify this reporting, but here's a fascinating thread on the process of the selection of Pope Leo.

The Election of Pope Leo XIV:

A fractured Bergoglian-wing, organized resistance by conservatives and a united front of U.S. cardinals allowed Robert Prevost to ascend to the papacy.

This thread, based on conversations with Church insiders, details how the conclave transpired. pic.twitter.com/gY7cJ4NkLf

— Alex Salvi (@alexsalvinews) May 13, 2025

I see that the Holy Spirit used partisan politics and american hegemony to pick the next Pope. The Holy Spirit's presence sure looks and acts a lot like a school board race from here.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

I see that the Holy Spirit used partisan politics and american hegemony to pick the next Pope. The Holy Spirit's presence sure looks and acts a lot like a school board race from here.

---

They should just use lots, hydromancy, and augury like the Bible.

It sounds like y'all would only be happy if they used a Holy Spirit version of a Ouija Board.

I would take that with a huge grain of salt. Much of what we are hearing about his election is unverified rumor and innuendo. These Cardinals (and the very few non-Cardinals in the room) swear an oath to secrecy under the penalty of excommunication.

Based on the public interviews and available information, most of the American Cardinals didn't know him much at all before the conclave. Dolan said in an interview last week that the first time he had a real conversation with him was over breakfast during the conclave. There was a rumor about Prevost meeting with Burke in his apartment before the voting started but that turned out not to be true.

I do believe the rumors about Francis not cluing the more liberal Cardinals in as to who his preferred successor would be and them being divided. If they weren't divided, they would have easily had enough votes to pick whomever they wanted.

I think the reality is if Prevost was not an American he would have been the odds on favorite going into the conclave. He had the experience in the Vatican, a reputation (unlike Francis) for being calm, organized, and intentional with his words, the missionary chops, and has a doctorate degree from St. Thomas Aquinas Pontifical University in canon law. He met all of the pastoral and theological requirements of becoming Pope. I think it was simply a matter of having the other Cardinals get over the fact that he was born in the United States.

Hello friends,

I was given an untimely 1 week ban for some ribald comments that touched on race relations in the USA literally the same day that the pope was elected.

I am so excited for Pope Leo XIV. He may not be the absolute perfect pope I could have constructed from parts of the most based cardinals at conclave, but he might be the exact Pope we need to walk the fine line between compassion and course correcting the mission of the Church.

I have seen so much to be hopeful for and so little that worries me.

HABEMVS PAPAM!!!!!

At the end of the day the only thing that matters is


And