TRACT VI. ON FEMALE DEACONS.

[thesmellypocket 1839]

Blessed Seraphim, FSSCT, pray for us!

 

[!]The work is obviously very hastily put together and printed. There are probably blot marks obscuring words and misprinted words on your copy. It is printed en-masse on a cheap, double-sided piece of paper.

 

TRACTS FOR THE TIMES.

 

TRACT VI: ON FEMALE DEACONS.

Written by Petros the Akritian, FSSCT (Provost.)

 

I. Introduction. Reasons for this Tract.

 

Venerable Fathers, Bishops of the most Holy Canonist Church, venerable brothers, my fellow Priests of that self-same Mother, and my dear children, the monastics and laity who look to us for guidance, this letter is for you. It is hastily written. You must forgive my haste in writing and publishing this, because it is in response to an immediate need; without swift action, I foresee the ruin of many souls in the perilous waters of either schism or heresy. 

 

I have been flooded by many of my penitents in Savoy with the most urgent requests for guidance on the late Bull of the High Pontiff. I must confess that I myself, with the deepest reservation, find the document to be very poorly judged on a prudential basis. One particular penitent, a very zealous man, took it very badly and it is in the interest of his soul and those of others, that I write this Tract in order to seek clarity. 

 

For my order, the FSSCT, is one whose very basis is the Sacramental Priesthood. Our founders, Pius of Sutica and Seraphim of Leora, understood the Sacramental Priesthood to be both the basis of the Church, and the key to her liberty and exaltation. They call it an inestimable burden and grace, an honour far greater than any that can be found on earth, and a weight bearing on any soul who fears God more heavily than a crown of the purest jewels. If the interpretation some give of the latest Bull is right, it speaks very gravely about the state of the Church and even, it must be said, the orthodoxy of the Pontiff, perhaps being the final nail in the coffin of the supposed doctrine of Pontifical Infallibility, something the Tracts originally upheld. But if the interpretation that is proper is less rash, then we are to carry on as normal, as his servants. My intention therefore is to avoid division and seek clarity.

 

 

II. Interpretation of the Latest Bull.

 

The section to which I refer is Number Eight. I will quote it in full for the proper context:

 

"We call on all faithful Canonists to answer God’s call, for we are all called to service by the Lord of Lords, the King of Kings. Those who are skilled in fighting may serve God by joining the Supreme Order of the Exalted Owyn, and using their skills to protect Our clergy and Our flock. Those with a gift for speaking and interpreting may join to become a monk or a priest, to shepherd parts of God’s flock. Women too have a calling, either to serve as a deacon and aid priests with services or even perform them when no priest is available, or as a nun to provide charity and compassion to those who have none. All who wish to accept this higher calling are urged to speak to their local clergyman. Let all things be done for the greater glory of God."

 

The interpretation which my zealous friend gave was that the word 'services' included both mass and sacraments, essentially delegating them both to the new female diaconate. The Church has stated that, in exetremis, the Sacrament of Baptism can be offered by laity. This was discussed in an Ecumenical Council, the proceeds of which discussed the nature of the Sacraments and how they ought to be reserved to the Priesthood. They rejected the extension of the Sacrament of Ablution beyond the Priesthood. St. Pius of Sutica spoke thus:

 

"How can this Absolution - sorry, I am old - Ablution be performed apart from the Priesthood? We didn't create the Sacraments, we received them, because it was not we who established the Priesthood, but God. God never demands of us the impossible, of necessity He cannot condemn us for what we cannot do, being infinitely just. And so Confession and Ablution in exetremis, in this circumstance [of someone who has literally no possibility of getting it from a Priest], the rite itself, without priestly absolution, will do, for God accepts the contrition without the medium of the Priest. This does not mean, however, we should not make it the rule, for that is not God's will. The Sacraments serve God; He is not junior to them, but being their Author, He desires to ordinarily work through them, but He is not confined by them. And hence here, the desire of ablution signified by the Confession of sins and the act of a layman is sufficient to give the remission of sins. But in the ordinary, the Priest is the visible representative of God, and absolves in His Name, and therefore Absolution and Confession are joined in what was traditionally called the Sacrament of Confession."

 

He went on: 

 

"That is not true [that who can administer the sacraments can be changed at will], for you merely lack a distinction between what is rigid and what is firm. The age of admission to the Priesthood, except that, I suppose he be old enough to have the use of reason (For Owyn instituted men as Priests and not toddlers as the Gospel tells us), is, I grant you, fluid. But the very form and nature of this Sacrament is vested in the Sacred Priesthood. For the Prophet has said: "No man can call himself above them." Them being the Sacraments; Proverbs chapter three; verse six.

 

For it has always been held that this renewal of Baptism given by the remission of sins, is explicitly rooted, and, as part of the very form of the Sacrament, indelibly linked to the Sacred Priesthood. This is clearly the authoritative teaching of the Church as regards this Sacrament and has always been so, that this not be merely a changeable discipline, but a matter of the form of the Sacrament itself, thereby being a matter of faith, and there can be no innovation there.

 

I should consult the wonderful Encyclical of Blessed Jude the First, which, I repeat, every Priest and Acolyte should read at once, and for that reason I have brought it with me here. Sacerdoti in Nostra Ecclesiae makes it explicitly clear. Moreover, so does the Act of Absolution itself: wherefore Ven. Humbert added: By that same authority or something to that effect, I mean to say the authority of the Sacred Priesthood, I absolve thee. It is therefore clear that it has always been understood that it is on the Priestly authority from whence the Absolution comes. If there were no Priesthood, there would be no Sacrament. Dispensation is given, again, as I said, to in exetremis Ablution, but that proceeds from desire and not from substance, for they receive the benefits of the Sacrament because God is pleased to grant their intent, not because the form of the Sacrament itself is apart from the Priesthood. To therefore extend the Sacrament apart from the explicit Sacerdotal dignity is a perversion of the very Sacrament, not merely a disciplinary change, for the remission of sins has always proceeded, as part of the Sacrament itself, from the Priest, and on his authority alone, a layman's authority being insufficient to absolve."

 

Thus, the layman who 'administers' the Sacraments, does not do it as such, but acts as a marker of the desire of the person to receive them which cannot be realised, and this desire gives the graces of the Sacrament without itself being the Sacrament.  Hence a man who is trapped on a desert island with his wife, who has no viable way of finding a Priest, may confess his sins to her and pronounce his desire and need of absolution, and this will show that, if he had a Priest, he would have done the same. And if both of them die on their island, the man would have received the grace of the absolution in an extraordinary, non-sacramental way, rather than receiving the Sacrament itself. 

 

Therefore, if Pius of Sutica is to be believed (and among my friends, he is), and if my penitent's interpretation is correct, then the very nature of the divinely instituted Sacred Priesthood has been changed. This would essentially mean the High Pontiff and has severed himself from that very institution in the very act of trying to dismantle it. For the Priesthood is a divine institution, and who happens to be individual Pontiff at a particular time owes to the things of temporarily, and therefore he should be like a stick trying to break a rock; he himself would be broken. However, I do not myself accept this interpretation, and I have advised my penitent to withhold judgement until proper clarity is given. I would be very slow in ascribing an interpretation that would leave us in a very difficult position. 

 

I do not interpret the Bull as meaning this. I interpret the word 'services' as essentially meaning mass, sermons and so forth, which are non-sacramental. These things are not in an essential way linked to the Priesthood exclusively, but they are heavily associated with it. The Scroll of Gospel says that Owyn established the Priesthood as a teaching office in matters of faith and morals. But there is no reason why a layman or monastic cannot speculate about the faith, admonish the sinner, console the scrupulous, or give his own interpretation of a given passage or theological issue. St. Jude himself was a teacher before he was a Priest, Venerable Julia of Haense wrote edifying pamphlets, and we even ask Acolytes to submit theses, some of which have even made it into the Canonist Commentary on the Scriptures, before they are ordained. Canonist mass itself is not a divine but a human institution; this can be proved from the fact that there are different rites of it which differ wildly in form and purpose.

 

Personally, I would find it a troublesome development, although it would not be heretical as such. Such an interpretation would cause us to charitably argue for the reversal or clarification of this decision (expect a later Tract), but if it is to be upheld, schism should be as far from our minds as iblees, for iblees is the author of schism. 

 

I would only ask that, as a matter of absolute necessity, laity and monastics be barred from the celebration of Judite mass, since this is explicitly sacramental in nature, rather than the main Canonist rite which is essentially a Scripture reading, prayer and sermon. In fact, as the Provost of the only existing Judite Order I hereby bar non-ordained persons from celebrating mass in our Fraternity.

 

III. Conclusion. Call for Renewal of Priesthood and Tractarian Movement.

 

The clarity I seek is therefore very clear. How is the Bull to be interpreted? Are the Sacraments to be administered by Deaconesses as such? Or only the sacred ceremonies, and then only in extreme circumstances?

 

One thing is clear. We need good Priests who are faithful to orthodoxy. Let us revive the Tractarian spirit which imbibes fervour for the Sacred Priesthood and the Sacraments as a thirsty man quaffs water. 

[JoanOfArc 4586]

Ioannes Alexios sat amongst dirt and mud in his rags while in providing alms during his Path of Owyn trial. He read over the Tract with slight warmth. "It is good to have priests of the Church continue to fight for purity and tradition with the Church. The FSSCT has always been a bastion of God within these modern times. God bless Father Petros." As he completed his reading, he went out to provide more alms with his good friend Theo. He thought he might need to show Father Paco the thesis upon his return to Du Loc!

[GhostSHTR 1002]

Father Vladrick would nod at the missive "Woman are neit equal to man, for it was the Exalted who pathed the way for our people. Neit their wives"