Archeological evidence for Catholic priestesses?

[PRmerger]

So on my blog, 3 Minute Apologetics, someone left a comment objecting to my post there. I maintain that women have never been priests in the Catholic Church.

This commenter declares:

In the Bible, there are mentions of women working in the church but also archaeology from this period reveals evidence of women in the role of priest. There are biblical scholars that are true apologists and not amateurs that would agree with me.

Second, it is documented that through the 12th century there were women priests, bishops and deacons in the church.

Besides my asking her to provide evidence of her assertion, are there any other responses that I may be able to provide her?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

What evidence? Fossil remains in volcanic ash of a woman in the orans position?

Ouch - that was a snappy answer for me. Probably time to log off …

That said, the old rule of apologetics applies. The burden of proof is on them - the one who makes the “assertion”:

 

[aragonjohn1]

No, the evidence is largely spurious and historically unrealiable .

However, there is a such thing as deaconesses though whose primary role was to baptize woman.

• philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

Shalom
God bless

 

[PRmerger]

What evidence? Fossil remains in volcanic ash of a woman in the orans position?

'zactly.

Ouch - that was a snappy answer for me. Probably time to log off …

That said, the old rule of apologetics applies. The burden of proof is on them - the one who makes the “assertion”:

Right.

And the thought occurred to me, when the commenter said, “In the Bible, there are mentions of women working in the church but also archaeology**** from this period**** reveals evidence of women in the role of priest”

that prompts the question: what time period is she referring to? The OT times? If so, she certainly couldn’t mean that there were Jewish priestesses. That seems pretty unlikely. So if she means the NT times, surely that would mean that lots of folks would have been astonished to see this and written about it, yes?

 

[ndeparis88]

It would be more believable if she was referring to the period during the new testament, then I can see women Deacons, but still what if the supposed clothing found was what Nuns or the religious sisters of the time wore.

 

[findingmyself08]

However, there is a such thing as deaconesses though whose primary role was to baptize woman.

Yes, this part of it is true. In the early Church (and it is mentioned in the NT) there were deaconesses in the church. The deacons and deaconesses roles were to help serve (as is the current role of deacons in the Church now) and to help with baptisms. Baptisms in the early church were done in the nude to symbolize the new birth (being born into Christ and into the body of the Church) of the baptized. Deacons (males) and deaconesses (females) helped prepare the catechumens (those who are under instruction or soon to be baptized) for the sacrament of baptism. Though, I don’t believe (if I am remembering correctly) that the deaconesses were actually able to baptize. Instead that was left to the bishops and presbyters (priests).

However, nowhere does it say that women were presbyters (priests) in the NT.

 

[LoyalViews]

Some people just harbour such a drive to prove there were once women priests, and though there were not, they’ll use everything to prove there was.

Yep, indeed there were deaconnesses (proper grammer?), but they were NOT priests.

 

[Mintaka]

You do also get inscriptions, which people ignorant of Greek nomenclature translate as “female priest”, but which actually mean “priest’s wife” or “mother of a priest.” (Presbytera and presbyterissa, IIRC. There’s also “episcopissa”, mother of a bishop.)

Now, of course there were plenty of female priestesses in pagan religion, of varying levels of respectability in Roman society over time. So we would have heard if Christians had had priestesses. Jewish people were particularly worried by any attempt to mix Asherat and similar goddesses with Jewish worship, so I guarantee we would have heard about it from their comments, and from Christians defending against the Jewish comments.

But we don’t hear that. We hear of certain Gnostic and other heresy groups having priestesses, and how other Christians disapproved. We hear of pagans trying to grapple with the idea of deaconesses and other church ladies not being priestesses or fitting the pagan categories. (Pliny talks about such folks, for example, whom he captured.) We hear a lot of comparisons of vowed Christian virgins to Roman Vestal virgins, and we hear comparisons of the figure of the noble Roman widow (the univira, outlawed by Augustus after centuries of having special privileges to reward her loyalty to her dead husband) to the figure of the consecrated Christian widow.

 

[jwinch2]

peterkreeft.com/audio/09_priestesses.htm

Dr. Kreeft, who is always excellent, gives a solid breakdown behind the theology of an all male clergy.

 

[R_C]

It is utterly ridiculous to even consider the remote possibility that a woman may have had such a role. Anyone with a minimum background on the history of the place and time will know that women fulfilled a different ministry.

The apostle St. Paul states the position of the women very clearly:

Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith.

But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church.

I will therefore that men pray in every place, lifting up pure hands, without anger and contention.

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.

Of course, the Magisterium of our Holy Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, has allowed a greater participation of women in the ministry - we see many as Lectors and extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion - and our beloved Lord has accomplished innumerable and marvelous things through religious orders formed by women who have consecrated their lives.

Overall, women have had - and always will have - a significant role in the Church, since they also share in the common priesthood of the faithful.

But the ministerial priesthood, through the Sacrament of the Holy Orders, was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ only for men, and “the Church intends to remain faithful to the type of ordained ministry willed by the Lord Jesus Christ and carefully maintained by the Apostles.”

The Declaration Inter Insigniores by our Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clearly explains the question of the admission of women to the ministerial priesthood. It is a short but truly wonderful document, and I think your readers will have a hard time debating the points clearly made by the Church - though heretics, being rebellious to our Mother and Teacher, will always come up with their own justifications, easily deceived by the father of all lies.

 

[garysibio]

So on my blog, 3 Minute Apologetics, someone left a comment objecting to my post there. I maintain that women have never been priests in the Catholic Church.

This commenter declares:

In the Bible, there are mentions of women working in the church but also archaeology from this period reveals evidence of women in the role of priest. There are biblical scholars that are true apologists and not amateurs that would agree with me.

Second, it is documented that through the 12th century there were women priests, bishops and deacons in the church.

Besides my asking her to provide evidence of her assertion, are there any other responses that I may be able to provide her?

Asking her for evidence is probably going to scare her away anyhow.